(OT) WTC Buildings.

[FORMAT]

wooow... didn't know that he knew before that guy whispered in his hear at that school.

[jamief]

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.

Exactly Bush family nazis financier and ideoligists.
Dont be scared think clearly

http://zyx.org/DEATHSQUAD.htm

[mikemc]

thanks. that may well have made my day.

[robtronik]

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.

That's okay. I'm not expecting you to understand more than you want to.

w/ regard to origins of a group: I know the origins. I know that Hez was formed as a reaction to Isreal occupying Lebanese land after one of the wars, etc.

But, this is where the helpful analysis falls down: The origin of a group has nothing to do with their legitimacy concerning how they fight, who they engage, and under what circumstance. And this is where groups like Hamas, Al Q., and Hez fail. They admittedly have little to no real resources against states who are well equipped and funded and who they consider an enemey.

And so what do they do? They kill the civilians of said enemy country in protest.

Shake that tree anyway you like, but it comes out wrong in my book.

Look, Ghandi was living under hugely oppressive British regime. What tact did he take?

Exactly. Justify all you want about these groups, but they are wrong, their ideologies are wrong, and they way they intend to rule their people is wrong.

rob.

[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.

I can't help but respond:
1) Saddam: The past 30 years of Iraq evolving into an enemy of the U.S. is well documented. Go research it. You do yourself a big disservice to your arguments by making arguments that aren't grounded in fact and current realities.

2) Fabricate evidence? You mean the intelligence reports that were widely distributed and reviewed by many western nations and agreed upon as valid? Quite the conspiracy there. Again, it is completely valid to say the administration became overly aggressive trying to prove their case why Saddam was a threat with WMD's in the immediate sense, but that still doesn't remove his violations of U.N. security council resolutions, and the fact that he had them and used them already. He also had the opportunity to produce proof that he had rid his country of them as required by the U.N. Security council and he did not. What happened to Saddam lays securely on his shoulders.
Lie? No. Mistaken at this point, yes. Two entirely different things and reveal very different motivations. But it is apparent that you have one lense you are seeing this through, so I certainly don't expect you to agree.

BTW- you are dangerously close to invalidating the entire discussion by invoking the comparison of Nazi Germany to the U.S. LOL.

3) I like how you think it is more important to have stability and maintenance of the status quo than it is to struggle for freedom and representative government. Hey, just leave that fascist, terrorist supporting regime in place because it keeps HEROIN production at bay! Wow, that's quite the principled approach.

In fact, it is dangerously close to the mindset that got us in trouble supporting regimes during the last 100 years that supplied us with Oil. Don't rock the boat! The oil is flowing in our direction, you know!

I'm not sure what idealistic vision you have where creating a democracy is without penalty, sacrifice, and hardship. But which is worse? A self determined hardship or one that is imposed, without choice, by a dictator?

I'm curious as to why you would even stick up for the Taliban? What principles of government, protection of the people's rights, women's suffrage, civil rights, freedom of religion, and right to protest do you think was outstanding versus the rest of the world?

This is the problem with moral relativism at its extreme, btw. It clouds your judgement for determining what principles are right and wrong.

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.

this is so wrong on so many levels that I don't know where to start. We have disagreements with Venezeala, Castro's Cuba, France, Germany, Turkey, hell even the main $$$ sponsor of terrorism, Saudi Arabia and do we label these countries or their leaders as terrorists? NO.

And, secondly, I'd be curious as to why you would not want to label those who have killed citizens as a matter of policy rather than targeting military or infrastructure targets in a fight as terrorists? That's what Hamas and Hez and Al Q. DO. They kill citizens as a matter of policy in their fight. That's terrorism.

With regard to Iran: There is a big thread here on Iran that I started a few weeks back. Go read it by searching. Then go read the recent statements by Iranians President and think about what he is saying directly.

I don't need to bring up any more proof than what the President of Iran is saying today about their nuclear capability. The words "it will be too late" come to mind when Iran's president remarks about Western countries need to capitulate to their demands in light of the Nuclear efforts going to sanctions... Yes, sounds very benign to me.

And again, no one has decided to attack. We can beat Iran by sanctions and letting them pull their own trigger. It will happen. Watch. Besides, Iran is no Iraq. The strategy for not allowing them nuclear capability is going to be executed much differently than how Saddam was removed....

Watch.

With regard to the U.S. Supporting Terrorism groups as a matter of policy in South America etc. in past administrations: YES. This is why I support Bush in this regard. He's stopped that line of demarcation and has decidely changed our policy to not support these groups, talks and acts in ways that support the growth of democracies, and is committed to the idea that people should be supported in their quest to be free.

Yes, and you will bring up Guantanamo, etc. as though that invalidates our current foreign policy. I will respectfully disagree, and so on, and so on...

.02 and all that,

rob.

