Today, Dan and Jordan take a breakie into the past to see how things are going with Alex in simpler times. In this installment, Alex does an absolutely terrible job of covering the bombing of the Marriott in Jakarta and takes some calls from some real weirdos. Citations Dreamy Creamy Fundraiser
You know, when you think about that, you think of those Google search results, and they bring back a billion results, you know, in like half a second or whatever.
The evidence is coming out that the bombing in Jakarta was another globalist operation.
Again, the Saudis are saying the British are carrying out the bombings in Saudi Arabia to destabilize the country so they can create a crisis to offer their new world order solution.
The evidence shows that that is indeed a fact, the preponderance of the evidence.
New information is coming out about the original Bali bombing last year and the fact that the British and U.S. government were there carrying the bombings out.
So, incidentally, these two bombings that Alex is talking about were connected, as they were both carried out by members of the terrorist group Jama 'a Islamiyah.
Members of the group were convicted of doing a string of bombings in Bali.
And it's been pretty clearly established that they were behind the Jakarta bombing as well.
One of the more persuasive pieces of evidence that was found was the head of the suicide bomber, which was identified by multiple sources as being a man named Asmar Latinsani, who was a member of J.I. I'm guessing Alex could just say that that was planted there or something, because he's smart and he loves facts.
So, Jama 'a Islamiyah was a terrorist organization that operated in Indonesia and surrounding countries, mostly inspired by opposition to the more moderate forms of Islam that were practiced there.
This was seen as a form of Western degradation, so they targeted things associated with the West, like the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta and that largely tourist area in Bali, where the bombings happened.
Al Haramain is a charity organization that is based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The point is that Alex is legitimately just talking shit.
He hasn't had time to come up with any conclusions or weigh the preponderance of evidence, but But he can't resist the opportunity to blame this tragedy on his imagined enemies and incorporate that made-up story into his larger conspiracy worldview.
I mean, I think this is interesting insofar as it feels like this is one of the few times where the plan in real life has been exactly as bad as Alex's fake globalist plan.
And we had calls yesterday from listeners, several on-air, several off-air.
And a bunch of emails of folks that were watching CNN and Fox yesterday, early in the morning after there had been a bombing in Jakarta, the capital of Indonesia.
And they talked about how the U.S. diplomats and U.S. employees had been told to pull out four hours before.
Well, I had no way of confirming this.
I was getting emails about it, but here it is now in Reuters and Sky News and in other Asian papers.
And, of course, the feds were on the ground within minutes, just like the Bali bombing.
But with the Bali bombing, two weeks before, they had specifics of the attack.
And our government told the Bali's government and told the Taiwanese government, this has been in the mainstream papers.
It's great times not to warn anyone, not to tell the American people or the Australians or anybody else.
It's a province in Indonesia, but Alex seems to...
I don't know what he's doing.
So it appears that what Alex is going to do to try and make this conspiracy stick is work with the idea that there was some kind of advance warning of the bombings and that there were feds on the ground immediately.
As always, this stuff is partially true.
There were federal agents there, but not U.S. agents.
There were two groups from the Australian Federal Police who were working with the Indonesian law enforcement, one on a narcotics operation and one on an anti-human trafficking task force.
They were able to respond to the bombings in Bali considering that they were already there in the country, but this isn't suspicious and it doesn't prove anything close to a conspiracy or a false flag.
And again, this is related to the 2002...
Bali bombings as opposed to the Jakarta bombing that just happened that Alex is covering.
So there was some advanced warning, but that's not necessarily a thing where it was specific enough to guarantee the ability to stop either the Bali bombings or the Jakarta bombing before they happened.
In the case of the Bali attacks, the U.S. had captured Omar al-Faruq, who was understood to be a high-level al-Qaeda operative in the region.
His contact information had been found in the possession of a number of senior members of the group, and after the U.S. forces interrogated him in ways that almost certainly bordered on torture, he talked and explained his role in the Southeast Asian cell of al-Qaeda.
