O menajera buna face mai mult decat 1000 de politicieni romani

Cica directorul FMI Dominique Strauss-Kahn e anchetat pentru tentativa de viol. Mai precis menajera hotelului la care statea l-a cam refuzat ...


Ca sa vezi! Dupa ce a pus capra jumate de planeta iata ca primul la FEMEI s-a impiedicat de-un ciot... Asta e... Nu trebuie confundata prostitutia (politica) cu menajul. O fi mers cu Basecu, Geoana sau Boc; o fi ea menajera si o spala ea pe jos dar asta nu inseamna ca e una din alea... Sau din astia...

Am zis eu ca nu mai merg la vot da' daca femeia asta candideaza in Romania eu o votez :D Nu ne-ar strica ceva mandrie nationala ca vad ca avem moralul la pamant ;)

PS. Oare a fost pe bune cand a dat cu mocul Elena Udrea sau a fost la vrajeala...?

Mitul lui Bin Laden

Obama contra Osama 3.
Mitul lui Bin Laden/

Obama versus Osama 3. 
The Bin Laden myth

For English scroll down

Articol legat de cel anterior (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/dubii-fata-de-imaginea-al-quaida-ca.html )

In celelalte doua articole sustineam ideea ca picarea celor doua turnuri si a cladirii 7 e putin probabil sa se fi datorat exclusiv avioanelor care au intrat in ele. In acest caz Bin Laden nu ar putea fi condamnat pentru ele. In acest articol voi deslusi interesul autoritatilor de a-l transforma pe Bin Laden intr-un diavol si de a-l face responsabil pentru tragedia de la 11 septembrie.

Chiar daca mergem pe ipoteza transformata in certitudine de autoritati, cum ca ce s-a intamplat la 11 septembrie 2011 se datoreaza exclusiv acelor atacatori sinucigasi, atunci Bin Laden tot nu ar fi putut fi condamnat fair play intr-un tribunal occidental care respecta litera legii. Gaura asta justitiara s-a intamplat cu alt mare cautat, Slobodan Milosevic. El a fost adus in fata tribunalului international si avea mari mari sanse sa scape pentru ca de fapt nu se putea demonstra nimic cu acte impotriva lui. Asa s-a intamplat si cu Al Capone, marele mafiot american care, la fel, nu a putut fi condamnat pentru omucidere, pentru care era vinovat. El a fost condamnat doar pentru gainarii de genul evaziunii ficale si altele de genul asta. Saddam Hussein n-a fost in final condamnat pentru uneltirea unui razboi chimic impotriva Occidentului (asa cum se preconiza la inceputul razboiului), ci tot pentru nimicuri de genul acesta. Dupa cum am mai spus-o in acest spatiu, eu as paria la un procent de 50% ca Milosevic nu a murit atunci cand au spus "soldatii" din presa in cor. Pariez ca s-a facut o intelegere cu el sa dispara pe undeva prin America Latina, tocmai pentru ca nu vad cum putea fi el condamnat la cum evolua procesul lui. Toate acuzatiile impotriva lui se dovedeau a fi, nefondate din punct de vedere juridic. Lumea deja incepuse sa-l vada ca pe o victima si sa simpatizeze cu el.

Pai daca Milosevic nu a putut fi gasit vinovat, avand ca argumente un intreg mecanism organigramic al sistemului, cum oare sa il gaseasca un tribunal specific statului de drept vinovat pe Bin Laden, care nu a lasat documente specifice consemnarilor oficiale ale statului in acel moment? Ca Bin Laden a vorbit el candva la telefon cu atentatorii de la 11 septembrie (lucru iarasi dubios, dupa cum s-a vazut aici http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html ), asta nu inseamna deloc dovada de responsabilitate. Asta e vrajeala oferita de (farma)CIA pentru gura casca. Daca eu sun pe cutare, care apoi a facut o crima, asta nu e un motiv pentru a ma face pe mine responsabil pentru crima. Asta la ce spune litera legii. Cel mult, asta ma poate face complice la tainuirea ei, in cazul in care se poate demonstra ca stiam cu siguranta ca urmeaza sa fie facuta. Dar chiar si asa, tot e ambiguu pentru ca nu se poate dovedi clar ca Bin Laden ar fi stiut de aceste atentate. E greu de crezut ca cineva l-ar fi putut anunta pe Bin Laden prin telefon ca va comite atentatele de la 11 septembrie. Iar daca CIA, FBI sau alte astfel de (de)servicii secrete ii asculta telefonul prin care apoi l-a acuzat de implicare in 9/11, totusi de ce nu a intervenit sa preintampine tragedia? De ce i-a lasat pe membrii celulei Hamburg sa patrunda pe teritoriul SUA si, mai grav, de ce i-a lasat sa se urce in acele avioane?

Iata cateva intrebari cu raspunsuri pe care le vom afla peste 50 de ani dupa cum spunea Basescu despre o situatie asemanatoare… Oricum, autoritatile SUA aveau mare interes ca Bin Laden sa nu fie cumva prins de altii si judecat. Mai mult decat atat, el nu trebuia judecat nici de un tribunal occidental, cu presa calare. Acum, ca tribunalele insele sunt discret manipulate si atent directionate sa-l condamne pe Al Capone pentru altceva decat ar fi meritat, asta e alta problema. Bin Laden putea fi acuzat de multe atacuri teroriste, insa nu putea fi acuzat de organizarea atacurilor de la 9/11, si, cu atat mai putin, nu putea fi acuzat de doborarea turnurilor, dupa cum am spus in celalalt articol.
Cert este ca, daca s-ar fi procedat la fel ca si cu Milosevic, atunci un astfel de proces n-ar fi dat bine deloc la imaginea democratiei astazi. Daca Bin Laden ar fi fost adus in fata justitiei occidentale, atunci s-ar putea sa se fi vazut ca razboiul impotriva terorismului este de fapt o frauda.

La drept vorbind, daca a contribuit cu adevarat la planuirea atentatelor de pe 11 septembrie, eu cred ca Bin Laden s-a cait mult dupa. S-a cait nu pentru ca a ucis oameni, ci pentru ca a fost el insusi folosit de megaimperiul manipularii in asemenea hal, fara sa poata face nimic sa impiedice asta. Daca ar fi incercat sa se apere si sa apara in fata oricarui tribunal el era linsat imediat. Mesajele pe care le trimitea erau trunchiate de catre agentii CIA infiltrati peste tot prin lumea araba. Altele probabil ca erau fabricate in latura politica a Hollywood…

Daca candva va fi reusit sa inteleaga cu cine s-a pus, cred ca Bin Laden a regretat foarte mult orice implicare fie ea directa fie indirecta in evenimentele de la 11 septembrie. Pentru ca cinismul lui in a omori oameni nevinovati e mic copil pe langa cinismul capitalismului de a-l folosit apoi la nivel mondial drept sef al dracilor. Multi au acceptat colonialismul economic initiat de capitalism, si deghizat in cautare dupa Bin Laden, tocmai de frica diavolului. Terorismul lui e mic copil pe langa razboiul organizat pe care sistemul semitotalitar al capitalismului il poate crea. Terorismul sau amator nu are nici o sansa in fata profesionistilor terorii.

Bin Laden a fost un naiv cu o foarte mica putere politica. Nu stiu daca a reusit sa inteleaga ca nu putea castiga un razboi cu Occidentul. Termenul de comparatie e cel al polonezilor care raspundeau invaziei de tancuri germane la inceputul celui de-al doilea razboi mondial cu cavaleria... Timp de aproape 10 ani a fostaituit de arme digitale si demonizat de o intreaga masinarie propagandistica. Bombele sale mai mult sau mai putin artizanale sunt mai slabe proportional decat cavaleria poloneza in fata tancurilor lui Hitler. In urma unui asemenea arsenal mediatic si militar, Al Quaida s-a pulverizat cvasitotal. Recrutarea unor posibili noi membri a fost greu de facut in conditiile in care pe capul sau erau pusi 25 000 000 dolari. Se temea ca intre recruti s-ar putea afla vreun spion CIA. Dupa cum spuneam, a fost un naiv.

Al Quaida a fost si inca este supradimensionata ca organizatie tocmai pentru a justifica razboiul. Iar razboiul este un instrument esential in functionarea neosclavagismului (salarial) practicat de capitalism. Fiind un totalitarism vopsit sau un sclavagism cosmetizat, democratia nu poate exista fara sclavi. Iar cel mai direct mod de a face sclavi este razboiul. Asa ca democratia nu poate exista fara razboi pentru ca asta este elementul sau definitoriu, de fapt: „kratos”, care inseamna Putere. Puterea este abilitatea de a-i comanda celuilalt sa faca ce vrei tu, prin amenintarea cu armele sau chiar punerea in practica a acestei amenintari, respectiv uciderea celui care nu se supune si nu-si accepta statutul de servitor. In oligarhie Puterea o au doar privilegiatii. In tiranie Puterea e detinuta doar de despot. In democratie Puterea e detinuta de majoritate (demos). Insa crima Puterii este aceeasi, respectiv aceea de a-l forta pe cel cucerit sa accepte ordinele tale. Diferenta e ca in democratie Puterea se imparte de la centru in periferie si sunt chemati mai multi sa se infrupte din beneficiile sclavagismului… Spre deosebire de tiranie si oligarhie, care isi manifesta deschis si cinic intentia si dorinta de a subjuga si de a trai din furt macrosocial, democratia o cosmetizeaza. Acest furt infaptuit de catre Putere este justificat prin diabolizarea tintei de subjugat. Vreau ceva de la tine, si daca nu imi dai de buna voie, atunci iti gasesc un cusur, un nod in papura care sa imi justifice un jaf la adresa ta prin care sa te deposedez de acel bun. Avem in acest caz un adevarat „mecanism de aparare al Eului” de care vorbea Freud si pe care eu le-am considerat intotdeauna „strategii de cucerire”. Aviz psihanalistilor: vedeti originea „identificarii cu agresorul” !

