Bush Bashing

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Why don't we stick to the topic and bash Bush instead of each other?????????????????

I'd rather not bash Bush.

[Unwired]

Because to some people, this is more fun. Indeed, it is my opinion that this is the only reason for some people to exist on these forums.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Unwired:
Because to some people, this is more fun. Indeed, it is my opinion that this is the only reason for some people to exist on these forums.

Funny thing is in real life, we'd all probably get along famously.

[Unwired]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Unwired:
You're unable to back up your assertion, Kirk.

At this point i don't know if you are going back to PJ's original assertion or a subsequent one about your pal. I'd rather keep it on the topic rather than discuss other posters here if at all possible which is the mistake I made in defending PJ against an unfair personal attack. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The assertion I twice asked you to back up, Kirk. And your statement about not wanting to discuss other posters here is- well, an almost laughable piece of self-contradiction. Thanks for that. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Of course, every argument you have is valid Bob. Still, do not come to me with all those "what ifs" They make me sick.
The purpose of the 9/11 false flag was to enrage the American citizens so they would support the (by all international standards) illegal wars Bush was planning. Why ask me, are you not intelligent enough to figure it out?
Always after an attack, ask QUI BONO?
Who profits from it? Did Al Queda profit from it? Not at all! And do you realy believe that a bunch of Arabs are clever enough to pull such a stunt? Explosives brought the towers down, not jet fuel. Read ALL the evidence on all the 9/11 sites before you "believe" anything.
QUI BONO?

Well, asides from being condescending to Arabs (not being clever enough...) how do you explain al Qaeda's crowing about pulling off the attacks? And it's not just UBL and his flunky...it's just about every imam in Islam. As well as all those Palestinians who were dancing in the streets after the attacks...we should cut our funding of those people...maybe UBL would feed them, not that he gives a crap about them anyway. Of course, with Arafat's being dead now maybe some of the money is making it into Palestinian peoples' hands and not into Arafat's Swiss bank accounts. And how do your group of scientists explain all the eyewitnesses to the plane going into the Pentagon? How do they explain the cabdriver (waiting for a rider to show up at the Pentagon) whose cab was badly damaged...and his close call with death...when the plane knocked a light pole over onto the cab. How do they explain the video footage from the parking lot camera showing the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters on Interstate 95 who witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain all the office workers in both DC and Arlington who happened to be looking out their office windows at the Pentagon? Or those on the concourse of Pentagon City mall? Guess their crackpot theories can't cover that? Or was it psychotronic drugs that caused mass hallucination?

Oh, took your advice and ran a google search...

How did the Twin Towers fall?
1. Impact from the Terrorist Planes
When Boeing jets piloted by terrorists struck the Twin Towers, some 10,000 gallons (38 kiloliters) of jet fuel fed an enormous fireball. But, the impact of the planes and the burst of flames did not make the Towers collapse right away. Like most buildings, the Twin Towers had redundant design. The term redundant design means that when one system fails, another carries the load. Each of the Twin Towers had 244 columns around a central core that housed the elevators, stairwells, mechanical systems, and utilities. When some columns were damaged, others could still support the building.

2. Heat from the Fires
The sprinkler system was damaged by the impact of the planes. But even if the sprinklers had been working, they could not have maintained enough pressure to stop the fire. Fed by the remaining jet fuel, the heat became intense. Most fires don't get hotter than 900 to 1,100 degrees F. The World Trade Center fire may have reached 1,300 or 1,400 degrees F. Structural steel does not easily melt, but it will lose about half its strength at 1,200 degrees F. The steel structure of the Twin Towers was weakened by the extreme heat. The steel also became distorted because the heat was not a uniform temperature.

