Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Interesting article (warning: re: Iraq)
Bekenn
Sinclair's Duck
in Zocalo v2.0
Ran across this article today, which has some interesting analysis in it, as well as some thought-provoking (circumstantial) evidence:
[url="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html"]http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html[/url]
Now, I'm not looking to start up a pro/anti-war flamefest here; I'm merely interested in hearing some thoughts on the article content. Post away!
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
[url="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html"]http://politics.guardian.co.uk/archive/article/0,,4296646,00.html[/url]
Now, I'm not looking to start up a pro/anti-war flamefest here; I'm merely interested in hearing some thoughts on the article content. Post away!
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
Comments
[b]Post away![/b][/quote]
[b]POST![/b]
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[b] [b]POST![/b]
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[/B][/quote]
Post Haste!
US investigators have traced the movements of the 19 hijackers going back years, and have amassed a detailed picture of who did what inside the conspiracy. Yet what lay beyond the hijackers is an intelligence black hole. If they had a support network in America, none of its members has been traced, and among the hundreds of telephone records and emails the investigators have recovered, nothing gets close to identifying those ultimately responsible.
...emphasises the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.
Unfortunately, the US is not very good at recognising long-term strategic threats.'
At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.
[/b][/quote]
It's no suprise to me that Iraq is likely behind this at least in large part. Take 1993 for example. Just a couple years after the Gulf War we have the first attempt on the WTC with the basement bombing.
For us to be suprised that these so-called "backwards hillbilly fighters" aren't capable of advanced planning, patience, and resources globally is a classic head-in-the-sand approach on the part of the western world.
All you need are the resources (Bin Ladin), the desire and motive (Sadam), and a few deprived and misguided followers to deal heavy damage against someone or something else.
The Western world often makes the mistake of rationalizing motives in the frame of our concepts of sanity. It's no wonder we often get slapped in the face by reality. We are just smarting from a wound that the Israelis and others have had to learn to deal with for years.
In one area I find us to be lacking is the assumption that in a world of high tech trappings, everyone will use the same network of communication. Covert is usually best effective when low tech. Simple as that. That, and the fact that they don't give away there intentions on national and global TV...
To point fingers and place blame on the presidency is ludicrous though IMHO, they worked with what they had, I think they showed great restraint, and could have easliy jumped the gun on Iraq last year. They have waited until more substantial evidence has appeared.
Unfortunately, I only see things getting worse, and possibly retaliation in the form of nukes on selected terrorist targets. You know damn well that "they" (whoever that may be next time), will have a limited supply and limited opportunities to use it, before the hammer comes down on them, so they ain't going to say shit to no-one before the event.
I really hate to say it, but I don't think that it's over for New York. The next time (3rd time is the charm) may be the last for that city.
My opinions of course... such as they are...
I think it's intesting that no one has replied. People seem to be so scared of the truth in it they don't want to even adress it.
I don't think California or DC are out of the woods either.
Anyone for that mater: Including Europe and Russia, maybe even our friends down below.
Argone
[b]That's a grave comment you made, regarding NYC. :/
[/b][/quote]
There are many reasons why I and others feel it will be the first nuke target.
1. Major Economic Center.
2. Major Port of Entry.
3. Major Image of Pride (Liberty).
4. Major Communications Center.
5. Major Jewish Population.
...to name but a few "practical" reasons from the standpoint of doing the most damage as a target. The US is big, so how do you bring it down with the least effort.
Then there are...
(if you go for this sort of thing at all)
...the predictions of Nostradamus, refering to the New City, brought down by the Man with the Blue Turban (Sadam and the Blue Beret) from the regions of Persia (Iran/Iraq), using a devastating weapon (who's description is much like a Nuclear Tipped ICBM.
[quote]Originally posted by Konrad:
[b]I think it's intesting that no one has replied. People seem to be so scared of the truth in it they don't want to even adress it.
[/b][/quote]
Maybe it's somber contemplation... It's not a pleasant world we live in, and we constantly are looking for ways to escape from reality of day to day.
[quote]Originally posted by Konrad:
[b]I don't think California or DC are out of the woods either.
[/b][/quote]
I agree, in the end, none of us are safe...