Aici e problema cu democratia care mereu cade in demagogie, asa cum spunea batranul Aristotel. Omul de rand, educat in spiritul cinstei si al respectarii legilor, nu poate accepta faptul ca organizatia din care face parte merge sa jefuiasca. Daca tiranul si aristocratul fura produsele plebei fara nici o remuscare, nu la fel se intampla si cu demosul care e educat in spiritul „moralei de sclav”. E pacat. E injust. Nu poti sa te duci sa iei petrolul irakian fara un 11 septembrie si nu poti sa intri in al doilea razboi mondial fara Pearl Harbor. Dupa al doilea razboi mondial URSS si comunismul au constituit obiectul de proiectie al justificarii razboiului. De vreo 20 de ani insa, democratia nu mai are pe cine da vina, si nu isi mai poate justifica actiunile totalitare. URSS s-a destramat si s-a transformat in capitalism. China insasi a devenit teatrul celui mai feroce capitalism vazut vreodata. Pana si vechile gherile marxiste sud-americane s-au apucat de afaceri cu droguri. Doar in infima si muribunda Cuba sau in insignifianta Coree de Nord mai palpaie a comunism. Prea putin pentru nevoia democratiei de razboi. Noroc cu terorismul lui Bin Laden, caci altfel nu mai poate fi cumva justificat razboiul

Or fi ei cetatenii de rand multi si prosti, dar totusi justificarea oferita de administratia Bush n-a mai folosit pentru acceptarea razboiului. Treptat, in constiinta publica au inceput sa patrunda usor dar sigur aceste idei „conspirationiste”, desi presa, ca un caine fidel, si-a facut treaba si a prezentat unilateral doar punctul de vedere oficial. Totusi, pe masura ce razboiul din Irak inghitea din ce in ce mai multi bani, si pe masura ce soldatii americani ucisi ajungeau la numar dublu, si chiar triplu fata de numarul mortilor in atentatele de la 11 septembrie, opinia publica a cam inceput sa-si puna intrebari delicate.

Bin Laden a devenit paravanul de manipulare pentru continuarea razboiului din Afganistan, si apoi Irak. La ce putere de manipulare au autoritatile americane nu m-ar surprinde deloc sa se demonstreze fara dubii in viitor ca grupul de atentatori de la 11 septembrie a fost chiar initiat de vreun agent CIA care s-a dat fundamentalist islamic si a atras niste frustrati pe langa el. Vorba poetului: „Bin Laden n-a existat… A existat doar un imperiu dornic de petrolul arab in schimbul povestilor de la Hollywood…”. Bin Laden a fost creatie occidentala si la propriu si la figurat. La propriu pentru ca a fost partener de afaceri cu apropiati ai familiei Bush. La figurat pentru ca imaginea de monstru ce i s-a facut s-a facut din interese pur economice. Inasprirea conditiilor sociale pe timp de razboi, si scaderea protectiei sociale, conduce la o productivitate mai mare a sclavului infricosat de perspectiva mortii. Autoritatile pot da apoi vina pe razboi, pe URSS sau pe Bin Laden pentru faptul ca poporului ii merge atat de rau, si ca nu-si poate plati lucrurile elementare. Tocmai dupa aceasta perdea ideologica, omul de rand, sclavul este astfel mai eficient exploatat de catre capitalism. Nu pacalirea sclavului muncitor prin plusvaloare este motorul exploatarii capitaliste, asa cum credea Marx. Motorul exploatarii capitaliste este ademenirea lui spre a consuma si a munci mai mult decat ar trebui si decat este disponibil psihic si fizic sa o faca. Dupa cum spuneam in articolul precedent – avantaj corporatii, Rockefeller, Bilderberg …

Bin Laden putea fi capturat de mult. Insa, cu el capturat, razboiul in Irak si Afganistan era mult mai greu de sustinut. Iata o dilema absolut aporetica! Transformarea lui in Ba-bau a mers un timp care, iata, s-a epuizat in final. Alaturi de alti factori, aceasta inginerie sociala a derivat intr-o criza economica ce s-a manifestat in primul rand intr-o criza de incredere in valori, institutii si sistem. Cert este ca, dupa 10 ani de razboi, lumea civilizata s-a cam saturat de democratie (sclavagism mascat) si iata ca, in loc de o crestere economica tipica, ne-am trezit cu o criza generalizata.

Inginerii sociali au testat pe pielea lor faptul ca democratia nu poate fi fortata la infinit. Or fi ei cetatenii de rand multi si prosti, dar daca se dovedeste ca n-au alternativa in optiunea politicianista, s-ar putea sa nu mai vina la vot si ideea de democratie si libertate sa isi arate adevarata fata: o iluzie. Iar aici riscul este prea mare. Lehamitea fata de sistem care a cuprins ultima parte a mandatului lui G. Bush jr. a fost factorul decisiv pentru aparitia crizei economice in care inca ne aflam. Si atunci s-a inventat Obama, o masinarie care arata cum e libertate, cum e echitate si cum poti ajunge presedinte indiferent de sex, rasa, culoarea pielii etc. daca muncesti din greu. Americanii de rand au aceasta cultura a muncii din greu, fara insa sa ii inteleaga implicatiile psihopatologice pe termen lung. Imaginea lui Obama comunica faptul ca poti ajunge sus daca accepti sa fii jos (sclav), ceea ce este insasi emblema sclavagismului moderat al democratiei. Initial acest Obama a facut senzatie, dar iata ca treptat el se transforma intr-un alt G. Bush, si asta nu prea face bine la sistem. Americanii s-au prins ca traditionala munca grea facuta pentru ridicarea din saracie si implinirea Visului American este un fel de joaca la loterie si ca vasta majoritate a "muncitorilor infernali" raman la acelasi nivel social. Disparitia lui Bin Laden este o alternativa la aceasta amenintatoare criza. Americanii de rand au vrut razboiul din Irak oprit. Asa ca, in conditiile in care imaginea de diavol a lui Bin Laden atragea cu sine pe cea de diavol a lui G.W. Bush, el nu mai era folositor pentru continuarea razboiului.

Fireste, CIA e datoare sa incerce si alte stratageme… Obama a promis retragerea soldatilor americani din Irak dar se cam pare ca si-a cam uitat de promisiune. In al treilea an de domnie, Obama s-a facut ca ploua cu privire la aceasta promisiune facuta americanilor. Mai mult decat atat, a inceput el insusi (ma rog… nu el ci cei din spatele lui, el doar executa ordinele lor) un razboi in Libia. Treptat publicul american incepe sa se cam prinda de minciunile lui Obama. In scurt timp, la fel ca si G.W. Bush, nici el nu cred ca va mai avea tupeul sa iasa intr-un local public sa manance si sa se dea om din popor, pentru ca s-ar putea sa-l jupoaie pacalitii. Cum anul viitor sunt alegeri in SUA, sistemul i-a oferit aceasta bombonica cu Bin Laden capturat pentru poporul american. Intr-un an de zile poporul are timp sa o ingurgiteze si sa ramana cu ideea ca Obama i-a scapat de Osama, si astfel sa castige alegerile in 2012. S-ar putea ca plebea sa uite ca Obama a promis retragerea trupelor din Irak in schimbul acestui praf in ochi ale eliminarii lui Bin Laden. Ce-i drept, presa il sustine…*

Imi vine in minte valul de simpatie obtinut de Ronald Reagan dupa eliberarea ostatecilor americani din Iran in 1981 si, de ce nu, aceeasi poveste imitata la inceputul mandatului lui Basescu de SRI, care inca invata sa se desparta de povara grea a iesirii din vechea „Securitate”. Fiind la inceput de drumocratie, SRI a imitat asa cam kitschos povestea rapitilor de pe timpul lui Reagan, dar cu rezultat destul de evident la acea data pentru publicul electoral needucat din Romania. Dupa criza ostaticilor din 2005, Basescu ajunsese pe la vreo 80% simpatie! Sa vedem cat de naiv e publicul american!

Principala tinta a sistemului e sa ajunga inapoi la increderea pe care cetatenii o aveau in el pe timpul lui Bill Clinton sau Reagan. Prin destramarea mitului Bin Laden autoritatile incearca astazi alte planuri pentru motivarea sclavilor. Asta e… daca oamenii nu mai vor razboi… Nu mai tine cu terorismul. In loc de „razboiul contra terorismului” cu care G.W. Bush isi pavloviza poporul, iata ca Obama si-l pavlovizeaza cu masina electrica si cu alte surse de energie decat petrolul arab. Si iata si miscarea menita sa opreasca razboiul contra terorismului (in traducere – petrolul arab) : s-a descoperit Bin Laden. Ok, nu mai avem terorism, acum hai la munca! Sa vedem insa daca si merge!

Merge pe moment. Numai ca s-ar putea sa nu fie chiar atat de simplu. Pe termen lung, cei 10 ani de petrol ieftin s-ar putea sa fie platiti inzecit. Chiar daca e constituit din profesionisti in manipulare si in psihologie, totusi aparatul propagandistic capitalist s-a lasat influentat de profitul maxim fara sa mearga mai profund cu intelegerea sufletului omului simplu. Treptat, acesta a inceput sa se identifice cu Bin Laden si sa-l dispretuiasca pe Bush impreuna cu statul si institutiile sociale. Cu cat autoritatile au investit in mitul Bin Laden ca diavol insetat de sange, cu atat omul de rand ii construieste mitul de Bin Ladenul haiducul. Bin Laden a ajuns eroul omului simplu, care pupa mana si dosul patronului ziua, insa care totusi parca noaptea l-ar tampona in trafic… Antipatia fata de banci si bancheri, cu practicile lor pradatoriale inumane, il face pe omul simplu sa gandeasca ca o bomba e cam ceea ce ar merita. Raportul de forte intre megaputerea militara si propagandistica a capitalismului si bombele legate cu sarma, impreuna cu camerele neperformante de luat vederi cu care isi inregistra mesajele, reitereaza raportul de forte intre omul simplu semianalfabet si civilizatia care il exploateaza. Exista nik-uri cu numele Bin Laden pe forumuri, exista adrese de e-mail cu acest nume ceea ce atesta ca popularitatea sa pe internet a ajuns la cote incredibile. Lumea e pe punctul de a face o noua Revolutie Franceza. E foarte probabil ca „razboiul contra terorismului” sa fi fost o greseala mult mai mare decat au ajuns in sfarsit corporatistii sa vada…

(actualizare ulterioara: intre timp documentarul The New Pearl Harbor a clarificat totul )



* Pana la urma, soldatii americani din Irak au fost retrasi in decembrie 2011. Obama a castigat la limita alegerile din 2012, prin voturile cetatenilor, cu 51.1%.