The U.S. attempted to pass this intelligence on to the Indonesian government because part of it involved a reasonable suspicion that they were planning an attack somewhere near the anniversary of 9-11.
One of the recommendations that the U.S. made was that the government should arrest a prominent cleric named Abu Bakr Bashir, who Al Farouk had named as being someone who was involved in the organization and planning of attacks.
The political situation in Indonesia at the time was very tense with a secular president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, whose vice president, Hamza Haas, was said to have close ties with many of the radicals who the U.S. wanted to focus on, including Bashir.
So you had this vice president who was on sort of one side of things and a president who was on the other side.
The country is majority Muslim and Megawati didn't want to make any arrests, particularly of religious figures, without evidence of their having committed a crime which the U.S. couldn't provide.
The warning that the U.S. had was too vague to be actionable and the Indonesian government was somewhat in a bind.
Ultimately, the Bali bombings could not be stopped, but afterwards, the Megawati government began to act.
She arrested Bashir and charged him with a string of church bombings that he had been involved in that occurred on Christmas Eve, year 2000.
In the lead-up to the Jakarta bombing, Australian federal police were still in the country because the government had asked for their assistance investigating the Bali bombings.
In the course of that investigation, many members of Jama 'a Islamiyah were arrested and questioned, and a picture began to take shape that another bombing was being planned, but no one provided a specific target that they were planning to hit, just that it was likely that the group would attack a soft target.
If that's all you have to go on, you can be on guard somewhat, but you can't possibly deploy the resources necessary to protect every soft target in the country, or even...
And the notion that a soft target would be chosen isn't really that much new information or revelatory because the original bombing was of a bar, you know?
But, I mean, even then, that's not really good intelligence there, because, like, oh, well, you could just be assuming that they're going after a soft target, or you don't even really know what a soft target to them quite is.
So, remember that article from yesterday on the London Guardian?
Saudis accuse British staff of destabilization campaign.
British embassy staff in Riyadh have been accused by the Saudi Arabian authorities of coordinating a campaign of anti-Western terrorist bombings in the kingdom.
The Guardian has learned the accusations that the British embassy in Riyadh coordinated the bombings to stabilize the Saudi regime is the latest and most bizarre piece of information ...to escape the pall of secrecy behind which the Saudis have been conducting legal proceedings against seven Westerners who they say have been tortured into making false confessions.
Now, I said day one, before this story ever broke, that the evidence is it was the British doing this.
In November 2000, a British citizen named Christopher Rodway was killed in a car bombing.
He was an engineer employed at the military hospital in Riyadh, and in the immediate aftermath, the Saudi government said that this was not terrorism, but it was actually more likely a personal matter.
At the time, Saudi Arabia had a public stance that it was very insistent that they did not have any terrorist elements existing in the country, and this would contradict that narrative, so there was an attempt to find another explanation.
When personal reasons didn't stick, a bunch of employees at the British Embassy were accused of carrying out that bombing with the goal of blaming the Saudi Arabian government.
Seven people were held in prison for long stretches, treated quite poorly, and a couple of them were actually sentenced to death before ultimately being released.
This is a story that Alex is completely wrong about, and if you would just go a little bit further down the story he's using as a source, the credibility of these accusations being made by the government of Saudi Arabia might seem a little shoddier.
A Guardian investigation this year discredited the case against the men and uncovered evidence of systematic torture by the Ministry of Interior officials.
According to defense papers submitted by way of appeal to the Saudi Supreme Court last month and seen by the Guardian, the men were systematically tortured until they confessed.
They were subjected to sleep deprivation for up to 10 days at a time, suspended from chains hanging from hooks above their cell doors and repeatedly beaten.
They were told their relatives would be harmed if they did not cooperate and were offered early.
At this point, I want to make totally clear that I'm opposed to this treatment of detainees in the same way that I'm against how the U.S. treated Omar al-Faruq.