Although if things keep up, there won't be much of California to burn. We're having awful fire seasons these last few years...
California has escaped all of this so far, since the focus has been on back East to this point, but terrorism in other forms of delivery could take a huge toll. I'm thinking water supplies, power grids (such an easy target with all the BS we've been putting up with on that front already), food production, the list goes on. It is scary on how many fronts we could be assaulted here.
Several times entry into California and potential terrorists have been averted. So we all know they are trying still even now...
[quote]Originally posted by Konrad:
[b]Anyone for that mater: Including Europe and Russia, maybe even our friends down below.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, anyone who sides with "Satan" America (or should I say Babylon?) is subject to guilt by association already...
I'll bet there'll be cruise missiles over Bahgdad on 9/11
or something will get vapourised or screwed over....
migrate or mutate...
the thought of a particularly dirty salty nuke going off in NYC....
thats about as ugly a thought as I can think...
Terrorism, Guerilla War, Civil War, Nation State Warfare
Weapons of Mass Disruption/Destruction
Abuse of Genetic Manipulation
Aids and other Diseases
Family Breakdown
A Lack of Respect for Law and Good Society
Changes in the Relationship between men and women
I see all of these things as dangers on our horizon.
I would like to think the people of today's society would come together during a global or national disaster. But all you have to do is look at the after effects of Hurricane Andrew in South Miami. Looting and Crime by the local thugs was a serious problem. Those people didn't get help for days from any kind of organized authority. Makes me glad for the second amendment in the United States. I know I will be able to protect my family from thugs and criminals without having to get into a fist or knife fight.
The twin towers, PA, and the pentagon while gross acts of evil were small compared to what could be done. I will not post idea's for anyone to use, but I can imagine all kinds of societal weaknesses too.
If our (the US) government has proof of a direct threat I say we do something to neutralize the threat now. It's obvious we might have to go it alone, since our supposed allies have proven to not be such great friends.
I feel I should add that Afghanistan seems to be forgotten already. We need to send aid and help nation build as much as possible much to the chagrin of our European friends who don't like the idea of a quasi-American Empire. If the US doesn't Afghanistan will fall back into the hands of evil quickly. The same is true for Iraq, if we topple the government we have to commit ourselves to building them up again as a free nation.
Grave Times With Few Friends Indeed. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img]
Edit: I am also watching the events unfolding in Sweden with great interest.
Edit: I also wish Isreal had backed off on it's operations for a little while so as not to inspire more suicide bombers. (It's in the Koran folks taking your own life doesn't get you to paradise.)
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-02-2002).]
whilst I agree with you, that we are looking at some rough road ahead, counting the potholes, thier depth, how much they're likely to damage the suspension in turn is pointless, wasteful and perhaps destructive in itself.
Be positive, address the bad guys with harsh words, a bloodied nose, or... shoot them... but make sure you keep things in that order.
the moment the US become "Fortress America" is the day the terrorists and Anti-Americans in general, win. Walls, paranoia ( justified or not ) may keep them out, but they also intimdate and alienate your friends. What kind of welcome is something akin to Checkpoint Charlie ?
Here's a couple of words to give you the willies...
Neo-Macarthyism
Isolationism
Last I looked Prime Minister John Howard was on 'your' side, positively sycophantic actually.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] ( but thats another story ).
Lets also not forget the head at the end of the snake which was responsible for destroying the WTC etc is a spoilt hypochondriac brat, lashing out at the 'Americans' under false pretenses. He has his nose out of joint for losing American military building contracts. He wants a fight, but it's not one based on ideaology for him... its revenge.
Adolf Hitler had one testicle, a huge chip on his shoulder and he rode a horse of German resentment and anger into the Apocalyse of WW2.
Do you want Bin Laden to do the same ?
He's a something Koany to chew on.
"Sharpening you sword in public is to invite a swordfight."
(but no-one says you cant do the same behind closed doors)
If it was me in the Oval office ?
Rebuild Afganistan, spend lashings of money getting them on their collective feet, earning a few browine points with the locals. Make friends and watch the Taliban and the nutters words fall on deaf, or flat out "not evening in the building" ears. Terrorists rely on being able to hide, when few if any people amongst the general public dont support you... everyone is a terrorists enemy and there are no places to hide.