Obama versus Osama 3.
The Bin Laden myth

Continued from the previous article: (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/dubii-fata-de-imaginea-al-quaida-ca.html )

I argued in the previous two articles that the two towers and building 7 collapsing is unlikely to be caused solely by the planes that crushed into them. In this case, Bin Laden could not be condemned for them. In this article I will explain the authorities’ interest to show a devil image to Bin Laden and make him responsible for the 9/ 11 tragedy.

Even if we accept the authority assumption, later transformed into certainty, how that happened on September 11 2011 is caused by all those suicide bombers, then Bin Laden still could not be fairly convicted in a rule of law Western court. This justice hole happened to another big wanted, Slobodan Milosevic. He was brought to the International Tribunal but had great chances to be found not guilty, because nothing could be proved against him. This was the case with Al Capone, the big American gangster that just could not be convicted for murder, as he was guilty. He was convicted only for small crimes like tax evasion and others like that. Saddam Hussein was not finally been convicted for trying to start a chemical war against the West (as was said at the beginning of the war), but also for nonsense like that. As have said here before, I would bet a 50% that Milosevic did not die when the media “soldiers” said that together. I bet he was proposed a deal to disappear somewhere in Latin America in order I do not see how he could be sentenced to evolve as his trial. I bet you made a deal with him to disappear somewhere in Latin America, just because he could not be convicted after the way his trial evolved. All charges against him seemed to be legally unfounded. The world was started to see him as a victim and sympathized more and more with him.

Well, if Milosevic could not be found guilty, having proofs from a whole mechanism of the system organization chart, then how could a specific rule of law court find Bin Laden guilty, since he left no specific documents to the official state records in that time? Bin Laden might have been spoken on the phone to the 9/11 hijackers (dubious thing, anyway, as argued here: http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html ) that is not at all a proof for taking part of these attacks. That is a hoax provided by see eye earth (CIA) for morons. If a person calls someone, who later commits a crime, that is not an evidence to make it responsible for the crime. This is what the law says. In the worst case scenario, if there are clear evidences that that person knew about the plan crime, only then it could be charged for concealing it. But, in this case, the things are also unclear because that there could not be proven that Bin Laden knew about these attacks. It is really hard to believe that someone could call him on the phone and say it out loud that is going to commit that attacks. And if the CIA, FBI or whatever secret (un)services listened his phone, that later accused him of involvement in 9/11, then why did not prevented the tragedy? Why were the Hamburg cell members allowed to enter the US and, more seriously, why were they allowed to get into those planes?

These are unanswered questions. However, the US authorities had big interest that Bin Laden would have been caught by others and took to court. Moreover, he should not be sent to any Western court, with press allover. We know that the courts themselves are discreetly handled and carefully targeted to condemn Al Capone for other crimes than he deserved. Bin Laden could be accused of many terrorist attacks, but could not be convicted of organizing the 9/11 attacks, and, so much the less, he could not be convicted of taking down the towers, as I said in the previous article. The fact is that, if a Bin Laden trial would have been going the same as the Milosevic’s, then that would not look so good for today’s democracy image. If Bin Laden would have been brought to justice, then the war against terrorism would risk to be perceived actually as a fraud.

However, if really helped with planning 9/11 attacks, I believe Bin Laden regretted a lot after. He regretted not because he killed people, but because he himself was so used by Western manipulation mega empire in such a manner, without being able to do anything to prevent it. If he would have had tried to defend himself and appear before any court, then he have had immediately been lynched. The messages he sent were truncated by CIA agents, infiltrated all over the Arab world. Others were probably made in the political side of Hollywood ...

If someday he was able to understand who challenged, I think Bin Laden very much regretted any either directly or indirectly involvement in the 9/11 events. That is because his killing innocent people cynicism is a nothing compared to capitalism cynicism that worldwide fabricated and used his image as master devil. Many have accepted the capitalism economic colonialism, as disguised in Bin Laden searching for, just by the fear of the devil. His terrorism is poor compared to the half totalitarian organized war that capitalism system can make. His amateur terrorism stands no chance against the terror professionals.

Bin Laden was a naive little power politician. I do not know if he failed to understand that he could not win a war with the West. The proportion is the Polish army who responded with cavalry against the German tanks invasion at the beginning of the Second World War... For almost 10 years he was hunted by digital weapons and demonized by a whole propaganda machine. His more or less handmade bombs are proportionally weaker than Polish cavalry against Hitler’s tanks. After such a military and media arsenal, Al Qaeda was almost entirely wiped out. Hiring new members was hard to be done since his head was priced for 25 million dollars. He was afraid that, among recruits, could be a CIA agent. He was naïve, like I said.

Al Qaeda has been and still is oversized as an organization in order to justify the war. And the war is an essential tool for the capitalism system new (wage) slavery. Being a painted totalitarian or embellished slavery, the democracy can not exist without slaves. And the most direct way to gain slaves is the war. So, the democracy can not exist without war because this is its main characteristic, actually: "kratos", which means power. Accordingly, the power is the ability to give somebody an order to do what you want, under the weapons threat or after the implementation of this threat, by killing those who disobey and do not accept servant status. In the oligarchy the Power belong to the privileged ones only. In tyranny the Power is held by the despot only. In the democracy the Power is held by the majority (demos). However, the Power crime is the same in all of these cases, respectively forcing the conquered to accept your orders. The difference is that, within the democracy, the Power is shared from the center and the periphery, so that many are called to “enjoy” the benefits of slavery ... Unlike tyranny and oligarchy, which openly and cynically show their intention and desire to rule and live by the rule of the jungle, the democracy hide it strategically. The Power crime is justified by demonizing its subdued target. I want something from you and, if you do not willingly give me that thing, then I will find a blemish, pick a hole in your coat so to justify a robbery against you, and still that good from you. Here is a genuine "ego defense mechanism" that Freud spoke, that I have always considered it as "conquest strategy".

The psychoanalysts must see, thus, the "identification with the aggressor" origin!

The problem with the democracy is that it always falls into demagoguery, as the old man Aristotle said. The common people, educated in the spirit of honesty and respect for the law, can not accept that the organization which he or she belongs is going to rob. If the tyrant and the aristocrat steal low classes products without remorse, this is not the “demos” case, as educated in the spirit of "slave morality". It is a sin. It is unfair. You can not go take Iraqi oil without a 9/ 11 and you can not get into the Second World War with Pearl Harbor. After the Second World War, the USSR and communism became the projection subject for war justification. But for about 20 years now, the democracy can no longer blame others, and can no longer justify its totalitarian actions. USSR collapsed and turned into capitalism. China itself has become the theater of the most ferocious capitalism ever seen. Even the old Southern American Marxist guerrillas have started drug business. The communism is apathetically flickering only in the insignificant North Korea or in the dying Cuba. This is too little for the democracy need for war. Luckily, there is Bin Laden's terrorism that can somehow justify the war and, thus, save the economy ... Al Qaeda and Bin Laden are magic! (Sic!).
The ordinary people might be foolish, yet the Bush administration's justification for accepting the war eventually ceased to work anymore. Gradually, inside the people mind slowly but surely began to penetrate these "conspiracy" ideas, although the press, as a faithful dog, has done its job and unilaterally broadcasted the official point of view. However, as the Iraqi war swallowed increasingly more money, and as the American soldiers killed came to double and even triple the number of the 9/ 11 attacks deaths, the public opinion begin to ask delicate questions.

Bin Laden could have been captured long time ago. But, as captured the war in Iraq and Afghanistan was more difficult to sustain. Here is an absolute no way out dilemma! Its devilish image was working for a while, but finally it was over. Among other factors, this social engineering derived in an economic crisis that acted primarily in a crisis of confidence in the values, the institutions and the system. The fact is that, after 10 years of war, the civilized world has had enough of (masked slavery) democracy so that, instead of a typical economical growth, we ended up with a generalized crisis.

The social engineers tested on their own skin that the democracy cannot be pushed beyond its limits. The ordinary citizens might be stupid, but if they find no alternative in official political options, then they might not come to vote anymore so that the democracy and freedom ideas will show an illusory face. And this risk is too great. The disgust towards the system that people felt in the G.W. Bush last part mandate was the deciding factor for the economic crisis emergence that still continues today. And then Obama has been invented, as a machine that ensures about freedom, fairness and the fact that anybody can become president regardless of sex, race, color etc., if you work hard. Ordinary Americans have this culture of working hard, without understanding its long term psychopathological implications. Obama image communicated that you can get up if you accept to be down (slave), and that is the slavery moderate emblem of democracy. Initially this Obama caused sensation, but he gradually turns into another G.W. Bush, and that's not too good for the system. Americans eventually figured out the traditional hard working mentality for getting out of poverty and reaching the American Dream is a kind of lottery playing, so the vast majority of “hard workers” don’t improve at all their social level. Taking Bin Laden off is an alternative to this threatening crisis. The ordinary Americans wanted war in Iraq stopped. So, as the Bin Laden devil image started to associate with the G.W. Bush himself devil image, he was not useful anymore for continuing the war.

I remember the sympathy wave that Ronald Reagan received from after releasing the American hostages from Iran in 1981. We will see how naïve is the American public! The system main target is to get back the trust that people had during Bill Clinton or Reagan presidency. After the Bin Laden myth collapse, the authorities try other plans for motivating today slaves. That is it... since people do not want war anymore ... The terrorism doesn’t work anymore. Instead of "war on terror" that GW Bush pavloved his people, it is clear that Obama also pavlove it with the electric car project and other energy sources than the oil Arab. And here it is the movement designed to stop the war on terror (meaining – the Arab oil): Bin Laden was found. Ok, there is no terrorism anymore, now let's go to work! Let see if it works!