3. Collapsing Floors
Most fires start in one area and then spread. The fire from the terrorist planes covered the area of an entire floor almost instantly. As the weakened floors began to collapse, they crashed into the floors below. With the weight of the plunging floors accelerating, the exterior walls buckled.
Why did the collapsed towers look so flat?
Before the terrorist attack, the Twin Towers were 110 stories tall. Constructed of lightweight steel around a central core, they were about 95% air. After they collapsed, the hollow core was gone. The remaining rubble was only a few stories high.
Could the World Trade Center have been made stronger?
In a report produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations, experts concluded that no skyscraper could have withstood the impact of the terrorist airplanes. Further, the experts warned that it would not be "technically feasible" to design a building that could survive this type of terrorist attack. Instead, engineers and architects are suggesting that we focus our efforts on designing better warning and evacuation systems so that we can save more people inside the buildings.

By the way, I know of this fact: the bottom third of at least one of the towers had it's columns covered in asbestos...which would have raised the temperature needed to damage said columns to a temperature over that of the burning jet fuel.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Well, asides from being condescending to Arabs (not being clever enough...) how do you explain al Qaeda's crowing about pulling off the attacks? And it's not just UBL and his flunky...it's just about every imam in Islam. As well as all those Palestinians who were dancing in the streets after the attacks...we should cut our funding of those people...maybe UBL would feed them, not that he gives a crap about them anyway. Of course, with Arafat's being dead now maybe some of the money is making it into Palestinian peoples' hands and not into Arafat's Swiss bank accounts. And how do your group of scientists explain all the eyewitnesses to the plane going into the Pentagon? How do they explain the cabdriver (waiting for a rider to show up at the Pentagon) whose cab was badly damaged...and his close call with death...when the plane knocked a light pole over onto the cab. How do they explain the video footage from the parking lot camera showing the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters on Interstate 95 who witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain all the office workers in both DC and Arlington who happened to be looking out their office windows at the Pentagon? Or those on the concourse of Pentagon City mall? Guess their crackpot theories can't cover that? Or was it psychotronic drugs that caused mass hallucination?



You are really wasting your time here, G. Every piece of the puzzle that does not fit the conspiracy theory gets explained away. The theory dominates all facts and cannot be defeated. Useless to argue with conspiracy theorists I'm afraid.

[Captain Zen]

This is how Bush brings "Freedom" to Iraq

U.S. troops bomb Tel Affar despite parliament speaker’s warning

By Azzaman

08/21/05 "Azzaman" -- -- U.S. troops have been bombing the city of Tel Affar in the past four days despite warnings from parliamentary speaker Hajim al-Hassani.

For months, the troops have been striving to control the city and the adjacent region close to the Syrian border but to no avail.

Fierce fighting is reported between U.S. troops and the insurgents who have turned the northern city west of Mosul into a major stronghold.

Thousands of families are reported to have fled the city.

In interviews with Azzaman correspondent in Tel Affar, the residents described the U.S. shelling of their city “as fires of hell.”

International media organizations, whose representatives have shut themselves up in luxury hotels in Baghdad for fear of kidnapping, have apparently imposed a news blackout on the situation in Tel Affar, our correspondent says.

Tel Affar is a big city with 300,000 people, plus another 270,000 in the suburbs, giving a total of 570,000.

Most of them are Turkomen, an ethnic Turkish group in Iraq, long neglected by the Arab-dominated central government in Baghdad and the Kurdish regional authorities in Arbil.

The shelling has so far killed several people and wounded many others. Those staying behind suffer from lack of water, food and health services.

Even the city’s historic castle reputed for its ancient dwellings and settlements has not escaped the U.S. shelling.

Hassani, the speaker, had warned last month that the use of military force to solve the crisis in Tel Affar would further destabilize rather than pacify an already restive region.

Azzaman correspondent, whose identity we withhold for security reasons, reported residents as saying that life has come to a standstill in the city.

And those who opted to flee are in even worse condition, he added.

“The people are too scared to go out and recover corpses of dead relatives or tend the wounded.

“U.S. troops have ringed the city and now prevent people from either leaving or entering the city,” he said.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"The above post made by Bob S. starts with a quotation and then a remark addressed to me -- I thus assume that Bob S. thinks I made that quotation when actually I did not."

I'm sorry Albinus. The post was from smoothm. Just got confused.

"Sorry, but the justification given for the current war in Iraq was that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction that could conceivably be launched against the U.S."