(And just quietly build a largish military base.)
Same with Iraq. Remove Saddam Insane, install a puppet like the US has done in the past, and spend spend spend.... give the general populus something to eat, sleep under etc etc.
"A full belly quells rebellious thoughts."
(And just quietly build a largish military base.)
There is no popular uprising behind a fanatical leader if there is no hungry or discontent populus.
[This message has been edited by shadow boxer (edited 09-02-2002).]
Which I wouldn't mind too much if there were not people in this Country which can't afford College, Health insurance, Deceint housing or even food. Our retire people sometimes have to choose between medicine or food. Before I could see helping and feeding them I think we should help our own first.
Then on top of it we help them and the first thing they do is to turn on us. I spent time in the middle east and it's not all the people who are against Americans just a select few that make it bad for all.
Think about it during the gulf war was it not Kuwait and some of the surrounding countries that asked for our help. When it was over what did we get in return.
Nah, my opinion is that we should do what we need to do to protect ourselves and our Allies. Whatever it takes!!!
Argone
[b]thats Hawkish Sabre rattling Konrad and it makes you sound like you are spoiling for a fight...
[/b][/quote]
You're quick to label me: then you don't explain where I sabre rattled. All I think I did was to do a good job of pointing out some true dangers for Western Cultures.
Also it's funny you should talk about pot holes: About two months ago I sent a letter to the DC Public Works Dept telling them they needed to fix a large and growing pothole on a bridge across the Potomac. Just two days ago I was driving across the 14th street bridge toward washington DC and hit that same now very large pot hole and cracked my headlamp assembly. By your logic we shouldn't even talk about fixing the pot hole until it causes damage even if we have evidence that it's going to and will not repsond to negotiation.
I made it clear the IF AND ONLY IF there is clear evidence that Iraq or any other nation is helping to plan attacks action should be taken.
If you are going to suggest that we just open up and trade with Iraq for humanitarian reason: that will not work. In Somalia we tried to do just that and the war lords used the very grain we sent as aid to control the starving people.
I also think it's intersting that you labeled me in an negative light then spelled out almost the same post action reconstruction plan re-worded.
Sometimes I get the feeling you and Anlashok just like targeting me. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
My reply to Argone would be that it is better to have to spend money rebuilding the lives of some people overseas than spend money rebuilding all of NYC.
Medicine for the elderly is a whole nother topic, but some nasty choices about keeping elderly people like my grandmother alive as vegetables for years on end on thousands of dollars of drugs need to be made.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-02-2002).]
[b]
My reply to Argone would be that it is better to have to spend money rebuilding the lives of some people overseas than spend money rebuilding all of NYC.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-02-2002).][/b][/quote]
I do not agree, For the one simple reason,
WHO do we help there? The Taliban while they were in power. If I went by your theory
Anyone who disagrees with the U. S. we should throw money at. I agree that the problem should be fixed before it gets serious as in the gulf war.
As for the elderly it is the same ballgame. For the reason that money is the problem. Even in this country there is not an endless supply. So we should take care of our own first, even your grandmother with tax dollars that are going overseas.
Think of it, everyday you get that much closer to being in your grandmothers shoes.
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
Argone
BTW: My mother as a result of the experience with her mother has informed me that she is to get no drugs and is a DNR when she turns 70. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] Live life while you've got it. When it's close to over i'm going to try to keep from burdening anyone younger. I fear the babyboomers are going to kill social securtiy and medicare because they want to be imortal and can't imagine that life is and !should be! limited.
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 09-02-2002).]
Seriously, though, speaking for myself, I doubt I'll accept a single social security check, assuming that beast is still alive when I'm old enough to "benefit" from it. I'd much rather be fully responsible for my own welfare than dip into the coffers of the nation (stolen from those who are younger) every time I fall on hard times.
True, the idea is that I pay social security now and get it back later, thus making it "my" money, but if the nation's going to take my money, I'd much rather they put it to good use rather than sitting on it until they can give it back to me. Crappy system, if you ask me.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!