It works for the moment. But that might not be quite that simple. On long-term, the 10 years of cheap oil could be tenfold paid. Even if it is build up by manipulation and psychology professionals, still the capitalist propaganda machine was caught inside the maximal profit without going deeper in understanding simple human soul. Gradually, the common people began to identify with Bin Laden and abhor Bush among the State and social institutions. The more the authorities have invested in the Bin Laden myth as bloodthirsty devil, the more the common people built its own Bin Laden myth as a new Robin Hood. Bin Laden became the simple man hero, who kisses the employer’s hand and the back, but who would very much like to crush in the night traffic... The antipathy towards banks and bankers, with their inhuman predators practice, makes common people think that a bomb is about what they deserve. Balance of power between military and propaganda capitalism megapower and wire tied bombs, with cheap cameras that recorded their messages, reiterates the power balance between ordinary half non-literate people and the oppressive exploiter civilization. There are Bin Laden avatar names on web forums as there also are e-mail accounts with that name, which indicates that his popularity on the Internet has reached incredible levels. The world is on the verge of a new French Revolution. It is very likely that the "war on terror" have been a much bigger mistake than corporatists finally came to see ...

(later edit : in the meantime there was released the documentary The New Pearl Harbor that clarifired everything )




* Eventually, the American soldiers were withdrawn from Iraq in December 2011. Obama won the 2012 elections, by the citizens’ votes, with 51.1%.

Gabriel Baldovin

Dubii fata de imaginea Al Quaida ca megaorganizatie terorista facuta de canalele media

Obama contra Osama 2.
Dubii fata de imaginea Al Quaida ca megaorganizatie terorista facuta de canalele media

Doubts towards the Al Qaeda image as a terrorist megaorganization, made by the media

Articol legat de cel anterior (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html )

For English, scroll down

Ideea cum ca Al Quaida ar fi un fel de gigaimperiu al raului, asa cum se spune pe canalele media, este o gogomanie. Nu vreau sa spun ca Bin Laden n-ar fi de fapt terorist, ca nu ar fi omorat oameni nevinovati. Ca reprezentant al mentalitatii clasice asta e rolul lui. Imperiile clasice s-au cladit prin jaf si sclavagism. Chiar si imperiile industriale si digitale ale democratiei contemporane merg tot cam pe aceleasi principii, doar ca sunt ceva mai disimulate, mai camuflate si mai moderate. Abuzurile in fata omului simplu nu au disparut nici in statul de drept, in ciuda propagandei democratiei capitaliste care vinde gogosi despre libertatea si echitatea sociala, pentru a-si convinge sclavii ca sunt de fapt liberi, si spre a-i motiva astfel sa munceasca mai eficient si mai cu entuziasm. Asa ca departe de mine gandul ca Bin Laden nu ar fi fost un terorist detestabil.

Din punct de vedere sociologic, orice organizatie mare si puternica ori este o institutie platita de la buget, ori este o companie care aduce profit. O organizatie mare are nevoie de o ierarhie si de oameni special educati si instruiti sa respecte o astfel de ierarhie. Orice organizatie mare are membri bine platiti; banul este cel ce face pe acestia sa se incadreze ierarhie si sa o respecte. Insa o astfel de presupusa organizatie ca Al Quaida nu si-ar putea plati sistematic membrii pentru ca ea de fapt nici nu produce nimic si nici nu primeste bani de la vreun stat. Ea doar ar distruge. E probabil ca Bin Laden sa fi platit pe apropiati sau pe unii sinucigasi, insa nu ar fi putut plati ani de zile o armata de oameni pentru o activitate care nu aduce venituri. Indiferent de cata sfintenie a incercat el sa mimeze, totusi Bin Laden a fost un afacerist si o astfel de organizatie ar fi fost total neprofitabila. Terorismul sau marginal s-a dorit a fi o cale diferita de creare a unui imperiu financiar cu ajutorul islamului, spre deosebire de imperiile financiare occidentale, cladite pe valori laice, fata de care el era gelos. Nu e in spiritul oamenilor de afaceri sa bage bani in ceva care nu aduce pana la urma tot bani, fie prin reclama fie prin capital de simpatie. Afirmatia cum ca Al Quaida ar fi fost o organizatie cu buget nelimitat este rezultatul unei comenzi politice platita de sus, la care raspund de obicei canalele media. Daca adunam aici si actele teroriste presupuse a fi fost facute de Al Quaida in 10 ani, ele tot nu s-ar ridica la nivelul investitiei intr-o organizatie gigantica.

Terorismul marginal facut de Bin Laden si altii este mai curand o lupta de rezistenta, o lupta de gherila. Putini oameni sint angrenati in ea. Atunci cand gruparea terorista se mareste suficient, nu mai este vorba de terorism marginal, ci de terorism generalizat, adica de razboi.

Razboiul contra terorismului este el insusi o absurditate la fel ca si razboiul contra razboiului deoarece terorismul insusi, asa cum il definesc autoritatile, este un razboi restrans. In aceeasi masura razboiul contra razboiului de fapt il intretine.

La fel ca si Che Guevara, Bin Laden va ramane pentru mine expresia proastei rezistente impotriva imperialismului occidental prin intoarcerea la imperialismul medieval. La Che Guevara se poate vedea un imperialism medieval militar, iar la Bin Laden avem de a face cu un imperialism medieval religios. Cucerirea lumii prin Coran, pe care el si-a propus-o, nu e foarte diferita de cucerirea lumii prin Biblie, pe care curtile spaniola, portugheza sau britanica au facut-o cu America cu cateva secole in urma.

Bin Laden este un amestec destul de ciudat, dar destul de frecvent inclusiv in lumea occidentala, de fanatism religios cu agresivitate imperiala capitalista. El provine dintr-o familie foarte instarita, o familie care a gustat din beneficiile pacifiste ale civilizatiei, dar care nu s-a desprins de imperialismul clasic. Dar, de fapt, aceasta este reteta capitalismului si a civilizatiei occidentale insasi. Tocmai de aceea spuneam eu in articolul linkat mai sus ca terorismul marginal este o "inventie" occidentala preluata de lumea araba, la fel cum si comunismul insusi a fost, si apoi preluat de Europa de Est.

Bin Laden a gasit putini adepti in lumea araba tocmai pentru ca ea insasi se… civilizeaza din mers, renuntand la imperialismul clasic. Bin Laden ar fi vrut un razboi islamic de cucerire a lumii si creare a unui stat international islamic, cam in aceeasi maniera in care capitalismul vrea un guvern mondial. Nu ca n-ar fi vrut lumea araba initial un stat islamic unic si suprimarea restului religiilor, insa nu se putea lupta cu armele nucleare ale Occidentului. Lupta de gherila a lui Bin Laden atesta mai curand o slaba capacitate politica a sa. Ceilalti lideri arabi au inteles ca nu se pot compara cu Occidentul in materie de forte militare, si ca nu ar avea mari sanse intr-o confruntare pe termen lung cu acesta.

Asa ca presupusa lui organizatie, Al Quaida, este mai mult o inventie a autoritatilor, o exagerare a unei grupari de gherila ce a cuprins cativa fanatici religiosi si cativa mercenari platiti pe care Bin Laden i-a folosit pentru a negocia probabil un pret mai mare pentru petrolul arab importat de americani. La fel ca si Saddam Hussein, si Bin Laden a facut niste afaceri cu americanii in trecut si ambii au fost trasi pe sfoara de ei. Drept rezultat, ambii le-au pus bete in roata in intentia lor de a exploata petrolul arab. Mai vehement decat Saddam, Bin Laden a vrut si razbunare in aceasta negociere generala a petrolului. Numai ca, din nefericire pentru el, majoritatea arabilor au acceptat schimbul propus de americani si l-au rejectat pe Bin Laden. Atunci, cuprins de gelozie si furie, el a inceput razbunarea si pe acestia si pe americani, izolandu-se treptat de toti si inconjurandu-se doar de naivi fanatici.

O astfel de adunatura dezorganizata insa nu ar fi putut insa ajunge vreodata o megaorganizatie. In realitate nu-ti poti face organizatie mare intr-un teritoriu pe care nu-l controlezi si in care nu poti sa comunici. In aceelasi fel, rezistenta franceza, in perioada ocupatiei germane din cel de-al doilea razboi mondial, nu era o organizatie ci niste grupuri dispersate de cunoscuti care luptau pentru aceeasi cauza. Se stiau intre ei in interiorul grupului, dar nu aveau cunostinte detaliate despre alte grupuri similare din alte zone si alte orase franceze. Organizatia mafiota contemporana MS 13 are mai multi lideri locali care habar nu unii de altii. Societatile undergound nu functioneaza dupa principiile centralizarii statului, asa cum pretind autoritatile despre Al Quaida. Ele raman la nivel de hoarda contemporana, cu un manunchi de membrii. Tocmai de aceea, dupa cum insele autoritatile spun, Bin Laden ar fi fost inconjurat de un fiu si alti doi apropiati in momentul atacului din partea trupelor speciale. Oare asa se protejeaza si se ascunde capul unei gigaorganizatii? Nu-si face si el un buncar, nu are sosii? Multe din afirmatiile mass-media despre eliminarea lui Bin Laden lasa semne de intrebare.

Exista un profil psihologic al teroristului sinucigas de genul celor din celula Hamburg care au intrat cu avioanele in turnurile WTC. Acest tip de atentator nu este un revendicator. Acest terorist e fundamental diferit atat fata de razboinic dar si de eroul sinucigas. Teroristul islamic se avanta in actul sau sinucigas din motive de martiriu. El nu vrea ceva anume de la autoritati asa cum, de exemplu, SUA a vrut de la Japonia aruncand bombele asupra oraselor Hiroshima si Nagasaki cu ocazia celui mai amplu act terorist propriuzis din istorie. Acest tip de atentator vrea sa moara si se razbune provocand cat mai mari daune.

Ce-i drept, teroristul marginal de tip Al Quaida se apropie mai mult de sinucigasul erou, insa se deosebeste de acesta in special prin autoritatea care ii recunoaste martiriul. Sinucigasii japonezi Kamikaze din cel de-al doilea razboi mondial se sinucideau din spirit narcisic, autoapoteotic. Toate autoritatile laice si religioase il recunosteau ca erou pe cel care recurgea la acest gest. Un sistem totalitar clasic, adica un sistem care isi umileste sistematic cetatenii, se poate apoi bucura de serviciile lor, promitandu-le sfintenia, ridicarea la rangul de erou de la rangul de umilit ordinar. Japonia imperiala a celui de-al doilea razboi mondial se afla in aceasta situatie. Insa atunci, pentru recrutarea sinucigasilor Kamikaze contribuiau toate formele de autoritate laica si religioasa a statului, incepand de la imparat si armata, si terminand cu preotii. Cu totul alta era situatia in Orientul Mijlociu. Singurele autoritati care simpatizau cu Bin Laden erau cele afgane, la vremea aceea o picatura destul de insignifianta in lumea araba.