OK, this is what you wrote Albinus. Yes, the reasons for goinf back into Iraq were done by the current administration, we would have not gone in had there been no previous "war". WMD, terrorism links, etc. all worked because there were the sanctions that made military intervention possible. Without those, which started in Bush I, there would have been no reasons to go into Iraq. Also, had the mission in the Clintion years been successful, Saddam would have been toppled from within and this current invasion would have not occurred.

"The current Iraq war has replaced a secular regime (Saddam's) that was the enemy of Islamists with a state of chaos in which Islamists could gain significantly."

As I have said before, Saddam was a terrorist. He terrorized all of his political enemies, spiritual enemies, and anyone that made Iraq look bad on the international scene. That is why no other terrorist cells existed in his country. He controlled everyone with threat of violence and raping the wives of those who dared to fall out of line.

What is going on in Iraq today is akin to what occured in Afghanistan in the late 80s. Only this time, we are involved in everything. The fighting is related to trying to gain control of the country.

By the way, my sister is going over there around mid September as a Marine who is part of a Heuy squadron. I hope she is stationed away from the Baghdad area.

Bob S.

I agree that Saddam was a vicious dictator. But that alone does not justify invading Iraq because one has to look at the cost of doing so and what viable options there are for replacing Saddam.

I hope things will go well for your sister in Iraq; unfortunately, it is not just the Baghdad area that is dangerous.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
This is how Bush brings "Freedom" to Iraq


Yes, killing insurgents is part of the process. thanks for the post. I agree the problem of Syrian assistance to the insurgency is a serious one.

[Captain Zen]

Kirky,
Why are you not in Iraq to help? If you are only supportive from behind your keyboard you don't impress ME...

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gormenghast20:
Well, asides from being condescending to Arabs (not being clever enough...) how do you explain al Qaeda's crowing about pulling off the attacks? And it's not just UBL and his flunky...it's just about every imam in Islam. As well as all those Palestinians who were dancing in the streets after the attacks...we should cut our funding of those people...maybe UBL would feed them, not that he gives a crap about them anyway. Of course, with Arafat's being dead now maybe some of the money is making it into Palestinian peoples' hands and not into Arafat's Swiss bank accounts. And how do your group of scientists explain all the eyewitnesses to the plane going into the Pentagon? How do they explain the cabdriver (waiting for a rider to show up at the Pentagon) whose cab was badly damaged...and his close call with death...when the plane knocked a light pole over onto the cab. How do they explain the video footage from the parking lot camera showing the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain the hundreds, if not thousands, of commuters on Interstate 95 who witnessed the plane hitting the Pentagon? How do they explain all the office workers in both DC and Arlington who happened to be looking out their office windows at the Pentagon? Or those on the concourse of Pentagon City mall? Guess their crackpot theories can't cover that? Or was it psychotronic drugs that caused mass hallucination?



You are really wasting your time here, G. Every piece of the puzzle that does not fit the conspiracy theory gets explained away. The theory dominates all facts and cannot be defeated. Useless to argue with conspiracy theorists I'm afraid. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, but I'm a very argumentative person... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Anyways...not to break the subject, but I was wondering if INA memebership is worth it for a nudist who isn't "hard-core" (being a nudist just around the house and nude beaches)?

[hm0504]

Interesting interview with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam War combat veteran, on Iraq. Senator Hagel who argued from the beginning about the need for higher numbers of troops in Iraq now says "the dam has broke", "we're not winning", and the U.S. cannot win. Say leaving early is better than leaving late.

Article includes comeents from other politicians with different views.

Here's the link:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/21/hagel.iraq.ap/index.html

[Bob S.]

"Why ask me, are you not intelligent enough to figure it out?"

Zen, that does sound like flame bait to me. Stop now!

"The purpose of the 9/11 false flag was to enrage the American citizens so they would support the (by all international standards) illegal wars Bush was planning."

But no theories have ever mentioned the desire for Bush to go into Afghanistan. Everything I have heard was about Iraq. If he wanted to go into Iraq, don't you think he would have linked the bombings to Saddam? That way, he would get a lot of sympathy and a good reason to go in there with the world's aceptance.