It may sound like I'am a Hawk but when someone comes here and smakes me in the face I damn sure gonna smake back,,, real hard.
Argone
I think whats going on is just mostly empty sabre rattling to get the weapons inspectors back in there..
surgically.. high risk... and finally putting the Seals etc to good use...
and sorry Konrad... I need to read properly then rant... [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
in a nutshell Saddam needs his nuts kicked up round his ears and someone closer to sane enthroned so to speak... and turn Iraq into a US/UN fiefdom.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
edit -
and potholes ? bad metaphor I guess... you have to find the positives and not focus on the negatives... like now your headlight is stuffed and you have written proof of the problem months earlier... SUE for mucho deniro.. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img] You must be able to roll a 'bad back' and 'pain and suffering/psychological trauma ) in there too...
(or why the hell didnt you change lanes ? ) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by shadow boxer (edited 09-04-2002).]
[b]Anyone for that mater: Including Europe and Russia, maybe even our friends down below.[/b][/quote]
Bah. Noone would want to have anything to do with NZ. That'd mean dealing with Winston Peters at some point. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Never eat anything bigger than your own head.[/url]
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-06-2002).]
Anyway.
Re: Nuking NYC - It would not be an ICBM, simply because those ARE very hard to get. It would be one of these "briefcase" bombs, with a relativly low yield. Liberty would still be standing. Still, the effects of such a device would be horrible on the city itself, which is what really matters.
I read yesterday that a hanger they discorvered in iraq right after the gulf war had remote drones in it that would spread biochem all over the place. Nasty toy.
The reason they didn't topple Saddam is simple - they were afraid (and rightly so) that Iran would swoop in and pick up the pieces, and the last thing we wanted was to fight a long term battle against them too. In hindsight, it might have been the better option. None of the Arab countries are going to say "yes, kill him", but not many of them would shed any tears either..he is a radical, and a ruthless dictator.
"Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, heads a clique of determined, powerful hawks, most of them outside the administration - among them James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. The doves argue that an al-Qaeda-Iraq link is improbable, given the sharp ideological differences between Saddam's secular Baathism and Islamic fundamentalism. They also say that claims of Iraqi involvement are being driven by the agenda of the hawks - a group which has for years been seeking to finish the job left undone at the end of the Gulf war in 1991."
The statement of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." comes to mind.
I think an attack on iraq is inevitable at this point, probably a big announcement with all of the itel gathered followed by an immediate cruise missile firing by subs (news can't report sub movement).. Followed by the usual pattern of war now with American tactics. Although one thing that hasn't been reported is the movement of addtional carriers/support ships into the area, or the activation of reservists..so I am guessing the decision is still a little further away.
What would Iran have to gain from foolishly challenging the U.S.? It is just generally understood in the Third World that any nation so foolish, but usually [i]much[/i] less, is blasted to bits and, thereafter, punished. Perhaps certain radical groups in Iran might launch something but something by the government? Though [i]possible[/i], I would regard anyone that tells you that with a fair degree of skepticism.
[Keyan]I think an attack on iraq is inevitable at this point, probably a big announcement with all of the itel gathered followed by an immediate cruise missile firing by subs (news can't report sub movement).. Followed by the usual pattern of war now with American tactics. Although one thing that hasn't been reported is the movement of addtional carriers/support ships into the area, or the activation of reservists..so I am guessing the decision is still a little further away.[/Keyan]
Actually there was just mention today of British and U.S. warships moving for exercises in the Mediterranean...
P.S. There is a statement in this article about America bombing the wrong country but as we have seen, this is not true. Remember that article containing a timeline of pre-911 events I showed you? (Someone else showed us something similar but from [url="http://www.markreport.com"]www.themikereport.com[/url] or something) The U.S. had committed itself to destroying the Taliban ever since the embassy bombings in Kenya, which interrupted negotiations for an oil pipe line through the country. In the article's assessment of connections to the U.S. it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse. This was obviously after he had been indicted for the embassy bombings. There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and IMO not misplaced, that the U.S. massacred its own people. Something that is not unlikely given high ranking U.S. politicians' commitment to their state's social model.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-07-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-07-2002).]
