(OT) WTC Buildings.

[deva]

Who planned the anthrax attacks? Why did the anthrax get sent only to the democratic senators who were questioning the Patriot Act, and to the media? Isn't it odd that the anthrax letters went to Congress at just the right time to shut it down when the Patriot Act was to be voted on? Same with the Supreme Court. The anthrax used was from a top secret US facility. (Ft. Detrick).

When was this concluded? I know they had some guy from that facility under investigation, but not that the anthrax had been traced to there. I seem to recall that it was not adequately 'weaponized' in the way that it would be if it were not crudely manufactured. [edit] that sentence barely made sense... let me try again.... what I recall reading is that if it were actually the real militarized germ, it would have been processed to be more effective, that it would have been picked up and dispersed more rapidly by the ventilation system.

It was, if I remember correctly, 1 trillion spores per gram. The most highly weaponized anthrax ever seen. No country but the US, and possibly Russia, though not likely could make anthrax that 'weaponized'. But that is not the deciding factor. Anthrax has different strains. The strain used matches the type used by the US in its weapons programs. There is no doubt that it came from a secret US lab. It is most likely Ft. Detrick. There is one other US lab which I do not remember the name of that it possibly came from but that is not likely.

One thing that was lost in the upheaval of the moment. Congress did not know that the government was making such weaponized anthrax. In fact, under US law and International treaty signed by the US, it was illegal for the US to be making this weaponized anthrax. Anthrax is allowed to be kept in small quantities for research in providing defense against it, but not in such weaponized form. That is illegal.

So an illegal US weapon was used to target US citizens.

So who stole that Anthrax? Who used it so effectively to push the adminstrations agenda, pushing the Patriot Act through before Congress could even read it?

And of course the 350+ page Patriot Act could not possibly have been written in the week following the 9/11 attacks. It was waiting in the wings, ready to go. hmmm

[deva]

until one realizes that he was directly speaking to the idea that in a post 9/11 we cannot let rulers like Saddam, who are sworn and motivated enemies of the U.S., be allowed to run amok with regard to U.N. resolutions and the ability to harbor and create WMD's.

Saddam was not a sworn enemy of the U.S. He was a US ally/vassal for many years. He did not turn against the U.S. The U.S. turned against him when it became politically expedient. Saddam was an enemy of the Islamic fundamentalism you so despise. He was no threat to the U.S.

I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.

Yes, our new policy is fabricate evidence of why a country is a threat and then attack it for our own aims. Germany claimed self defense when it invaded Poland. Poland was a terrible threat to Germany.

Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed.

Terrorism? The U.S. defines terrorism as any act by someone that resists US dominance. That would be every country in the world that is not our vassal.

Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office, but that day changed everything with regard to our strategy towards countries and guys like him. Exit Taliban for the same reason.

Well the Taliban is again arising in Afghanistan. And the country was better off then, than the chaotic warlordism present now. One of the big reasons the Taliban had to be gotten rid of is because they stopped the growing and producing of heroin. Now Afghansitan is once again producing 50% of world supply. Hey, isn't commerce good!

If Iran isn't smart, it may find itself in the same delimma with its nuclear ambitions as well as it support of Hez and other terrorist organizations. Already the U.N. security council has recommended sanctions unanimously if Iran doesn't comply. It only goes down hill for them if they don't change their strategy...

Pretty clear to me.

rob.

The U.S. has demonstrated 0 evidence of Iranian nuclear capability. It does not matter. Iran knows that it does not matter if the agree or disagree. The U.S. has already decided to attack, just like it did with Iraq.

As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.

Want to talk about terrorism?

The U.S. has as rich a history of supporting dictators and squashing democratic tendencies. Another September 11th in 1973 comes to mind when the U.S. backed the brutal dictator Pinochet to overthrow Allende. It took the people of Chile 17 years to get rid of the guy. And of course Saddam was our buddy during the time he used the mustard gas we so decry now. The U.S. do not make a peep at the time, though it was known.

Suharto, Somoza, Noriega, Duvalier, Marcos, Batista, and a long long list of others. Many installed with US backing. Many trained at the US School of the Americas in techniques of terror, torture and counterinsurgency. In the past 5 years, the US has twice supported the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected President of Venezuela.

South America is just getting itself free of the clutches of the U.S. The U.S. is doing its best to put down the inspiring uprising of participatory democracy that is sweeping the continent.

The United States is the greatest threat currently existing to long term human civilization.

[deva]

btw... online CNN poll asks "Do you believe alternative theories for the September 11, 2001, attacks are credible?"