In the latter case, it was interrogation tactics like sleep deprivation, whereas the allegations in this case are far more abusive and gruesome.
The fact remains that these are abusive and unacceptable on both counts, and I'm not trying to minimize one compared to the other or anything.
They're both unacceptable.
Beyond the moral issues, putting someone into distress is not a reliable way to gather information.
You may end up getting intel that's accurate, but you also might not, so it's often best practice to not view the fruits of tortured interrogations as being trustworthy.
So the reason that I gave this much more of a pass in the case of Al Farouk than in the case of the Saudi government blaming these British citizens is because there were other corroborating details and pieces of supporting evidence in that case that didn't come from Al Farouk himself.
All that being said, this is all terrible and awful.
In early 2004, the British embassy workers who were tortured and forced to admit to crimes they didn't commit on video began the process of trying to sue the Saudi government.
The rules at that point in the UK were that you couldn't sue a sovereign government, but their case sought to challenge that law.
They actually won a case on this in 2004, but it was ultimately overturned by a higher court in 2006.
What a weird world that we live in where you can just get swept up into something that has nothing to do with you, and then you're tortured for, like...
That's absurd.
It is very, very dumb that that just exists, and we all participate in this system.
Reading some of the folks' experience, not so much, I mean, obviously, tales of being beaten, but the experience of having your government not have your back, or feeling like that, after the fact, there's some interesting Expressions of the trauma that lingers, that's added to by, like, well, there's no recourse.
So this story actually makes total sense if you understand the larger context of what's going on.
It's only suspicious if you're only given access to the sparse details that Alex covers on his show.
The sparseness of the details is actually a strategic aspect of Alex's broadcast because he's not interested in giving his audience a better grasp of news events.
He's just trying to find tiny slivers of information that he can use to make every event conform to his predetermined storyline so everything fits neatly into the the globalists are behind everything box.
This article that Alex is talking about is from late 2002.
The context of this is that the U.S. intelligence community had gotten information from Al Farouk and other sources that there was a plan in motion to carry out a bombing in Indonesia.
Areas or buildings that were seen as Western are prime targets for groups like Jama 'a Islamiyah, so they had every reason to suspect that embassies or government buildings could be under threat.
The U.S. had tried to relay this information to the Megawati government, who found themselves unable to act on it in a way that satisfied U.S. concerns, which left few options on the table for how to proceed.
Evacuating staff temporarily is a completely justified and rational decision to make in this situation, and it's definitely not cause for any kind of suspicion.
Alex is trying to use this sliver of information that the U.S. had considered evacuating embassy staff prior to the bombing to insinuate that they had specific forms.
foreknowledge of the attack, but this doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
It's also kind of dumb, considering that if they did have foreknowledge of the attack's targets, they wouldn't have had to worry about officials at their offices.
Yeah.
unidentified
The primary target of that attack in Bali was Patty's Pub, a bar that was frequented by tourists, though there was a smaller bomb that was detonated at the U.S. consulate office Sure, sure, sure.
He's found places that are geographically close, and then has been like, well, obviously all bonings happen in this geographical area happen for the exact same reason every time.
And it goes on to say, yesterday's blast, however, may prove to be just the evidence Washington needed to force Takarta to come down hard on Muslim civilian groups in the past.
Analysis did not rule out the occurrence of deliberate violence across the archipelago to provide a pretext for
U.S. So this is a complete fiction that Alex is creating out of this article that he's reading.
This article was written long before the Jakarta bombing at the Marriott and had to do with the U.S. threat to remove embassy employees in 2002 prior to the Bali bombings.
The U.S. didn't end up evacuating staff and it had nothing to do with that Marriott, which is the hotel that was targeted in Jakarta.
The reason that Indonesian House Speaker Tan Jun was expressing regret with the U.S. decision to threaten to remove staff was because he was worried about the message that would send to the rest of the world that Indonesia wasn't a safe place.