"And do you realy believe that a bunch of Arabs are clever enough to pull such a stunt?"

Oh yeah. Them Arabs are so dumb http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Yes. Anyone with money, motive, and opportunity can and will do anything. Why do you feel that they are so ignorant that they cannot pull off an operation such as 9/11? Before you answer this question, Zen, read the rules.

"I am against any sort of violence. That does not mean that I can not be violent."

So you would feel upset at getting violent to save your hypothetical wife and daughter? I would get upset at the violence that was done to them.

"I can not look into the future "if" that will happen and what I will do at that given situation."

With all of your travels and meditations, you have never travelled to hypothetical land? I think you have. What ifs are an important part of living.

"Why don't we stick to the topic and bash Bush instead of each other??"

Its easier to bash someone who can respomd. The Bush supporters are bashing the Bush bashers and vice versa. It's that phrase, kill the messenger.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

"Gulf of Tonkin, started the US's involvement in Vietnam. It was a lie told by the US government, which killed how many thousands of Americans?"

I was talking about something akin to 9/11. And I should have specified civilians, Qickdraw.

"I agree that Saddam was a vicious dictator. But that alone does not justify invading Iraq"

But Albinus, I have stated before that it wasn't just the fact that he was a bad guy. There were a lot of reasons for going to war with Iraq according to Bush.

"I hope things will go well for your sister in Iraq; unfortunately, it is not just the Baghdad area that is dangerous."

Thank you. I was mentioning that because my cousin, who is also in the Marines, was stationed in Western Iraq last year and didn't have to deal with too much enemy fire. From what I understood from him, it was relatively safe where he was.

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Gulf of Tonkin, started the US's involvement in Vietnam. It was a lie told by the US government, which killed how many thousands of Americans?"

I was talking about something akin to 9/11. And I should have specified civilians, Qickdraw.


"Well I only meant green eyes asian civilians"

Is that were you are headed? You started off with:


In regards to 9/11, it is just the opposite. I can't see that they could covertly put together that large of an operation without any leaks prior to the operation.

Then moved on to:


Qickdraw, can you or Zen give any real life examples of government covert military activity that entailed the mass murder of even hundreds of American citizens?

And now your specifying that it had to target civilians...

C'mon Bob. We both know that the American govenrment has done things behind the publics back.

Besides you can make the argument that Vietnam was fought with civilians because these were people who were drafted, not a "professional" army like we have today.

Anyway, in the interest of stopping you from specifying "green eyed asian civilians" here is something I found (http://www.apfn.org/apfn/experiment.htm).

Both Deomcrats and Republicans are responsible for secret government testing on US & Canadian civilians. Both the US & Canadian governments have admitted they have done this kind of stuff in the past.

So with that in mind, it is concievable that 9/11 was a government conspiracy. There is a lot of cover up by this administration over 9/11 and it is questionable about what they knew, and when they knew it. This only feeds more and more conspiracy theories.

I've watched the DvD "In Plane Site" which is a conspiracy movie about 9/11, while I don't believe everything in it, it does raise some interesting questions.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Kirky,
Why are you not in Iraq to help? If you are only supportive from behind your keyboard you don't impress ME...

Your suggestion that only a person who is a solider can support the war would be countered by the same suggestion that only someone who is serving or has served can criticize the war. Those do not have anything to do with the argument.
But on a lighter note the US army doesn't usually allow 43 year old Canadians to join though a few months ago on here I was sent a form to volunteer to go to Iraq to take part in reconstruction: I did apply.

[Captain Zen]

Dear Bob S asked me:
With all of your travels and meditations, you have never travelled to hypothetical land? I think you have. What ifs are an important part of living.

Indeed no, I have not and will not travel into dream land, and as you want me, to nightmare land.... I am here and now, not maybe there and then... You must be a true believer in fairy tales, Hollywood movies and FOX news! Did your wife get raped? And if not, why lose time specculating about it?
Hide a gun outside your house, so that just in case, when you come home and hear her scream you can go inside armed amd ready, stop bothering me with your hypothetical fantasies. I could make you a list of over 100,000 what ifs, and have you type away answers until the sun burns out.