So far 71% of 10,000 respondents say yes.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08/06 ... index.html

[robtronik]

until one realizes that he was directly speaking to the idea that in a post 9/11 we cannot let rulers like Saddam, who are sworn and motivated enemies of the U.S., be allowed to run amok with regard to U.N. resolutions and the ability to harbor and create WMD's.

Saddam was not a sworn enemy of the U.S. He was a US ally/vassal for many years. He did not turn against the U.S. The U.S. turned against him when it became politically expedient. Saddam was an enemy of the Islamic fundamentalism you so despise. He was no threat to the U.S.

I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.

Yes, our new policy is fabricate evidence of why a country is a threat and then attack it for our own aims. Germany claimed self defense when it invaded Poland. Poland was a terrible threat to Germany.

Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed.

Terrorism? The U.S. defines terrorism as any act by someone that resists US dominance. That would be every country in the world that is not our vassal.

Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office, but that day changed everything with regard to our strategy towards countries and guys like him. Exit Taliban for the same reason.

Well the Taliban is again arising in Afghanistan. And the country was better off then, than the chaotic warlordism present now. One of the big reasons the Taliban had to be gotten rid of is because they stopped the growing and producing of heroin. Now Afghansitan is once again producing 50% of world supply. Hey, isn't commerce good!

If Iran isn't smart, it may find itself in the same delimma with its nuclear ambitions as well as it support of Hez and other terrorist organizations. Already the U.N. security council has recommended sanctions unanimously if Iran doesn't comply. It only goes down hill for them if they don't change their strategy...

Pretty clear to me.

rob.

The U.S. has demonstrated 0 evidence of Iranian nuclear capability. It does not matter. Iran knows that it does not matter if the agree or disagree. The U.S. has already decided to attack, just like it did with Iraq.

As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.

Want to talk about terrorism?

The U.S. has as rich a history of supporting dictators and squashing democratic tendencies. Another September 11th in 1973 comes to mind when the U.S. backed the brutal dictator Pinochet to overthrow Allende. It took the people of Chile 17 years to get rid of the guy. And of course Saddam was our buddy during the time he used the mustard gas we so decry now. The U.S. do not make a peep at the time, though it was known.

Suharto, Somoza, Noriega, Duvalier, Marcos, Batista, and a long long list of others. Many installed with US backing. Many trained at the US School of the Americas in techniques of terror, torture and counterinsurgency. In the past 5 years, the US has twice supported the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected President of Venezuela.

South America is just getting itself free of the clutches of the U.S. The U.S. is doing its best to put down the inspiring uprising of participatory democracy that is sweeping the continent.

The United States is the greatest threat currently existing to long term human civilization.

It'd be nice to debate, but the fact that your last sentence openly acknowledges that you are off the deep end.

Your hatred runs deep, young jedi. LOL.

As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.

But that above quote is too rich. You realize that Hez is a terrorist organization that kills civilians, and has done so for years, in further their political agenda.

You may, in your mind, call that legitimate, but I call that crazy. You might want to recheck your arguments - or maybe move to Cuba while castro is still alive where you can find comfort there. I'm of the belief that you can't accept anything that might support a U.S. position.

That's too bad.

We have awesome malls here. You should try shopping sometime. LOL.

rob.

[hoffman2k]

until one realizes that he was directly speaking to the idea that in a post 9/11 we cannot let rulers like Saddam, who are sworn and motivated enemies of the U.S., be allowed to run amok with regard to U.N. resolutions and the ability to harbor and create WMD's.

Saddam was not a sworn enemy of the U.S. He was a US ally/vassal for many years. He did not turn against the U.S. The U.S. turned against him when it became politically expedient. Saddam was an enemy of the Islamic fundamentalism you so despise. He was no threat to the U.S.

I don't consider that manipulation, I consider it a clear statement on our new policy with regard to enemy states who have motivation to support, utlize, and harbor WMDs with the intent of using them.

Yes, our new policy is fabricate evidence of why a country is a threat and then attack it for our own aims. Germany claimed self defense when it invaded Poland. Poland was a terrible threat to Germany.

Add terrorism to that mix and you've got the reason why he was removed.

Terrorism? The U.S. defines terrorism as any act by someone that resists US dominance. That would be every country in the world that is not our vassal.

Obviously if 9/11 hadn't occured, Saddam would probably still be in office, but that day changed everything with regard to our strategy towards countries and guys like him. Exit Taliban for the same reason.

Well the Taliban is again arising in Afghanistan. And the country was better off then, than the chaotic warlordism present now. One of the big reasons the Taliban had to be gotten rid of is because they stopped the growing and producing of heroin. Now Afghansitan is once again producing 50% of world supply. Hey, isn't commerce good!