The reason we didn't "go to Bagdad" was because images of dead bodies and destroyed truck columns started comming back. The people of the US were not prepaired for the loss of US and "innocent" Iraqi life that would have come from an Urban Warfare senario. 30% losses would not have been unlikely. Today however, our military technology makes urban warefare a little (but not much) less risky.
[Faylorn]The U.S. had committed itself to destroying the Taliban ever since the embassy bombings in Kenya [/Faylorn]
Yea great: so Clinton shot a few cruise missles at some "training camps" and called it a day. In reality those strikes did nothing to limit Taliban abilities, in fact it only gave them a rally cry.
[Faylorn]it does not mention that a month before 911 Whitehouse reps met with Bin Laden at the Whitehouse.[Faylorn]
What's your source on that?
[Faylorn]There is a strong notion in the Middle East, and [Bold][***]IMO not misplaced[***][/Bold], that the U.S. massacred its own people. Something that is not unlikely given high ranking U.S. politicians' commitment to their state's social model.[Faylorn]
That's right, I the evil voting American had a direct hand in the massacring my friends at the Pentagon, and those in the WTC. What a thing to say. I have a few friends here in the office that would probably like to take you to task on that comment.
Believing that is about as foolish as those who hold the common belief in Saudi Arabia that "all 4,000 Jews working in the WTC took the day off because they knew about the strikes and it's a HUGE Jewish conspiracy."
Everyone is calling the possibility of hitting Iraq a "preemptive war on Iraq." It is simply not true.
Iraq is a defeated nation. We protected the interests of our allies and ourselves (oil) when we pushed the Iraqi military back out of Kuwait. Victors dictate terms. One of the terms for the ending of the war/strikes was that Iraq would stop all production of weapons of mass destruction along with fourteen or so other terms. All but two of which they have broken.
Consider for a moment if Germany after WWII had started up it's heavy water programs again and didn't disarm breaking their promise. Would the allies have gone back in? Yes. Would they have been right to do so? Yes.
[bold]IF[/bold] there is proof that Iraq still has W.O.M.D. it is not a "preemptive strike" it is an enforcement of the rules of surrender.
In real life been there, done that, and those rules don't mean a Damn thing. In War Kill or be Killed, be smarter, quicker, and more Vicious than your enemy. The Victor writes the second part.
Be damned what the rest of the world thinks we're the ones with the targets painted on our asses. Do you think they're following any rules?
What about all the people in the Towers that died from other countries. Were they infidels also?
So lets all talk this to death and when, not IF, Saddam gets nukes. Being the coward he and others like him are he will surely get someone else to do his dirty work.
Then he can also claim that "I had nothing to do with it" We have no ties to terrorists. BS.
Regardless of what would have happened after the fact he should have died the first time!
And maybe if we reduced our need for foreign oil. We would have to worry at all about them killing themselves.
Argone
Although true that attack was a half-assed attempt at ratings it was not [i]the[/i] attempt. If the U.S. decided to do regime change I think it would try a little harder.
[Konrad]What's your source on that?[/Konrad]
[url="http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html"]http://www.narconews.com/goff1.html[/url]
Actually I've just gone over this and it must be another one (concerning the appointment with bin Laden) but it tells how the attack [on Afghanistan] was planned long in advance. I'll look on Zmag.org.
This one's about U.S. oil plans
[url="http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm"]http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm[/url]
I should however rescind the ObL appointment part of my statement -- I'm getting of the mind to adopt a policy of citing references (like Chomsky of which I have read two books) and expect similarly of others. I saw it but for all I know that article has no source to back it up.
Here's a seemingly rantional article fervently against a U.S. conspiracy to kill its own citizens; however, Tanter's hints at an Afghanistan oil conspiracy born of opportunism. I must admit, I find all three articles convincing...
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1909"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1909[/url]
Okay I'm seeing a lot of pro/anti Afghanistan conspiracy theory articles. I'll post them up in my next post. They'll all be from Zmag. I didn't know these existed -- I should have pursued the Afghan Crisis with less distraction. Sorry...