I may dream sometimes into sweet sex and massage, cuddle and kiss land, however that is not realy needed as my sweet young tropical erotic GFs do come into my real world often enough

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Kirky,
Why are you not in Iraq to help? If you are only supportive from behind your keyboard you don't impress ME...

Your suggestion that only a person who is a solider can support the war would be countered by the same suggestion that only someone who is serving or has served can criticize the war. Those do not have anything to do with the argument.
But on a lighter note the US army doesn't usually allow 43 year old Canadians to join though a few months ago on here I was sent a form to volunteer to go to Iraq to take part in reconstruction: I did apply. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For any Canadians interested in joining the U.S. Army, please note that, to my knowledge, being Canadian is not a problem -- you get automatic U.S. citizenship once you've finished your service. And as of July 22, the age limit is 42 years old so alas KO has just missed that chance.

Anyway, I'm sure if one is interested in volunteering in Iraq, then one does not need to go through the U.S. government. If you really want to go, I'm sure you can find a way.

[missouriboy]

I was talking about something akin to 9/11. And I should have specified civilians Not exactly like 9/11, but akin? Yes. Waco, Texas. Branch Davidians. Women. Children. Incinerated by military fire.

[jon71]

The branch Davidians set the fire themselves. It was not military the tanks were firing knock out gas. It was a tragedy that kids died but that was not the result of govt. action.

[Captain Zen]

As our forums no.1 supporter of the war, Kirk should have been in Iraq long ago, all his limp excuses are unacceptable [personal attack removed - PD]

[PascoDoug]

I think we are getting very close to the point where this thread should be closed/shutdown.. it is totally non productive and a flame incubator.

Opinions?

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
I think we are getting very close to the point where this thread should be closed/shutdown.. it is totally non productive and a flame incubator.

Opinions?

You're totally wrong and stupid for sayng so!!!

WAAAAAAAAA!!!

Oh... Sorry? What was the problem again? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But seriously, yes the flames need to stop. I don't think we need to stop the thread as there are some good debates going on, but the flaming does need to stop.

I suggest keelhauling, then flogging round the fleet. (Can you tell I'm reading historical nautical fiction books atm?? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Qikdraw

[Unwired]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
I think we are getting very close to the point where this thread should be closed/shutdown.. it is totally non productive and a flame incubator.

Opinions?

Agreed.

[Captain Zen]

why not ask ppl to stick to the topic?
me was asked to provide some proof of US government killing its own citizens, and I sent soem good info , bashing Bush and earlier prsdnts...

[WacoTX]

The Branch Davidian compound is ten miles east of Waco. The government flubbed that deal. David Koresch could have been taken without violence when he ventured out of the compound. Goevernment people would not listen to local law enforcement.

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PascoDoug:
I think we are getting very close to the point where this thread should be closed/shutdown.. it is totally non productive and a flame incubator.

Opinions?

You're totally wrong and stupid for sayng so!!!

WAAAAAAAAA!!!

Oh... Sorry? What was the problem again? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But seriously, yes the flames need to stop. I don't think we need to stop the thread as there are some good debates going on, but the flaming does need to stop.

I suggest keelhauling, then flogging round the fleet. (Can you tell I'm reading historical nautical fiction books atm?? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree.

How about just dumping the flamers so we can go back to the topic?

[ken0254]

Did anyone see the progam last nite on CNN about the intelligence failures of the CIA and Bush's thin reason's for going to war in Iraq?
Very interesting. It's a crying shame Tenent kept telling Bush what he wanted to hear instead of what the truth was. Bush wanted reasons to go to war, and when he didn't get them, he twisted the facts to support reasons to invade Iraq anyways. Hhmmm... was this a case of the tail wagging the dog??? And to think George Tenent STILL recieved the Medal Of Freedom!!!

ken

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by WacoTX:
The Branch Davidian compound is ten miles east of Waco. The government flubbed that deal. David Koresch could have been taken without violence when he ventured out of the compound. Goevernment people would not listen to local law enforcement.