If Iran isn't smart, it may find itself in the same delimma with its nuclear ambitions as well as it support of Hez and other terrorist organizations. Already the U.N. security council has recommended sanctions unanimously if Iran doesn't comply. It only goes down hill for them if they don't change their strategy...

Pretty clear to me.

rob.

The U.S. has demonstrated 0 evidence of Iranian nuclear capability. It does not matter. Iran knows that it does not matter if the agree or disagree. The U.S. has already decided to attack, just like it did with Iraq.

As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.

Want to talk about terrorism?

The U.S. has as rich a history of supporting dictators and squashing democratic tendencies. Another September 11th in 1973 comes to mind when the U.S. backed the brutal dictator Pinochet to overthrow Allende. It took the people of Chile 17 years to get rid of the guy. And of course Saddam was our buddy during the time he used the mustard gas we so decry now. The U.S. do not make a peep at the time, though it was known.

Suharto, Somoza, Noriega, Duvalier, Marcos, Batista, and a long long list of others. Many installed with US backing. Many trained at the US School of the Americas in techniques of terror, torture and counterinsurgency. In the past 5 years, the US has twice supported the attempted overthrow of the democratically elected President of Venezuela.

South America is just getting itself free of the clutches of the U.S. The U.S. is doing its best to put down the inspiring uprising of participatory democracy that is sweeping the continent.

The United States is the greatest threat currently existing to long term human civilization.

It'd be nice to debate, but the fact that your last sentence openly acknowledges that you are off the deep end.

Your hatred runs deep, young jedi. LOL.

As for Hezbollah. It is a political party, and according to international law, a legitimate resistance organization. We only call it a terrorist organization because it stands in opposition to U.S. wishes. Same with Hamas.

But that above quote is too rich. You realize that Hez is a terrorist organization that kills civilians, and has done so for years, in further their political agenda.

You may, in your mind, call that legitimate, but I call that crazy. You might want to recheck your arguments - or maybe move to Cuba while castro is still alive where you can find comfort there. I'm of the belief that you can't accept anything that might support a U.S. position.

That's too bad.

We have awesome malls here. You should try shopping sometime. LOL.

rob.

The real problem is that YOU see 1 america. While most of us see 2 americas.
You want the color coded map of the us? Red and blue states......

The one side is the ignorant bunch of americans who think the whole world is against them. (thats were they get new soldiers )

The other side is the bunch of americans who are going "What the fuck is going on here?"

Take Jon Stewart for example. He knows very well whats going on.
Thats the America i see.... Satirical by nature. But intelligent around the coastal parts.
Then you have Bill O'Reilly taking the other side. Thats just plain old fear mongering what he does.

I don't need a university degree in psychology to tell me that more then half of your country is being brainwashed by constant reminders of terrorism.
Damn, turn on fox new or Cnn now. I bet they're talking about terrorism or war.
Either that or they're doing a special on werewolf boy again...

Hezbollah....Yeah, they sure look bad when compaired to the democracy fairy....

I know i'm out of my league in these topics. But it always amazes me that people who are seemingly smarter then me, can say such ignorant stuff.

My advice. Watch more "fake" news. You'll actually have an idea....
I bet more people watch stewart/colbert outside the states then in them.

[mosca]

this thread is just full of people saying 'i know more than you'

it's all just talk on the internet, as i asked before - what are any of you 'whiners' actually doing about the situation?

bush is still in the white house

[eyeknow]

please, in a couple of years we'll have a new president......then you can rip on them...........

[eyeknow]

forget it, nobody gives a

[eyeknow]

BOOO creepy conspiracy theorists.......





hooray beer!

[hoffman2k]

[eyeknow]

from now on, must post photo on this thread.....

[djarum]

hey, folks .

here's a clip with Steven Earl Jones - a professor of physics at Brigham Young University . no tinfoil hats or dodgy music in this clip haha...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... en+e+jones

common sense , anyone?

[Meef Chaloin]

rob,
with all respect due.why do you always back our current administration?dont you know how corrupt and immoral they are.you seem like a pretty intelligent guy,but i think you have been listening to a little too much of michael savage.the people in office now are not good people.they are the biggest terrorists on this planet and they will pay.oh yes they will pay.

Frankly speaking, because I support Bush's foreign policy direction. I also think he is a decent man despite what many think of him (as far as politicians go).