[Konrad]That's right, I the evil voting American had a direct hand in the massacring my friends at the Pentagon, and those in the WTC. What a thing to say. I have a few friends here in the office that would probably like to take you to task on that comment.[/Konrad]
I'm afraid you misunderstand me. It is a well known fact that those elected on the upper political echelons have large campaign [financial] support. Therefore, the U.S. leadership is not the U.S. voter nor even the elected politician, it is the financeers. These financeers are part of a hierarchal business structure which would appear to be connected [in/directly] to North American media (now to the BBC and ITN). At worst the American voter is guilty of moral cowardice -- of denying information contrary to American mythos while refusing to investigate it. Then again, given congruent situations [which (have) definitely exist(ed), so is everyone else on the planet, including myself.
[Konrad]Believing that is about as foolish as those who hold the common belief in Saudi Arabia that "all 4,000 Jews working in the WTC took the day off because they knew about the strikes and it's a HUGE Jewish conspiracy."[/Konrad]
It is regrettable the relationship you imply about a common view and a legitimate theory. I wonder if you would be so inclined to this way of thinking if your position was reciprocated.
One further thing, in addition to the nature of politicians is its corollary among all human beings: revulsion to truth. It is only instinctive to want what feels good and the truth is most often painful given we are only human and always once or twice in our lifetime shamefully transgress in the context of our value system. This is presumably why New Age and Positive Thinking have the popular base they do - they allow one to change value systems when one is too discomforting.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-10-2002).]
[url="http://www.narconews.com/goff1.htm"]http://www.narconews.com/goff1.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm"]http://www.zmag.org/tanteroil.htm[/url]
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1929"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1929[/url]
Anti-Afghanistan conspiracy
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1909"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1909[/url]
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2168"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2168[/url]
Nothing to do with this but interesting all the same
Against war in
Afghanistan:
[url="http://www.zmag.org/laborstatement.htm"]http://www.zmag.org/laborstatement.htm[/url]
Iraq:
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1961"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=1961[/url]
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2077"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=11&ItemID=2077[/url]
[url="http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2174"]http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=2174[/url] <--- THIS ONE'S BY RITTER!!! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/icons/icon14.gif[/img]
Problems with democracy -- government-corporate stone walling:
[i]this does not bode well for the Alliance[/i]
[img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/frown.gif[/img] [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/mad.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-10-2002).]
I feel you have swamped me with sources and information when all I asked for was your source for the Bin Laden Meeting In the White House comment. You didn't produce. This, in my eyes, diminishes your credibility a great deal. I'm waiting for your source, or was it... ...a mis-truth on your part?
In addition I find your comments in the 9/11 thread and link inappropriate it's a simple thread with a simple theme, I don't believe dialogue and discussion is called for in that thread.
As for sources I did provide, I was not trying to swamp you. If it appeared that way I again apologize. As I stated they were only to back up my statements about U.S. plans for oil in Afghanistan.
The above [b]is[/b] sincere.
My reply to Argone was an amendment to his misleading statement. Evidenced by Western peoples' reaction to massacres of peoples in the West and abroad - i.e. WTC and Sudan - is the power of misleading assumptions. Proper education eliminates these assumptions and I shall do my part because, in my opinion, you people benefit.
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-10-2002).]
[url="http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0805-03.htm"]http://commondreams.org/headlines02/0805-03.htm[/url]
Interesting, no? [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
------------------
[url="http://www.zmag.org"][i]Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.[/i][/url]
"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he eats for a life time. But teach a man to BE a fish, and he can eat himself."
--Dennis Miller, Dennis Miller Live
[This message has been edited by Faylorn (edited 09-10-2002).]
That was... unexpected. Three possibilities I can think of:
1) Iraq hasn't been developing WOMD for a while, and wishes to show that.
2) Iraq doesn't want war with the US, and destroyed its WOMD facilities to accomodate the US.
3) Iraq believes its WOMD facilities are so well hidden that no team will find them. Possibly deep underground.
In any case, none of these possibilities excludes the possibility that Iraq was/is involved with terrorist activities against the US and other nations; Iraq could simply be trying to avert an overt war, preferring the clandestine nature of terrorist strikes.
Thoughts?
Good find, Faylorn.
------------------
We are here to place President Grenewetzki under arrest!