[mikemc]

fwiw, my last $0.02 to this:

it is not about pro/anti this or that given whatever regional conflicts, and it really isn't about whatever administration that we'll ride out another x months of.

the ongoing stablization of the world will take decades, population increases all the while, energy powers agriculture. we can't afford to elect any more jugheaded idiots anywhere.

[robtronik]

fwiw, my last $0.02 to this:

it is not about pro/anti this or that given whatever regional conflicts, and it really isn't about whatever administration that we'll ride out another x months of.

the ongoing stablization of the world will take decades, population increases all the while, energy powers agriculture. we can't afford to elect any more jugheaded idiots anywhere.

I agree with that!

rob.

[fr0st003]

You guys are really gullible if you believe this crap.

1) Mormons and Evangelicals have strongly different views. The presenter was a mormon from a mormon school. Soo anything he says is gonna be strongly biased against the current goverment.

2) I have no clue where he recieve his degree, but some of the stuff he is saying is just plan nonsense. Nor does a degree in physics make him knowligable on structural engineering. I im still in school here in NYC working on a a electrical engineering degree and can easily disprove "some" of his claims. Anyone who has been to Utah will have some idea how skewed their views really are.

3) Bush is a idiot, his organisation is full of idiots and i do not support the war in Irag. But to believe these twits is just as wrong. What happened here in NY was terrible and should never be forgotten but seeking politcal gain through fall accusations just saddens me more with this country and people trying to seek power in the office. Though im sure the people that are in the office now would make equally false accusations.

[Sales Dude McBoob]

You guys are really gullible if you believe this crap.

1) Mormons and Evangelicals have strongly different views. The presenter was a mormon from a mormon school. Soo anything he says is gonna be strongly biased against the current goverment.

2) I have no clue where he recieve his degree, but some of the stuff he is saying is just plan nonsense. Nor does a degree in physics make him knowligable on structural engineering. I im still in school here in NYC working on a a electrical engineering degree and can easily disprove "some" of his claims. Anyone who has been to Utah will have some idea how skewed their views really are.

3) Bush is a idiot, his organisation is full of idiots and i do not support the war in Irag. But to believe these twits is just as wrong. What happened here in NY was terrible and should never be forgotten but seeking politcal gain through fall accusations just saddens me more with this country and people trying to seek power in the office. Though im sure the people that are in the office now would make equally false accusations.

I'm from New Mexico... land o' millions o' mormons. For the most part they are very intelligent, down to earth people. It's just their religious views that are wacky. I also don't think of mormons as being biased against Bush. The term "Liberal Left Leaning Mormon" is pretty alien sounding to me.

The physicist in the video doesn't strike me a radical conspiracy theorist. He just seems like an intelligent guy who wanted to make some statements about scientific discrepancies and then get the fuck off the stage.

[dj superflat]

i love the notion that you could keep any conspiracy quiet in the US. they did such a good job of keeping quiet the CIA airline, the NSA monitoring of communications, joe wilson's trip to africa, etc., that i'm not at all surprised that an administration (run by idiots and morons, to boot) could keep quiet such a vast conspiracy to kill thousands of americans. i guess all the reporters from (e.g.) the times and the post have been giving the administration a pass on this one because, deep down, they really have the administration's interests at heart.

[eyeknow]

You guys are really gullible if you believe this crap.

1) Mormons and Evangelicals have strongly different views. The presenter was a mormon from a mormon school. Soo anything he says is gonna be strongly biased against the current goverment.

2) I have no clue where he recieve his degree, but some of the stuff he is saying is just plan nonsense. Nor does a degree in physics make him knowligable on structural engineering. I im still in school here in NYC working on a a electrical engineering degree and can easily disprove "some" of his claims. Anyone who has been to Utah will have some idea how skewed their views really are.

3) Bush is a idiot, his organisation is full of idiots and i do not support the war in Irag. But to believe these twits is just as wrong. What happened here in NY was terrible and should never be forgotten but seeking politcal gain through fall accusations just saddens me more with this country and people trying to seek power in the office. Though im sure the people that are in the office now would make equally false accusations.

good job on your first post

[knotkranky]

Ok, so what do we do ? How can anyone or group for that matter, make sure this scale of government corruption never hurts us again? If many of the conspiracies are true, (and the facts are plenty) what line of action should be taken to be absolutely effective in fixing this problem? What would you do and why?

.

What do you mean? Are you asking what we as the American people could do if somehow the government was involved? Plenty. No way of knowing whether it would work or not, but the police have Internal Affairs to take care of corruption. I'm not saying this would work 100%, but it's a start, some sort of independent watchdog group with total access to the government and total loyalty to the ethics of the constitution. We simply do not have that now.
In the case of Iraq, total capitulation to the UN, basically hand over Iraq to the rest of the world, accept our financial losses there as a result of a bad decision, and of course throw large military support into the operation.
In the case of the middle east, make it very clear that we will not deal with any country that is run by a dictator, especially those that the public themselves despise. This would have included Suadi Arabia, and Iran with the sha.
in the case of countries with democratically elected leaders we are at odds with, like Iran now, we go into serious talks with them, we actually try to find a way to deal with them. We really blew our chance with them by not talking to the last guy Iran had, he was a real moderate yet we treated him like an enemy, while bedding with the Kingdom of Suadi Arabia... Doesn't say dick about our love of democracy does it?