Secondly, all I ever hear as an alternative to countering terrorism in the middle east are exactly the things that helped create it over the last 30 to 40 years. So, frankly speaking, removing Saddam, the Taliban, calling out Iran, supporting Isreal, trying to put a democracy in place in Iraq and downplaying our support for Saudi Arabia are an acceptable alternative to me based on what has been attempted in the past.

Hamas, Hez, Al Q., despite support in the middle east, need to be fought like we fought other fascist dictators in past wars. They espouse an ideology that is not acceptable to me - and many others like me who support liberalism (not in the partisan sense), democracy, and freedom of religon, press, thought, and expression amongst other things.

There are things I disagree with Bush about of course. But with regard to our general direction, I want it to succeed. Do I wish it could be executed better? Of course, but that does nothing to waver my support for putting ourselves in the middle east in the manner we have to change the terms and the field over there.

so, there you have it.

.02 and all that,

rob.

scary scary post.
"Hamas, Hez, Al Q., despite support in the middle east, need to be fought like we fought other fascist dictators in past wars." you seem to be forgetting the origins of these groups. At least two of those groups were founded with american money for american interests, Do you know much about Al Q? how they were set up by the CIA to combat the russians as freedom fighters?

There's also the small matter of many of the 'terrorists' being found alive, some have even been interviewed on BBC tv.

'a decent man'. Prescott Bush was involved with massively funding the nazis, a business he was involved with was even closed down under the trading with the enemy act. He was also very clever during the depression & made a lot of money when most people were in poverty. George Bush...where do you start.... strongly involved with the Bay of Pigs invasion, heavily involved with the darker side of the CIA, JFK shooting, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran contra, drug running all over the world. Oh and an assasination attempt on Reagan that nearly put him in to power early. Then little Georgie, well to be honest i think he's too thick to do anything at all. I find it amazing that americans think nothing of having a president who has family history like this.

And what about this photo



How is that explained?

I respect that you have a different opinion and political view point but i dont understand it in the slightest.

[FORMAT]

rob,
with all respect due.why do you always back our current administration?dont you know how corrupt and immoral they are.you seem like a pretty intelligent guy,but i think you have been listening to a little too much of michael savage.the people in office now are not good people.they are the biggest terrorists on this planet and they will pay.oh yes they will pay.

Frankly speaking, because I support Bush's foreign policy direction. I also think he is a decent man despite what many think of him (as far as politicians go).

Secondly, all I ever hear as an alternative to countering terrorism in the middle east are exactly the things that helped create it over the last 30 to 40 years. So, frankly speaking, removing Saddam, the Taliban, calling out Iran, supporting Isreal, trying to put a democracy in place in Iraq and downplaying our support for Saudi Arabia are an acceptable alternative to me based on what has been attempted in the past.

Hamas, Hez, Al Q., despite support in the middle east, need to be fought like we fought other fascist dictators in past wars. They espouse an ideology that is not acceptable to me - and many others like me who support liberalism (not in the partisan sense), democracy, and freedom of religon, press, thought, and expression amongst other things.

There are things I disagree with Bush about of course. But with regard to our general direction, I want it to succeed. Do I wish it could be executed better? Of course, but that does nothing to waver my support for putting ourselves in the middle east in the manner we have to change the terms and the field over there.

so, there you have it.

.02 and all that,

rob.

scary scary post.
"Hamas, Hez, Al Q., despite support in the middle east, need to be fought like we fought other fascist dictators in past wars." you seem to be forgetting the origins of these groups. At least two of those groups were founded with american money for american interests, Do you know much about Al Q? how they were set up by the CIA to combat the russians as freedom fighters?

There's also the small matter of many of the 'terrorists' being found alive, some have even been interviewed on BBC tv.

'a decent man'. Prescott Bush was involved with massively funding the nazis, a business he was involved with was even closed down under the trading with the enemy act. He was also very clever during the depression & made a lot of money when most people were in poverty. George Bush...where do you start.... strongly involved with the Bay of Pigs invasion, heavily involved with the darker side of the CIA, JFK shooting, Vietnam, Iraq, Iran contra, drug running all over the world. Oh and an assasination attempt on Reagan that nearly put him in to power early. Then little Georgie, well to be honest i think he's too thick to do anything at all. I find it amazing that americans think nothing of having a president who has family history like this.

And what about this photo



How is that explained?

I respect that you have a different opinion and political view point but i dont understand it in the slightest.

Where did you get that pic from? Who can explain????

[Meef Chaloin]

Where did you get that pic from? Who can explain????

its just from google pictures, its a famous shot of the president seeing the first plane hit (before he goes in to the school & makes a tit of himself)

there is also this one