Why Muslims in the West won’t Speak out on 9/11 and False Flag Terror
Nick Kollerstrom wrote a book proving the London 7/7 bombings were an inside job. Now 7/7 is the stick they use to bash Muslims with in the UK the way they use 9/11 in the US. So the British Muslim media are lining up to report on his research, right? Not yet. In fact, they won’t touch it.
Kevin Barrett is an American Muslim personality in the 9/11 Truth movement. Kevin noted how few Muslims in the US were supporting 9/11 Truth, and wondered why. I said they felt other Americans would just peg them as paranoid Arabs who think the CIA is behind everything. Muslims in the West are busy just trying to assimilate and be accepted.
Dave Aossey is a third-generation Lebanese writer. When we asked his take on it, he said most people in the Middle East still believe in the American dream. If you ask them where they’d go if they could live anywhere they liked, they will say the United States. It’s not true that Arabs hate the US at all -- on the contrary!
David Livingstone is a Canadian Muslim writer. His views on it are more controversial: Islam has been thoroughly infiltrated by agents of the British empire and the Illuminati. They created the Saudis and Wahhabis, who use their oil money to foster two distortions of Islam. One is resigned to political or social injustice. The other spouts jihadist rhetoric. It’s all part of a long-term Clash of Civilizations planned by the empire, along the lines of the Three World Wars.
On Wednesday, July 7th -- the fifth anniversary of the London Tube bombings -- you can hear these four authors exchange views on this and other provocative “New World Order” topics, what their tactics are, and what we can do about it. Can the 9/11 Truth movement carry on? What are countergangs, and how to take over the world with them? Just tune in to NoLiesRadio.org , at 9 a.m. Pacific, noon Eastern, on Wednesday, July 7th, 2010.
Show will be archived.
Read the preview here: http://progressivepress.com/dox/77chat.html
- John Leonard's blog
- Login to post comments
Delusional notions
The Saudi royal family has no ancestry from Muhammad, nor do they even claim any themselves, and only they feign reverence of God while being beholden to nothing but their own power, just like the establishment class here in the West.
It's not really ad hominem
It's an explanation as to why I've no interest humoring your your fanciful arguments. I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt in assuming you're delusional rather than disingenuous, but either way I've no reason to believe you are capable of engaging in rational discourse. If you'd like to attempt to demonstrate otherwise, providing your source for the claim that all Arab rulers are descendants of Muhammad would be a good place to start. However, I'm figuring if it was anything more reliable than a Ouija board, you'd have presented it by now, eh?
As I figured, your source is no better than a Ouija board
As for Russia, I don't believe much more than some names have changed since the so-called "collapse" of the USSR, and have never said anything to suggest otherwise. You deluded yourself into believing such nonsense on your own.
I don't believe in spirits
However, I know some people are less reliable of a source than the random answers one can produce with a Ouija board. As for my use of plural, I was referring to both your wild claim about the ancestry of the Saudis, and to your "Islam vs. the West" mentality in general. As for my comment which was deleted, I got a copy from Erik through email, and as I doubt the moderators would have any issue with me reproducing the portion referring to Russia, I'll quote myself (with the addition of a word I mistakenly left out):
"You're the only one here who's been talking about Russia, and your fantasies about my understanding of Russia [are] far abstracted from reality..."
That's not an attempt to take you to task for anything, but rather simply two statements of fact in response to your attempts to take me to task for opinions I've never held, let alone expressed. Anyway, I've no contradictions, and I'll continue speaking up here for the truth in response to misrepresentations of it from you or anyone else, at least as long as the moderators will let me.
It's absurd
I knew you couldn't support your claim, and It would've been disingenuous to pretend I didn't, which just isn't my style.
Dean/Brian's source re Muhammad's descendants
brian78046: "actually I know for a fact that the Royal Family are direct descendants of the Prophet Muhammad. No Arab ruler, stretching from Morocco to Pakistan, is not a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad. That includes major politicians and military officers."
brian78046: "My source on all things Arab happens to be from the House of Saud! I've known this person since collage back in the early 1980's. I actually saw this person on television with family members (heads of state of certain Arab nations) on a Saudi promotional film aired here in the states during the visit of the Saudi king. I couldn't believe my eye when I saw this person! That's my source."
The only source Dean has provided is his claim that he was told this by a person he doesn't name, who he allegedly knew from college and that he saw on TV in a Saudi promo film. Not convincing; it's just Dean's assertion.