Work with countries that have the possibility of actual change, and categorically break ties with all dictators and military governments. This includes countries with socialist leaders who were VOTED IN. The only way we can prove that we give a shit about the well being of other countries besides our own is to start proving that we do.
basically restructure our foreign policy to actually be about spreading democracy, instead of making alliances based on the almighty dollar.

Well, I'm not sure What I mean. I'm just frustrated. For one thing, we have facts of bold face lies and spin for war from an in your face, you can't touch us, corrupt administration. If we can't make them accountable for that, what can we possibly do with the theories. I feel as if all this wtc hyperbole is dulling the facts of how this disaster was allowed to be and how the war was stoked with it. Ok, maybe the enormous weight of all the facts and conspiracy theories is more helpful in pulling the corrupt elements down for a while. It's certainly fun. But I feel we're losing the point of the spear. Wow, no WMD's? Hell, they weren't just wrong about that, they made that shit up! It wasn't an error, it was a fabrication!!! I mean, WOW!!! How about the fact that bush showed our cards militarily and emboldened countries that are a much much bigger threat. We are much less a superpower than we have ever been. Dangerous countries with "real" threats cannot be politically managed so well now. N. Korea, Iran, Syria and their ilk flip us the bird on a daily bases. Their feeling pretty strong these days. Bush is responsible and has weakened us in that regard and many others. And to think we still have more than 2 years left with this A-hole.

The heart of the problem? For me the world isn't divided by lines and boarders. A true world map would show the corporate earthscape. World Banks draw the biggest boarders on this planet. The U.S. colludes with all manner of shady governments around the world for cheap labor and resources. Rent the documentary "The Corporation". Bush is powerful because he helps corporations become more powerful and remember that the media are in the same biz. By this token, it is obvious how well his administration is insulated from moral judgment and accountability. WMD = Weapons of Mass Deception. How many should die to save how many lives?

.

[glu]

Look, Ghandi was living under hugely oppressive British regime. What tact did he take?

exactly,

"what would Ghandi do"

I don't think our war in the middle east reinforces that philosophy.

[Sales Dude McBoob]

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

Audio nerd observation: Bush's phone has an XLR output. Mackie Universal Phonetroller?

[Machinesworking]

Well, I'm not sure What I mean. I'm just frustrated. For one thing, we have facts of bold face lies and spin for war from an in your face, you can't touch us, corrupt administration. If we can't make them accountable for that, what can we possibly do with the theories. I feel as if all this wtc hyperbole is dulling the facts of how this disaster was allowed to be and how the war was stoked with it.

But I feel we're losing the point of the spear. Wow, no WMD's? Hell, they weren't just wrong about that, they made that shit up! It wasn't an error, it was a fabrication!!! I mean, WOW!!! How about the fact that bush showed our cards militarily and emboldened countries that are a much much bigger threat.

I'm with you on the frustrated part.

The thing that makes it difficult is people take this shit too far. You have people on the left saying that the government obviously did it, and there simply isn't enough proof of that to say that IMO.

you have people on the right saying nothing unusual happened that day, and there is plenty of proof that many things happened that make no sense.......

Who pulled building 7? Firemen with explosives because the fire was out of control? Never heard of that ever, it's just weird.

Most of the Air Force was doing some sort of war game that prevented them from intercepting the planes, and air traffic control lost the planes several times... both unusual events at the exact time of the greatest need for protection.

Why would Bin Ladin deny that he was responsible for 911? He certainly didn't shy away from saying that any US citizen is the enemy, that we are all responsible for our countries actions against his people, and that we are all enemies of islam and worthy of death. Why would somebody who years earlier declared war on the US people as well as government claim he wasn't responsible for his greatest "victory"?

Why was it so important to us to go into Iraq when it's a well known fact that fundamentalist muslims (the terrorists that attacked out country) and Saddam were pretty much sworn enemies? Why was it so important that we went against the UN, (read that as the rest of the planet), and alienated most of europe?
Like you said, they found no WMD to speak of, and Al Q didn't arrive until after we showed up....

Personally I don't know what I think about it, except I have a suspicion that somebody in our government knew something was going down, and figured we needed a wake up call. If you've never read Machiavelli, then you should. I think it's essential reading for any political science class, or it should be. He basically states that it's sometimes called upon of great men to do evil in order to further their cause. Makes me wonder what exactly happened, the official story is too buggy... though my feelings are that it's NEVER coming out if there were people who knew, so all we can do is look at eh facts, that's all.