Right.
Alex has no idea what he's talking about.
He's reporting that the U.S. planned to evacuate staff hours before the bombing that happened in August 2003, and his source is an article from October 2002.
I mean, the whole here is what amount of U.S. officials were at the Marriott?
Like, why is the United States government specifically like, listen, I mean, obviously it would be like they know that the embassy isn't going to be bombed.
But who all was staying at the Marriott that needed to be evacuated?
So this is a bit of a pivot point, because Alex up to this point has been relying on this October 2002 article to argue that the embassy was threatening to withdraw its staff.
That was true, but he was lying about the context of it and pretending it was a recent article related to the Jakarta bombing.
Now he's using a completely different source to make a completely different claim while acting like it's the same story.
Apparently, what happened was that the U.S. Embassy canceled reservations at the Marriott four and a half hours before the bombing.
Alex's sole source on this is a translation of an Indian Indonesian website that makes this claim.
And their only source is an alleged employee of the Marriott who is anonymous.
There's no evidence of this that this is the case.
If I were the embassy and I were orchestrating elaborate fake terrorist plots in order to force the Indonesian government into cracking down on terrorists and going along with my larger global agenda, I don't think I would cancel those reservations.
Or, even better, some of the expendable people who worked at the office could show up for the reservations, and then the embassy could apply even more pressure on the Indonesian government.
So there's literally only one scenario where this makes sense as proof of a conspiracy, and that's the world where the evil globalists behind this plot canceled the reservation so they could leave behind a calling card for the conspiracy theorists to find.
This is basically Alex pretending that information is taunting him.
Basically, Alex can't make compelling arguments based on the information that's available, so he's cheating by just making up shit that makes his case look stronger.
And he's doing this because he's a liar.
Yes, it does, though.
Because once you establish the idea that you had these embassy people there who checked out, and you add it to believing the Saudi Arabian government about the British folks who were carrying out bombings, To destabilize the Saudi Arabian government.
You can see here how Alex is building out the story.
He has a flimsy source that claims that the U.S. Embassy canceled reservations hours before the bombing took place at the Marriott, which he is now reporting as the U.S. sending in a team of about 20 people who were pulled out early.
This is solely from his own imagination, and it's nothing more than him writing his own little story about this tragic event so he can use it to further his own goals.
One thing I want to draw special attention to is the part where he says that they were pulled out of the hotel because of threats.
This is important because it's a synthesis of this flimsy source about the canceled hotel reservation and that article from 2002 about the lead up to the Bali bombing.
Alex is taking the hotel detail from one story and mashing it up with the embassy being concerned about threats, that detail from the other story, and then serving it up for the audience as if it's something meaningful and it's the same thing.
If anything, this is an abuse of information, and it's kind of silly to pretend that what he's doing is questioning world events.
This isn't questioning.
This is just lying about shit so mass casualty events can be incorporated into your worldview more easily and you can profit off them.
Throughout this entire time, I find myself trying to give advice to the globalists, and then realizing again that what I'm really doing is just in a writer's room with Alex trying to punch up his narrative.
Like a team of 20 is too big.
Too many people are going to...
That's too big.
It's too obvious to see.
And then I realize I'm not talking about this.
I'm with Alex being like, okay, listen, here's what we got to do.
There is a little bit of an A to B to C with the way that the layers of the conspiracy are added on as he makes stuff up about the little kernel that is at the base of this.
It's transparent if you take the time to pay attention to it.
But if you don't, or if you just operate off headlines and the optics of seeing a headline that says U.S. Embassy...
Cancelled reservations four and a half hours before the bombing, and then you accept whatever Alex says about it.
Like, if you just accept the story that he tells about that headline, the escalation of it does make sense.
Or if you believe the Saudi government about the British embassy employees that they tortured and got false confessions out of, these things, yeah, there is a conspiracy that is crafted.