Din punct vedere financiar, o organizatie terorista mare asa cum este prezentata Al Qaida de mass-media (la comanda politica) este imposibil sa existe fara sprijinul tuturor institutiilor sociale. Povestile din jurul acestei propagande media vorbeau despre buget nelimitat la Al Qaida. Insa orice buget nelimitat presupune si o banca prin care banii sa fie virati. Ori, cum sistemul controleaza de fapt bancile, ar fi fost foarte usor ca acest „buget nelimitat” sa fie transformat in 0. Situatia asta exista chiar si inainte de interventia SUA in Irak. Iata ca Al Quaida pare mult mai probabil sa fie mai curand un crez personal al unor extremisti religiosi decat o organizatie de facto.

Terorismul restrans al lui Bin Laden este un terorism al sinucigasului occidental care, de fapt, este un marginal atat ca si stare psihica cat si ca procent. Cu depresia sa mai mare sau mai mica, sinucigasul este incapabil sa se reuneasca intr-o forma largita de razboi. El recurge de fapt doar la un razboi neprofesionist, pasional si unilateral. Sunt foarte multe cazurile de concediati care revin apoi cu o arma in vechea companie si trag la intamplare in vechii colegi. Sunt convins ca acesta este profilul membrilor celulei Hambrug.

Sinucigasul razbunator nu se poate insa incadra intr-o astfel de metaorganizatie (fie ea corporatie sau "imperiu al raului", asa cum este prezentata de autoritati) tocmai din acest motiv. Acesti oameni sunt din start incapabili sa se adapteze si sa se ridice pe scara unei astfel de ierarhii dintr-o companie, la fel ca si sinucigasii concediati. Marile organizatii presupun oameni cu trei mari calitati: 1. docili , 2. capabili, abili in domeniul lor si 3. cu experienta. Nici o organizatie nu poate functiona fara aceste trei repere. Sinucigasul terorist este intr-adevar foarte motivat in razbunarea sa, insa ii lipseste cate ceva din celelalte 2 repere de mai sus. Acea persoana este un fel de drogat apatic caruia nu-i mai pasa de nimic. Tot ce vrea e sa moara mai repede pentru ca nu mai suporta narcisic situatia de marginal social. Iata de ce Al Quaida nu este posibila decat ca o organizatie mica, rasfirata si dezorganizata fata de un centru anume.

Supradimensionarea Al Quaida are rolul tocmai de a porni un razboi de proportii in Irak, asa cum de fapt s-a si intamplat. Asta va fi si subiectul urmatorului articol.

"Martirii teroristi" simpatizanti ai politicii violente a lui Bin Laden sunt niste marginali incapabili de a convinge majoritatea de ideile lor politice si religioase dar si de capacitatile lor personale de patrundere si adaptare in conditiile ierarhiei corporatiste. Ca orice marginal si ei au plecat initial sa se capatuiasca in lumea occidentala si sa iasa din starea de blam specifica marginalului. Sunt convins ca initial ei au plecat cu intentia de a urca in ierarhia sociala, fara intentii de razbunare. Asemenea mari majoritati a emigrantilor catre „tara fagaduintei” occidentale, si sinucigasii din grupul Hamburg, care au deturnat avioanele spre turnuri, au intrat in acea stare de lehamite fata de sistemul capitalist. Violenta de acum cativa ani initiata de marginalii marilor orase franceze, cu vandalizarea de masini si magazine, este un fenomen similar. Dezamagirea fata de promisiunile neonorate ale „tarii fagaduintei” implica acest tip de cinism ce se transforma in apetenta pentru razbunare si terorism marginal, asa cum s-a intamplat cu grupul de la Hamburg. Am scris ulterior un articol pe aceasta tema aici: http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2015/01/emigratia-si-problemele-sociale-ce.html . La fel ca si infractiunea sau crima, terorismul marginal este o reactie a omului simplu subprivilegiat la civilizatie. Civilizatia a adus bunastare mai mult pentru cei privilegiati si asta inca de la inceputurile ei. Pentru multi, ea aduce dimpotriva, mizerie, boli, saracie si violenta incat viata salbatica pare chiar un lux. Dar asta e deja o alta discutie si o alta tema de articol.

Acest articol se leaga de urmatorul (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/mitul-lui-bin-laden.html )

Obama versus Osama 2.
Doubts towards the Al Qaeda image as a terrorist megaorganization, made by the media

Continued from this articol (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/obama-contra-osama.html )

The idea that Al Qaeda would be a kind of superempire of evil, as it is saying on the media, is a bloomer. I'm not saying that Bin Laden would not actually be a terrorist and he would not have killed innocent people. As a classical mentality person, that is his role. The classical empires were built by plunder and slavery. Even the contemporary democracy industrial and digital empires still go just about the same principles, except that they are somewhat disguised, hidden and moderate some more. The abuses against common person did not disappear in the rule of law, despite the capitalist democracy propaganda that sells illusions about freedom and social equity, and convince the slaves that are actually free, and motivate them to work more efficiently and more enthusiastically. So, the idea that Bin Laden was not a detestable terrorist is far from me.

From the sociological point of view, any large and powerful organization is either a paid from the State budget institution, or is a company that gains profit. A large organization needs a hierarchy and some specially educated and trained people to obey such a hierarchy. Any large organization has well paid members; the money is making its members to join and respect the hierarchy. But such a chimerical organization like Al Qaeda could not systematically pay its members as it actually does not produce anything and does not get money from the State. It would only destroy. Bin Laden is likely to have paid the close ones or some suicide bombers, but he could not pay for years an army of people for an activity that does not produces anything. No matter how much he tried to mimic the holiness, still Bin Laden was a businessman and such an organization would have been totally unprofitable. His marginal terrorism was meant to be a different way of creating a financial empire using Islam, conceived as totally opposed to Western financial empires built on non-religious values, to which he was so jealous. The businessmen do not put money into something that will not eventually bring money back, either through advertising or through sympathy capital. The statement that Al Qaeda would have been an unlimited budget organization is the very result of political paid orders, that media usually responds. If we take into account also the unproven Al Qaeda terrorist acts from the last 10 years, still they would not cover the investment in such a gigantic organization.

The marginal terrorism done by Bin Laden and others is rather a resistance struggle guerrilla. Few people are involved within it. As the terrorist group grows enough, it is not a marginal terrorism anymore but a generalized terrorism, meaning war.

The war against terrorism is itself an absurdity just like the war against the war, as the terrorism itself, as defined by the authorities, is a smaller war. Equally, the war against a war actually maintains it.

Just like Che Guevara, Bin Laden represents the bad expression of resistance against Western imperialism by a returning to medieval imperialism. Che Guevara is the symbol of the medieval military imperialism as Bin Laden is the symbol of the medieval religious imperialism. The conquest of the world by the Qur'an, that he has proposed, is not much different from the conquest of the world by the Bible, as the Spanish, Portuguese or British Court made on the Americas a few centuries ago.

Bin Laden is a rather strange mixture, but quite often seen in Western world also, of religious fanaticism with capitalist imperial aggression. He comes from a very wealthy family, a family that has tasted the civilization peaceful benefits, but still not able to move on out of classic imperialism. But in fact, this is the capitalism and the Western civilization pattern itself. That is why I said in the linked above article that the marginal terrorism is an Western “invention” lately put in practice by the Arab world, just as the communism iself was, and then applied in the Eastern Europe.

Bin Laden found few followers in the Arab world itself because it is just... civilizing naturally, abandoning step by step the classical imperialism. Bin Laden wanted an Islamic war to conquer the world and create an international Islamic State, in much the same manner in which the capitalism wants a world wide government. Not that the The Arab world would want a unique Islamic State initially and suppress the rest of religions, but it could not fight against the Western nuclear weapons. Bin Laden’s guerrillas show rather a poor strategy than being a real threat to Western world. The other Arab leaders have understood that they can not compete against the West in terms of military forces, and would have not a chance in a long-term confrontation with it.

So, his overestimated terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, is more an authorities invention, an exaggeration image of some separated guerrilla groups that included some religious fanatics and some paid mercenaries that Bin Laden has probably used to negotiate a higher price for imported Arab oil to Americans. Like Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden also made some business with the Americans in the past, and both were duped by them. As a result, both have put a spoke in the wheel concerning the intention to exploit the Arab oil. Louder than Saddam, Bin Laden wanted revenge in this oil negotiation engineering. But, sadly for him, the most Arabs have accepted the Americans proposal exchange and have rejected Bin Laden. Then, blinded by jealousy and anger, he started planning revenge on both those Arabs and the Americans, gradually isolating himself from everyone and surrounding by naive fanatics.

Such a disorganized bunch could never ever be a mega organization. In reality you can not build a large organization in a territory which you do not control and can not communicate. In the same manner, the French Resistance, during the German occupation in the Second World War, was not an organization but some scattered acquaintances groups who were fighting for the same cause. They knew each other within the group, but were did not possessed details about other similar groups in other French areas or cities. Today’s MS 13 mafia organization has more local leaders who have no clue about each other. The underground groups do not operate under the principle of state centralization, as authorities claim about Al Qaeda. They remain at stage of contemporary horde, with a bunch of members. Therefore, as the authorities themselves say, Bin Laden was surrounded only by a son and two other close friends when the Special Forces attacked. Is it the way that a mega organization usually protects its leader? Does not this leader have a bunker or some impersonators? Many media statements about Bin Laden's death are very dubious.

There is a psychological profile of suicide bombers like the Hamburg cell that crushed with planes in WTC towers. This type person is not a claimer. This terrorism is fundamentally different from both the war hero and the suicide hero. The Islamic terrorist goes for the suicidal act due to martyrdom reasons. This person does not want anything from authorities, such as the US wanted from Japan, throwing bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, thus creating the bigger terrorist act in history. This type of bomber wants to die and revenge by causing greater damage.