And even if Dean really was told this info by this person, that still doesn't prove anything. If this claim about the ancestry of the Saudi royal family and "major politicians and military officers" is important, surely there would be links available to sites in english (or which could be translated) that make the claim and provide the lineage, there should be scholarship on the subject (there are many Western scholars studying Islam), and probably even an entry on wikipedia with credible sources for references.
However, Dean's failure so far to provide a link to any credible source backing up this claim doesn't prove this claim about lineage traced to Muhammad is false, just that it isn't supported by anything so far, other than Dean's claim he was told this by a person he doesn't name, a person of unknown credibility.
Put simply
I'd sooner be willing to believe David Icke's claims of the world being run by reptilian shape-shifters than your wild claims from an unnamed source, though of course I'm along way from buying into any such absurd claim. Furthermore, it's hardly a secret that Muhammad had two sons, Abd-Allah ibn Muhammad and Qasim ibn Muhammad, at least not to those of us who are familiar with the historical record.
I stay well rested
And I know Muhammad's two sons died young, contrary to your previous claim that there's no evidence of him having sons at all. What there's no evidence of is any ancestral connection between the the vast majority of Arab rulers and Muhammad, the Saudi royal family included.
What Would You Have Said On September 11, 2001?
Pavlovian Dogcatcher,
I didn't say I had evidence, did I? I didn't say you had to believe my source, did I? I'm asking you to use that thing between your ears, and realize that NO one in the Arab world gets to rule unless they are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad.
Do you have to read something to come to a conclusion about it? There were many persons on the day of 9/11 who knew it was an inside job, yet there was ZERO written about it. Would you have called such people delusional if one of them had told you on 9/11 that our government was responsible for the attacks? To many, it would sound delusional, but that's just because they are ignorant of how the government/military operates. Not really their fault...they just don't know.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Yeah
To claim to know for a fact that our government/al Queda/Eskimos/whoever was responsible for 9/11 without any evidence to support any such claim demonstrates an inability to properly distinguish between knowledge and speculation.
No Speculation Required
Pavlovian Dogcatcher,
of course certain persons in the Federal Government would know: Air Traffic Control employees (past and present) would know by the close of September 11 that a stand down was executed; NORAD/Air Force personnel would know immediately that NORAD was stood down on 9/11; intelligence officers would, of course, know it was a false-flag attack since that is one of the specialties of the intelligence community. No speculation, they know it.
Let me also add, many already knew the attacks were coming months before 9/11, including the specific targets and date.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
brian78046 and Pav Dog- warning; keep it civil
Dean provided links showing the royal families in Jordan and Morocco claim lineage to the prophet Muhammad; it is a non-controversial fact that they make this claim, and I'm not disputing their claim, let alone the fact that they make the claim.
brian78046: "there's also no evidence that the Prophet Muhammad had sons, but he did. Their existence was kept a secret for security/political reasons. Do you find it far fetched that the Prophet Muhammad had sons? Do you believe that the Prophet Muhammad didn't have sons? Of course he had sons, but where is this written about in Wiki? It ain't there! So, following your logic, the Prophet Muhammad really didn't have sons because it would be written somewhere!"
I didn't say he didn't have sons; i pointed out you had provided no evidence for the lineage of rulers other than your impossible to verify claim, so the above is largely irrelevant. Furthermore, how can someone be a 'secret' descendant of Muhammad and at the same time have a legit claim of being his descendant thru a son not included among the three that died in childhood? Where's the evidence any Muslim is even claiming this is true? Furthermore, contrary to Dean's claim, Muhammad's progeny (including the three sons) and lineage is covered by wiki, with links to scholarly sources; see below. But perhaps Dean is only referring to the alleged 'secret' sons not being covered on wiki- but who is claiming this besides Dean- let alone providing any credible reasons for believing the claim?
The lineage of Muhammad is descended thru his daughter Fatimah. And if there were other recognized descendants/heirs, of course it would be written somewhere, by now. in addition, writing was in common use at the time, the Koran was written down, and keeping records of lineage was a common practice long before Muhammad, in addition to whatever verbal records were kept; was this really not a common practice in the society Muhammad lived in, and in the one he created? From my searching on this subject, it appears Pav is correct; even the Saudi royal family doesn't officially claim to be descended from the prophet- and it seems they would if they could say this at all, considering the extra cred it would give them.