It's a little bit like a kid improv-ing a book report where you're like, okay, I know you didn't read that book, but I'm actually kind of respecting your level of creativity and faking that you read that book.
And that's what Homeland Security and the National Police are.
That's what the SWAT teams are.
They're setting up death squads in America.
It's in Patriot Act 1 and 2 to be able to come and kill you and never even tell people why they killed you, never charge you, never indict you, never arrest you.
I mean, this is textbook classical tyranny.
We're going to take calls, and I've got a bunch of other news we're going to get to.
I mean, if you are putting together an Alex Jones was right clip, I don't understand why that's not on there unless it doesn't work in the present for him.
I don't make predictions on things like that when I don't have enough data, but I have to admit that reading about it and seeing over the last year, We've been worried about August 24th when it will be the closest to Earth it's been in 60,000 years.
But if that's the case, then it suggests that as Mars gets further away, something else changes that makes you less likely to celebrate it being further away.
And all the things where people talk about how accurate Alex is, they seem to just forget his constant obsession with how a universal draft was right around the corner and how the globalists had it set up so the next time there was a terrorist attack, that was it.
And all your sons and daughters were going to be conscripted.
And he was very, it happens, he brings it up all the time.
Yeah.
unidentified
One wonders if Alex made a big stink when Trump nominated Donald Benton to this position in April 2017, if that was evidence of Trump trying to reinstate the draft.
Even though it's not a pool for a draft, the names and information gathered from Selective Service Registration are used by the Joint Advertising, Marketing, Research, and Studies Program out of the Department of Defense, which uses that information to recruit volunteers into the armed service.
I am with the shortwave bill, and Jim Shepard's been helping me, so it's paid to the shortwave outlet.
I'm about $15,000 behind, and folks, we need you to simply buy the videos.
I let you make copies of them and buy the books and buy the products from sponsors like Jim Shepard.
Because when I have a sponsor that covers part of the cost and I cover the other part of the expense, it's very important that that sponsor be supported, especially when they've got a real product that's amazing.
I don't mean to make this a long rant.
I'm not going to start doing this all the time.
But I want to keep reaching the people in that French.
In that French village.
I want to keep reaching the people in hiding in Indonesia.
I want to continue to reach people in Japan and in the highlands of Scotland.
You know, but I feel like that's where you gotta stay, at the $15,000 is important to you.
Because then, look at him now, he's got shell companies, he's gotta have accountants willing to lie for him, and then he's gotta have accountants that his accountants lie to in order to launder their lies.
It seems really obvious the way you could just handle this.
And that is that it is unsafe for me to talk to you off the air.
I don't know what you're up to.
There's a lot of ways that this could expose me.
It's just...
If you're Alex, this is the simplest thing in the world, but you don't want to give that message because it's too likely to make the audience think that you think that they're crazy or something.
Whereas Alex is a big public figure.
There is a very acceptable boundary to be like, I'm not talking to you off air.
We don't know each other.
You can send an email or something, but we're not going to do that.
When you actively court people who blur the line between reality and fiction, it's going to be a little bit more of a tighter walk to let them down easy on account of you don't know what part of the fiction that's going to add you into.
So we have one last clip here, and I know that another thing that was making the rounds on social media recently was a clip of Alex saying that there was going to be false flag globalist terror attacks.
You know, before the midterms.
This is another clip that, oh, Ron Flipkowski decided to post without context, relevant context, that Alex says that all the fucking time, pretty much every day.
And one of the things he always uses to scare people is that specter of the coming false flag attack that is justified by some piece of his narrative.
There is, obviously, Democrats are scared that they're going to lose the midterms, and so they must do bombings in order to make sure they win the midterms.
Right.
Ashcroft wants to get Patriot Act 2 in, but there's opposition to it from the Patriots.
Ah, he's better do some boom-booming in order to make sure that this goes through.
It's always this.
And I don't understand how it's been 20 years, 20 plus years, and it's still an effective thing.