It is true that Al Qaeda marginal terrorist type is closer to suicide hero, but is different in particular regarding the authority that recognizes its martyrdom. The Second World War Japanese Kamikaze committed suicide due to the narcissistic, self apotheosizing spirit. All the state and religious authorities recognized that who had been doing this gesture as a hero. A classical totalitarian system, ie a system that systematically humiliates its citizens, can then enjoy their services by promising holiness, elevation to the rank of hero from the ordinary humiliated rank. The Second World War Imperial Japan was in this situation. But at that time, for the recruiting the suicidal kamikaze there were contributed all forms of the state secular and religious authority, starting with the emperor and army and ending with the priests. The situation in the Middle East was quite different form that one. The only authorities that were sympathetic with Bin Laden were the Afghan talibans, which was at that time a fairly insignificant drop in the Arab world.

From the financial point of view, a large terrorist organization as Al Qaeda is presented by the media (due to political order) is impossible to exist without the support of all social institutions. The media propaganda presented Al Qaeda as an unlimited budget organization. But any unlimited budget requires a bank so the money to be transferred. But, since the system actually controls the banks, it would have been very easy for this "unlimited budget" to be turned to 0. This situation existed even before the US intervention in Iraq. So we can see that Al Qaeda seems more likely to be a religious extremists’ personal belief than a real organization.

The Bin Laden small Terrorism is a Western suicide terrorist which, in fact, is a marginal attitude both as a psychological state and as a population percentage. Its easier or severe depression makes the suicide terrorist unable to reunite in an extended form of war. The war that this person is able to make is actually passionate, unprofessional, and unilateral. There are many cases fired people that lately returns with a gun in the former company and randomly shoot former colleagues. I am convinced that this is the Hamburg cell members’ profile.

The vengeful suicide terrorist can not fit such a big organization (no matter if corporation or “evil empire”, as presented by the authorities) for this very reason. These people are unable to adapt and advance in such a company hierarchy, just like the fired suicides. Large organizations involve three main qualities people: 1. docile, 2. capable, skilled in their field and 3 experienced. No organization can function without these three items. The suicide terrorist is indeed very motivated to revenge, but fails in the other two markers above. That person is a kind of apathetic junkie who does not care about anything. All it wants is to die faster because can not narcissistically stand anymore the social marginal situation. That is why Al Qaeda is possible only as a small organization, scattered and disorganized to a particular center.

The Al Qaida over dimensioning is designed precisely to start a proportions war in Iraq as actually happened. This will be the subject of the next article.

The “terrorist martyrs” that sympathized with Bin Laden's violent politics are social excluded people, unable to convince the majority with their political and religious ideas, but also with their personal capacities of penetration and adaptation in of corporation hierarchy conditions. Like any marginal, they also first tried to make a living in the Western world and get out of marginal specific blame statute. I am convinced that initially they left with the intention to climb up on the social hierarchy, without intentions of revenge. Like the vast majority of immigrants to the Western "promised land", the suicides Hamburg group who hijacked the planes into the towers, gradually came into that disgust state against the capitalist system. The few years ago violence initiated by the major French cities marginalized ones by vandalizing cars and shops is a similar. The disappointment towards the "Promised Land" unfulfilled promises implies this type of cynicism that is transformed into appetite for revenge and marginal terrorism, as happened with the Hamburg group. I subsequently wrote an article on this topic here:
http://baldovinconcept.blogspot.ro/2015/02/migration-and-its-social-issues.html . Like the offense or the crime, the marginal terrorism is a simple underprivileged person reaction to civilization. Civilization has brought more wealth for the privileged ones since its very beginnings. For too many it brings, on the contrary, misery, diseases, poverty and violence so that the wildlife seems to be a luxury. But this is already another discussion and another article topic.

This articol continues here: (http://baldovin.blogspot.com/2011/05/mitul-lui-bin-laden.html )

Pentru limna romana glisati in sus

Gabriel Baldovin

Obama contra Osama

Evenimentele de pe 11 septembrie, analizate lucid fara dezinformarile si distorsionarile oficiale/


A lucid analysis of the September 11 events, out of official disinformation and distortion/

For English scroll down

Netul si mass-media in general au sarit in aer, (!!!) in urma stirii ca Bin Laden a fost ucis. News alert. Mare stire mare! Dupa zece de ani de cautari... marele terorist, 11 septembrie etc. M-am uitat 1 minut pe CNN si 1 minut pe televiziunile de stiri din Romania. Peste tot aceleasi imagini cu atentatele de pe 11 septembrie 2001. Insa parca s-au inghitit prea pe nerumegate distorsionarile unei mass-media care slujeste sistemul neosclavagist contemporan. Si de aceea va propun o analiza lucida a situatiei si evenimentelor ce vizeaza aceste zile. Initial mi-am propus un singur articol pe aceasta tema insa nevoia de argumentare l-a transformat in 3 articole legate intre ele pentru o intelegere necosmetizata si nedistorsionata a fenomenului Bin Laden si a evenimentelor de la 11 septembrie.

Exista cateva dubii pe care un om inteligent si informat ar trebui sa si le puna cu privire la aceste evenimente. Dupa ce am vazut atat Zeitgeist The Movie” cat si documentarele oficiale de pe National Geographic” si „Discovery”, pot spune ca adevarul este intre cele doua puncte, dar parca ceva mai apropiat de Zeitgeist. El, ca si altele de genul lui, spun ca 9/11 a fost planificat in totalitate din interior iar documentarele oficiale merg din start pe premisa externa, Al Quaida, dupa cum si canalele de stiri o fac in spiritul picaturii chinezesti. Acum 3 ani am facut aici o analiza asupra acestei situatii pe care o reiau adaptat acum pe acest spatiu.

(actualizare ulterioara: intre timp documentarul The New Pearl Harbora clarificat totul )

Toate bune si frumoase insa lumea inca nu stie ca pe langa cele 2 turnuri gemene World Trade Center din New York mai exista si alte clădiri ce fac parte din acest complex. Cladirile 1 si 2 sint nu sint singure. Pe langa acestea mai sint si cladirile 3,4 si 5, ceva mai mici, la care se adauga si cladirea 7. Cladirea 7… Deja celebra Building 7. Foarte multi dintre cei care au vazut pe viu turnurile prabusindu-se, habar nu au de existenta acestei Cladiri 7. Imaginile turnurilor prabusindu-se au rulat de mii si mii de ori, insa mass-media a evitat sa faca acest lucru si despre aceasta.



Dupa cum se vede in acest film, Cladirea 7 a cazut si ea la fel ca si turnurile lovite de cele 2 avioane. Dar ea nu a fost lovita de niciun avion. Ea nu mai avea nici un motiv sa cada. Nu a existat un al treilea avion care sa o loveasca. Nu a cazut nimic peste ea ca sa fie afectata, caci turnurile s-au prabusit vertical, exact ca intr-o implozie controlata. Si chiar daca cele doua turnuri ar fi cazut peste ea, totusi ea nu s-ar fi demolat uniform din interior, ci s-ar fi storcit cumva din exterior, din locul unde impactul ar fi avut loc.

Nici un om inteligent, cu mintea intreaga si neprostituat fata de sistemul semisclavagist contemporan nu are vreun dubiu ca o astfel de cladire nu putea pica din senin. Se vede clar ca cineva a dat-o jos in mod controlat. Si dubiile continua: daca cineva ar fi demolat si cele doua turnuri in aceeasi maniera? Daca impactul avioanelor a fost suprapotentat de un „ajutor” din interior?

Ma opresc deocamdata aici cu acest fir al intrebarilor, dar am sa revin la el putin mai jos. Deocamdata vreau sa analizez reactia autoritatilor. Cladirea 7 mi se pare o dovada mult mai evidenta decat dovezile ascultarii telefoanelor din scandalul watergate care a condus la demisia presedintelui Nixon. Cladirea 7 nu este o speculatie. Ea este o dovada puternica. Cu toate astea nici un politician american de vaza nu a dat vreo dezmintire publica fata de acest eveniment, dandu-i cumva impresia ca ar fi un lucru nesemnificativ. O societate transparenta ar fi dat o minima explicatie. Nu stiu… a plouat atunci cu galeata si cu bucati meteoritice de grindina… ceva acolo. Singura reactie notabila fata de ideea „9/11 orchestrat din interior” este aceasta reactie a lui Bill Clinton care seamana teribil de mult a contracarare psihologica sau denegare:



Dar tocmai tacerea asta a lor este cea care spune multe. Ca psiholog pot observa ca acest refuz al lor de a comenta este in primul rand o strategie mediatica. La aproape 10 ani de la evenimentele din 11 septembrie, nici macar 10 la suta din cetateni nu stiu despre aceasta misterioasa cladire 7. Evident, discutand despre ea, autoritatile ar fi scoas-o in evidenta si l-ar fi ajutat pe cetatean sa gandeasca. Dimpotriva, se poate vedea clar ca principala preocupare a autoritatilor si a canalelor media este sa tina publicul de mainstream, publicul bovin care merge la vot, departe de aceste informatii. In alte situatii mass-media simuleaza destul de bine libertatea opiniilor si astfel da impresia ca ofera si alternativa unei anumite informatii, respectiv punctul de vedere contrar. Dar in cazul acestui subiect nu se spune nimic despre punctul de vedere opus, anume ca „11 septembrie a fost orchestrat din interior”.

Cand filmele despre cladirea 7 au aparut pe internet ele au fost sterse sistematic de google si You Tube. Avand in vedere ineditul lor si potentiala popularitate, nu exista nici un motiv sa fie sterse decat acela ca in spate exista o comanda politica. In acest punct, vorbele frumoase despre echitate, libertate si democratie sunt povesti goale. Capitalismul ascunde informatii „vitale” neconvenabile in anumite conditii in acelasi fel in care totalitarismul comunist o facea cu voiosie. Numai ca avalansa deja incepuse si, cum necum, informatiile au ajuns la omul de rand si au inceput sa se raspandeasca. Abia cand popularitatea lui G. Bush a atins cote periculos de scazute pentru insasi functionarea democratiei, evident ca aceste filme n-au mai fost sterse pentru ca deja ajunsesera celebre. Era deja tarziu. Zeitgeist a ajuns cel mai vizionat documentar din istorie. Increderea in sistem si institutiile statului a atins cote inimaginabil de scazute si sunt convins ca criza economica a fost conditionata si de acest factor. Am vorbit cu cetateni americani simpli si am vazut cum se tem sa discute aceste subiecte, la fel cum in Romania totalitarista cetatenii se temeau de Securitate. Daca sustii varianta „11 septembrie a fost orchestrat din interior” esti dat afara din orice companie, ti se sterg urmele pur si simplu. Libertatea de expresie este inlocuita cu „nu e timp pentru democratie acum”.