Muhammad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Wives_and_children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid
http://www.datarabia.com/royals/familytree.do
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_royal_family#History
brian78046: "Only descendants of the Prophet Muhammad rule Arab/North African lands." and "I'm asking you to use that thing between your ears, and realize that NO one in the Arab world gets to rule unless they are descendants of the Prophet Muhammad"
Again, a claim of fact which is obscure; Dean is saying no one can rule in the Arab world unless they're a descendant of the prophet Muhammad. If Dean's claim is true, there should be documentation available showing this is the rule. But it appears to be false on its face, simply from the example of the Saudi royal family, which has been ruling since the 15th century CE, and who aren't descendants of Muhammad.
True Lies
loose nuke says, "Furthermore, how can someone be a 'secret' descendant of Muhammad and at the same time have a legit claim of being his descendant thru a son not included among the three that died in childhood?"
Response:
It's not a secret to the descendant's of the Prophet Muhammad and others close to them. It's a secret to others.
loose nuke says, "But perhaps Dean is only referring to the alleged 'secret' sons not being covered on wiki- but who is claiming this besides Dean- let alone providing any credible reasons for believing the claim?"
Response:
Correct, my apologies!
Again, I never said I have evidence that the Saudi Royal Family is directly descended from the Prophet Muhammad, did I?
loose nuke says, "Dean provided links showing the royal families in Jordan and Morocco claim lineage to the prophet Muhammad; it is a non-controversial fact that they make this claim, and I'm not disputing their claim, let alone the fact that they make the claim."
Response:
It's more than a claim. Anyone in the Arab world who would make a false claim to being a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad would be warned off. If the warning wasn't heeded, they would be imprisoned or executed. One doesn't get to claim. One either is or isn't. Simple.
loose nuke says, "From my searching on this subject, it appears Pav is correct; even the Saudi royal family doesn't officially claim to be descended from the prophet- and it seems they would if they could say this at all, considering the extra cred it would give them."
Response:
Not if the link to the Prophet Muhammad is via those sons of the Prophet who did survive childhood and had progeny.
---------------------------------------------------------
Just as it is incredulous to believe that the USSR collapsed in 1991, it would be just as incredulous to accept that the Prophet Muhammad didn't make sure he had many sons.
Now, when it comes to the USSR, there is only one originary source on the subject; Anatoliy Golitsyn (not that we need Golitsyn to come to the obvious conclusion ourselves that the collapse is an obvious farce), so is it so incredible to accept that back in the seventh century Muhammad's family could keep the existence of surviving sons a little known secret? Here we are in the 21st century, yet only ONE source on the fraudulent Soviet collapse!
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
How Do We Know?
loose nuke,
here's something else to think about. How do we really know that the Prophet Muhammad’s two sons really died in childhood? Maybe that's why Muhammad had no more sons, assuming he had no more sons.
Dean Jackson/Editor-in-Chief DNotice.org
Washington, DC
Another day, another holocaust denier on Barrett's show
Shocking, I know. How's the book business, John?
I'm no fan of Alex Jones, but Paul Joseph Watson said it pretty well: "Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous."
BBC Set To Launch New Smear Attack On 9/11 Truth
New documentaries about 9/11, 7/7 and who's representing the "conspiracy theorists"?
A holocaust denying, Neo-Nazi crop circle fanatic!
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/june2008/062008_smear_attack.htm
shades of deja vu all over again
I'm not a Jones fan either but Watson has written a lot of good stuff.
Watson: "Kollerstrom is just about the wackiest person the BBC could have picked to represent alternative explanations behind 7/7. The idea behind it is simple - pick a nutcase closet Neo-Nazi to talk about 7/7 thus sending a very clear message to the viewer - anyone who questions the official government story behind 7/7 is a holocaust denier, a lunatic, and potentially dangerous."
Since it has worked so well to turn 9/11 inquiry into a tar baby, it seems reasonable that it would be tried with another attack for which there are also so many unanswered questions, including govt connections.
For credible scholarship on the 7/7 attacks- by a Muslim even- see Nafeez Mossadeq Ahmed's book and writings
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2006/06/london-bombings-independent-inquiry.html
http://nafeez.blogspot.com/2010/07/77-terror-and-torture-protecting-deep...
Ahmed was also one of the first to write about 9/11, and wrote two of the best books on the subject; The War on Freedom (2002), revised and expanded into the War on Truth (2005)
Amazing
It's amazing that we keep having this crap foisted on us by the likes of Barrett. By the way, speaking of Ahmed, there was an attempt to ambush one of his speaking engagements at one point by adding Kollerstrom to the event. Ahmed immediately withdrew, of course.
(Too bad the convo above us is pushing this information off the page...)