Eu unul, daca as fi autoritate a statului, si daca as fi acuzat de planuirea acestor atentate si m-as sti cu adevarat nevinovat as fi reconstruit cateva etaje de world trade center dupa aceiasi parametrii si as face un experiment de genul acesta (min2. 27)



pentru a nu lasa dubii. Atunci am vedea sigur daca turnurile ar fi cazut singure dupa impactul avioanelor. Un astfel de experiment nu ar costa foarte mult. Insa daca autoritatile prefera sa pompeze bani in canalele mass-media pentru a sustine si varianta oficiala si a nu spune nimic despre varianta "demolare controlata", atunci asta pe mine ma intriga. S-a facut ceva de genul acesta transmis pe National Geographic insa e departe de a fi o simulare a acelor evenimente.

Autoritatile au insa ceva de ascuns aici, si asta se vede clar. La fel ca si Bush, Obama incearca sa dreaga busuiocul cu acelasi tip de discurs, necatadicsind sa dea un minim raspuns „prostilor” astia care au indrazneala sa se intrebe. Tacerea asta infricosatoare ma face sa ma gandesc la posibilitatea foarte mare ca un astfel de experiment sa nu sustina varianta oficiala de fapt, si astfel de constructie sa nu cada pur si simplu la impactul cu avionul. Si acum revin la sirul intrebarilor pe care l-am amanat mai sus, dar care nu era greu de intrevazut. Daca Bin Laden, cu terorismul sau marginal, era transformat intr-un diavol, si daca Al Quaida era transformata intr-un imperiu al raului, atunci se putea porni un razboi de cucerire a resurselor din Irak via Afganistan. Acest lucru s-a si intamplat in ultima decada. Exista trei posibile variante ale filmului complet cu tragedia 11 septembrie, dincolo de minciunile spuse de mass-media.

Cea mai apropiata de varianta oficiala ar fi intr-adevar ca Bin Laden a organizat acele atentate, ca s-a intalnit cu grupul de la Hamburg, ca le-a ordonat, etc. Atacurile provocau cam vreo 500-1000 de morti maxim. Dar pentru ca se temea ca in viitor structura de rezistenta va fi subrezita sau ca turnurile nu vor mai fi la fel de sigure de pe urma acestui eveniment, cineva a decis sa le demoleze si sa le refaca, fara sa se fi avut in vedere o strategie de invadare a Irakului. As paria pe scenariul acesta in proportie de 85-90%. Partea slaba a acestui scenariu tine de lipsa de dovezi concrete pentru varianta demolarii, insa zona in cauza nu putea fi investigata la acel moment de catre alte surse decat cele oficiale care, fireste, puteau acoperi totul.

O a doua varianta insa cuprinde si o astfel de strategie. Ea este identica cu prima pana la momentul demolarii turnurilor. Aici intervine motivul care este insusi petrolul irakian, luat la un pret mai ieftin in conditii de „democratie”. In acest caz autoritatile si-au amplificat pierderile demoland intreg complexul World Trade Center impreuna cu cladirea 7… Scopul a fost pornirea unui razboi de cucerire al petrolului, vopsit in razboi antiterorist sau anti arme chimice. Pentru aceasta a doua varianta as paria in proportie de 75-80%. Pe langa dubiile provenite din prima varianta, aici se adauga si faptul ca nu prea este timp intr-o ora-doua sa planifici asa ceva.

Dar aceste prime doua variante reprezinta cel mai finut scenariu. Ce-a de-a treia e cu adevarat ingrijoratoare. Daca ei sunt atat de cinici incat sa-si tripleze si chiar quatrupleze pierderile, si atat de cinici incat sa isi omoare proprii cetateni, atunci e destul de probabil pe acelasi filon sa isi si organizeze ei insisi atacurile. Cum? Foarte simplu. Infiltrezi un agitator CIA intre niste extremisti religiosi, suficient de fanatici incat sa se sinucida pentru „cauza sfanta”, insa insuficient de destepti si meticulosi incat sa se organizeze. Si astfel ii manipulezi sa comita un atac major impotriva ta astfel incat tu sa pornesti un razboi de acaparare a petrolului irakian vopsit in razboi impotriva terorismului. Probabilitatea unui astfel de scenariu mi se pare pe undeva pe la 60-70 % datorita noii ipoteze implicate ce scade gradul de siguranta ale celorlalte doua.

Desi mi se pare foarte improbabila am s-o includ aici si pe cea de-a patra varianta. Ea sustine ca grupul de la Hambrug nu ar fi existat deloc si ca inclusiv atacurile ar fi fost regizate de CIA, FBI si alte (de)servicii secrete fara nici un fel de implicare a vreunui fanatic religios islamic, de grupul de la Hamburg sau de altundeva. Sunt destui adepti ai ideilor Zeitgeist care cred asta, insa mie nu mi se pare foarte probabil. Sunt destui civili care si-au sunat rudele in momentul deturnarii avioanelor si i-au descris pe deturnatori. Nu zic ca e imposibil dar mi se pare improbabil. Daca as fi fost CIA, mi-ar fi mai usor sa manipulez o mana de fanatici religiosi si sa-i atrag intr-o astfel de capcana, decat sa construiesc astfel de scenarii cu familiile pasagerilor.

Dar se poate totusi merge cu speculatia mai departe destul de logic inclusiv pe aceasta idee oficiala la care si eu subscriu, dupa care atacurile au fost savarsite intr-adevar de grupul de la Hamburg. Se poate oricand imagina ca turnurile WTC sa nu mai fi fost dorite pur si simplu. Erau deja invechite. In lume se construisera alte turnuri mai inalte decat cele facute pentru a epata puterea financiara, militara si doctrinara a capitalismului american. Asa cum manelistii nostri si-au daramat palatul cand clanul rival a facut un palat mai mare, si manelistii lor e posibil sa fi facut acelasi lucru la o scara mult mai mare. Sau poate s-au gasit defecte de constructie, cine stie… Orice este posibil cand ai de a face cu corporatistii. Oricum ar fi, varianta oficiala e parca cea mai improbabila, cu toate ca i s-a facut publicitate de miliarde de dolari pentru a fi injectata in mintea lui gura-casca.

In august 2011, la 3 luni dupa ce am scris acest articol, o fosta agenta CIA face niste declaratii absolut socante despre atacurile de la 11 septembrie 2001. Ea a declarat clar ca CIA stia despre aceste atacuri dar ca de undeva venise ordinul sa se taca. Dupa cum se vede din film, Susan Lindauer crede ca aceasta optiune ar fi venit de la cei 3 capi a statului american de atunci, respectiv Bush, Cheney si Rumsfeld. Parerea mea e ca acestia au avut doar rol de oglinda si ca tot din CIA a pornit decizia. Oricum,e de vazut modul in care a fost inlaturata si persecutata apoi de autoritati prin arestare pentru atitudinea ei de alarmare fata de aceasta situatie.



„Schimbul” de petrol irakian contra unor hartii tiparite (dolar) s-a regasit in scaderea nivelului de trai ala americanului, justificabil doar de razboi. Americanul de rand se plange ca isi plateste din ce in ce mai greu facturile. Dar exact acesta este si sensul razboiului: el trebuie sa „work harder” iar vina pentru scaderea nivelului de trai se poate arunca foarte usor pe Bin Laden. Avantaj corporatii, Rockefeller, Bilderberg …

Cladirea 7 a fost greseala crimei perfecte. Bulding 7 este pentru capitalism cam ceea ce era Dumnezeu pentru comunism. Ea este dovada vie ca autoritatile ne mint si creeaza conspiratii monstruoase impotriva cetatenilor proprii pentru a-si atinge idealurile lor egoiste de putere si bogatie.

Tainuirea acestor informatii de catre privilegiatii sociali, acceptarea acestora ca strategii de inginerie sociala si manipulare, ascund niste oameni care sunt pusi in functiile cheie ale democratiei dar care se gandesc numai la oligarhie. Pentru ei aceasta bruma de libertate oferita omului simplu nu e vazuta cu ochi buni pentru ca de mii de ani ei sunt obisnuiti ca acesta sa le fie servitor.

Eu sunt convins ca democratia va cadea cu totul atunci cand macar 80% din cetateni vor intelege ce e cu cladirea 7. Daca autoritatile sunt in masura sa sacrifice aproape 4 000 de oameni plus alte 2445 in Afganistan plus 4452 in Irak pe langa peste 100 000 de victime locale, pentru a scadea pretul petrolului, atunci democratia are o mare, mare problema. Omul de rand nu mai sustine asa ceva cu toata manipularea, dezinformarea si cosmetizarea oferita de sistem. Rezultatul este insasi criza economica ce s-a instlat in spatiul american.

In urmatorul articol (http://baldovin.blogspot.ro/2011/05/dubii-fata-de-imaginea-al-quaida-ca.html ) voi arata imboldul strategic al autoritatilor de a supradimensiona Al Quaida tocmai pentru a face cat mai probabil scenariul oficial cu demolarea turnurilor



A lucid analysis of the September 11 events, out of official disinformation and distortion/





The media exploded (!!!) under the story that Bin Laden was killed. News alert. Big, big news! After ten years of searching ... the most dangerous terrorist, September 11 etc. I watched CNN for 1 minute and then, the Romanian news television also for 1 minute. Everywhere were the same images with the September 11, 2001 attacks. I think that the distortions of the new slavery contemporary system served by media were swallowed without much chewing. Therefore propose a lucid analysis of the situation and events that concern these days. Initially I wanted a single article on the subject but the need of reasoning turned it into 3 linked articles for an unvarnished and undistorted understanding of the Bin Laden phenomenon and the events of September 11.

There are few doubts that a smart and informed person should ask about these events. After seeing the “Zeitgeist the Movie" and the National Geographic" and "Discovery" official documentaries, I can say that truth is between the two points, but a little bit closer to the Zeitgeist. This one, like others of his type, say that 9/11 was entirely planned from inside as the official documentaries are based entirely on the Al Qaeda external premise, as news channels keep repeating it like a Chinese droplet. 3 years ago I did an analysis of this situation here and I now adapted for this space...


(later edit : in the meantime there was released the documentary The New Pearl Harbor that clarifired everything )

Everything is fine except for the fact that the world still does not know that besides the World Trade Center two twin towers in New York there are another buildings that were part of this complex. Buildings 1 and 2 are not the only ones. There are also smaller buildings 3.4 to 5, and building 7. Building 7…... The famous Building 7. The big majority of those who saw live the towers collapsing, have no absolute idea about the existence of this Building 7. The collapsing towers pictures have run thousands of times, but the media avoided to do the same about this one.



As seen in this film, building 7 also fell just like the 2 towers that were hit by the planes. But it was not hit by any plane. There was no reason for it to fall. There was not a third plane to hit it. Nothing fell over it to be damaged, because the towers collapsed vertically, just like a controlled implosion. And even if the towers would have fallen upon, though it would not have been uniformly demolished from inside, but it would somehow have squeezed from outside, from where the impact had occurred.

No smart, sane and unpaid by the contemporary new (wage) slavery system person has no doubt that such a building could not fall out of the blue. It is obvious that someone took it down in a controlled manner. And doubts continue: what if someone would be demolished the two towers in the same manner? What if the jet impact over the two towers was amplified by some “help” from inside?

I stop here for now with this thread of questions, but I'll soon come back to it. For now I want to analyze the reaction of the authorities. The Building 7 evidence seems to be more obvious than the Watergate scandal phones listening evidence that led to the resignation of President Nixon. Building 7 is not speculation. It is strong evidence. Yet, no important American politician has given any public denial to this event, giving the impression that somehow it would be insignificant. A transparent society would have a minimal explanation for that fact. I do not know what...maybe it was a heavy rain with meteoric pieces of hail ... or something there. The only notable reaction to the idea of " 9/11 was an inside job" is this Bill Clinton's reaction that looks very much like a psychological counteraction or negation:



But it is this theirs silence that says a lot. As a psychologist I may notice that their refusal to comment on is primarily a media strategy. After almost 10 years from the September 11 event, less than 10 percent of citizens know about this mysterious Building 7. Obviously, if talking about it, the authorities would bring attention to it and that would have helped the citizens to ask questions. On the contrary, it is obvious that the authorities and the media channels main concern is to keep mainstream audiences, the sheep people that go to vote, away from this information. The media ussualy simulates well enough freedom of opinion and give the impression to offer an alternative to certain information. But in this case it is nothing said about the opposite view, meaning "September 11 was orchestrated from the inside ".

When the images about Building 7 have appeared on the internet, they have been systematically erased by Google and YouTube. Given their originality and potential popularity, there is no reason to be deleted except that there is a political order. In this point, the beautiful words about fairness, freedom and democracy are empty stories. The capitalism hides "vital" inconvenient information in certain conditions in the same way that the communist totalitarianism cheerfully did. But the avalanche started and, somhow, the information reached the common people and began to spread. When G.W. Bush's popularity has reached dangerously low level for the very functioning of democracy, these films were not been deleted anymore. But at that point they were famous. It was too late. The Zeitgeist became the most watched documentary in history. The confidence in the social system and State institutions has reached an unimaginable low level and I am convinced that the economic crisis was conditioned by this factor also. I talked to ordinary American citizens and saw how afraid they are to discuss these issues, like the Romanian totalitarian citizens feared Securitate. If common people in USA say that "9/11 was an inside job", then that person is fired from job, simply wipe traces. The freedom of expression is replaced with "no time for democracy now".

I myself, if would be a State authority, and if would be accused of masterminding these attacks as being really innocent, then I would rebuilt several floors of the World Trade Center after the same parameters and would do an experiment like this (min2. 27)



to leave no doubt. Then we all would see for sure if the towers had fallen after the planes impact. That experiment would mot cost a lot. But if the authorities prefer to pump money into the media channels to support the official version and say nothing about the opposite idea of “controlled demolition”, then this intrigues me a lot. Something like has been done by National Geographic but it was far from being a those events simulation.

The authorities have something to hide here, and this is obvious. Like Bush, Obama have the same type of speech, not giving a minimum response to the "sily" guys who have the guts to wonder. This frightening silence makes me think about the possibility that such experiment may not actually support the official version, and that building simply not fall after the plane’s impact. And now I go back to the series of questions that I postponed above, not hard to foresee. If Bin Laden, with his marginal terrorism, would be shown as a monster, and if Al Qaeda would be shown as an empire of evil, then it would have been much easier to start a conquest war for resources in Iraq via Afghanistan. Tjis is excatcly what has happened in the last decade. There are three possible versions scenarios concerning the tragedy of September 11th, beyond the lies told by the media.

The nearest official version would be like Bin Laden organized indeed those attacks, as he met the Hamburg group, ordered them, etc. The attacks were causing about 500-1000 maximum deaths. But, because of caution that in the future the structural strength will be weakened or the towers will not be as safe after this event, someone has decided to demolish and rebuild them again later, without a previous strategy to invade Iraq. I bet this scenario for about 85-90%. The weak part of this scenario is the lack of factual evidences concerning the demolition version, but the area could not be investigated at the time by other sources than the official ones who, of course, could cover everything up.

The second version includes such a strategy too. It is identical to the first one until the demolition of the towers. Here comes the reason itself, which is taking the Iraqi oil at a cheaper price in terms of "democracy". In this case the authorities amplified losses and demolished the entire World Trade Center complex, including the Building 7 ... The goal was to start a war of conquest, painted as the war on terror oil or as the war on chemical weapons. For this second version I would bet at a rate of 75-80%. Besides the first version doubts, here comes another one which is not having enough time to plan it in an hour or two time.

But these first two versions are the most human scenario. The third one is really worrying. If they are so cynical to triple or even quadruple the losses, and so cynical to kill their own citizens, then it is quite likely to organize themselves these attacks. How? Very simple. CIA infiltrated an agent among some enough fanatical religious extremists that accept suicidal for the "holy cause", but not smart enough and not meticulous enough that they organize all by themselves. Further on, they manipulated them to commit a major attack against USA, so to have enough reasons to start a war of getting the Iraqi oil, painted in war on terror. The probability of such a scenario seems to me somewhere around the 60-70%, due to new assumptions involved that decreases the safety of the other two.

But these first two versions are the most human scenario. The third one is really worrying. If they are so cynical to triple or even quadruple the losses, and so cynical to kill their own citizens, then it is quite likely to organize themselves these attacks. How? Very simple. CIA infiltrated an agent among some enough fanatical religious extremists that accept suicidal for the "holy cause", but not smart enough and not meticulous enough that they organize all by themselves. Further on, they manipulated them to commit a major attack against USA, so to have enough reasons to start a war of getting the Iraqi oil, painted in war on terror. The probability of such a scenario seems to me somewhere around the 60-70%, due to new assumptions involved that decreases the safety of the other two.

Although it seems very unlikely, I will include here the fourth version. This one says the Hambrug group did not existed at all, nor the attacks who, would had been directed by the CIA, FBI and other intelligence secrete (dis)services, without any involvement of any Islamic religious fanatic, Hamburg group or whatever else. There are many Zeitgeist supporters who believe it, but I find it very unlikely. There are civilians who have called relatives after the panes were hijacked and they were described in these calls. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it seems unlikely. If I were CIA, it would be much easier to manipulate a handful of religious fanatics and to catch them in such a trap than to build al kind of scenarios with the passengers’ families.

But you can still go on quite logical speculation including official idea that I subscribe and then attacks were indeed committed by the group from Hamburg. We can easily imagine that the WTC towers were no longer desired. They were already obsolete. In the world were built other towers, higher than those made to amaze for financial, military and doctrinal power of American capitalism. Just like a parvenu can destroy its palace when a rival clan builds a greater one, these biggest parvenus could have done the same at a much larger scale. Or maybe there were defects found in construction, who knows ... Anything is possible when you're dealing with corporatists. Whatever may be, the official version is the most improbable of all, although it was advertised with billion dollars to be injected into the booby’s mind.

In August 2011, 3 months after I wrote this article, a former CIA agent made absolutely shocking statements about the September 11, 2001 attacks. She clearly stated that the CIA knew about the attacks but somehow there came the order to keep it secret. As seen in the video below, Susan Lindauer believes that this option would have come from those three heads of the back then US state, which were Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. My opinion is that they played only a mirror part in this story and that it was the CIA that originally made this decision. Anyway, it is very interesting to see how she was marginalized and then persecuted by being arrested by the authorities for her alarming attitude about this issue.


"Exchanging" the Iraqi oil for some printed papers (dollar) was found in the American living standards falling, justifiable by the war only. The simple American person complains more and more about the difficulty of paying the bills. But this is the meaning of war: he has to "work harder” and the blame for falling living standards can easily throw on Bin Laden. Benefit for corporations, Rockefeller, Bilderberg ...

Building 7 was the mistake for a perfect crime. Building 7 is for capitalism what God was to communism. It is the living proof that the authorities are lying and creates monstrous conspiracies against own citizens to achieve their selfish ideals of power and wealth.

Hiding such information by the social privileged ones, and their acceptance as a strategy of social engineering and manipulation, show a kind of people who are placed in democracy’s key positions but who think only to the oligarchy. For them the little freedom offered to common people is not seen with good eyes because for thousands of years they are used to have it as their servant.

I am convinced that democracy will collapse when at least 80% of citizens will understand what happened to Building 7. If the authorities are capable to sacrifice almost 4000 people, plus 2445 more in Afghanistan and plus 4452 more in Iraq, in addition to more than 100 000 local victims, in order to lower oil prices, then the democracy has a big, big problem. Ordinary people would not support something like this anymore with all the manipulation, misinformation and social cosmeticing offered by the system. The result is the very economic crisis that has installed in American economy.

In the next article (http://baldovin.blogspot.ro/2011/05/dubii-fata-de-imaginea-al-quaida-ca.html ) I will analyze the authorities' strategy of oversizing Al Qaeda to a terrorist organization just to make the official towers demolition scenario morel likely.

Pentru limba romana glisati in sus

Gabriel Baldovin