This is very true...both about Koresh's being able to be taken "peacefully" away from the compound and about government agencies and local law enforcement have enormous trouble communicating. My brother-in-law used to be a patrol officer here in Virginia...he's now a member of the Terrorism Task Force. Anyway, the DEA was using his department's SWAT team for a drug bust. The commander of the SWAT team insisted on calling the perps on the phone in order to try to get them to surrender instead of breaking down the door! The DEA commander on the scene couldn't believe it...all the evidence would be flushed! So, now when the DEA conducts raids in Prince William county they use either Fairfax County's SWAT team or that of the FBI. (I guess they don't (or didn't) have any of their own.

Originally posted by ken0254:
Did anyone see the progam last nite on CNN about the intelligence failures of the CIA and Bush's thin reason's for going to war in Iraq?
Very interesting. It's a crying shame Tenent kept telling Bush what he wanted to hear instead of what the truth was. Bush wanted reasons to go to war, and when he didn't get them, he twisted the facts to support reasons to invade Iraq anyways. Hhmmm... was this a case of the tail wagging the dog??? And to think George Tenent STILL recieved the Medal Of Freedom!!!

ken

I don't have cable but I'm glad to see shows like this on TV. The more the truth is shown, the more educated your average citizen will become and finally people will wake up and smell the coffee.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by ken0254:
Did anyone see the progam last nite on CNN about the intelligence failures of the CIA and Bush's thin reason's for going to war in Iraq?
Very interesting. It's a crying shame Tenent kept telling Bush what he wanted to hear instead of what the truth was. Bush wanted reasons to go to war, and when he didn't get them, he twisted the facts to support reasons to invade Iraq anyways. Hhmmm... was this a case of the tail wagging the dog??? And to think George Tenent STILL recieved the Medal Of Freedom!!!

ken

I've always thought that WMDs were the excuse of convenience for attacking Iraq...a decision which I feel was right anyway based on his use of poison gas, threatening his neighbors, ad infinitum...I think, even though papers found in the Intelligence Ministry pointed to Iraq's reaching out to al Qaeda instead of vice-versa, that Iraq was chosen because we had beefs with them over their refusal to abide by UN stipulations, Saddam's brutality to his own people, and the fact that Iraq has the most potent military in the Middle East. I think it was a message being sent as much as anything else. Iran wasn't targeted because they have a population that can't stand the mullahs and it was thought they'd eventually overthrow them. Huge amounts of petro-dollars + nukes + support for terroism = no good. I keep hearing about how we're bogged down in Iraq, which is kinda true. But we have far from approached our military danger zone...I saw a paper listing the forces (Marine divisions, Army division, bomber wings, carrier task forces, etc...) that would be used in a war with North Korea and what we have in Iraq right now isn't even close to that. Also, I can't fathom why no one seems to think we'd be serious about going after al
Qaeda for the long haul...I've seen some write that "well, about the same number were killed in Afghanistan as in the attacks in the US so it should have been enough." There was a clear precedent laid out on December 7, 1941 for ALL to see what would happen should a large number of US citizens be murdered on our shores.

Didn't catch the program you mentioned...I thought Tenent was a fairly able DCIA...I thought Woolsey was better, though.

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by PascoDoug:
I think we are getting very close to the point where this thread should be closed/shutdown.. it is totally non productive and a flame incubator.

Opinions?

Oh, no! How will I ever get to a thousand posts?

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
why not ask ppl to stick to the topic?
me was asked to provide some proof of US government killing its own citizens, and I sent soem good info , bashing Bush and earlier prsdnts...

Well, if you want to call info from people who are so far out of the mainstream that you need a telescope to see them "good" then so be it. "Me"... http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif...for one, wouldn't.

[ken0254]

gormenghast,

An excuse of convenience is NEVER a reason to attack another country!!!! That's almost like finding out, after the fact, that an executed felon was innocent of the crime he was put to death for, but since he had a record as long as his sleave his death, well, he probably was guilty of something else anyways, so it was no great loss anyway. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that rational approach. Anyway, where is the preponderonce of evidence we should have had to declare war on another country in the first place. This war is unconstitional anyways!!! The congress and senate DID NOT have the constitional right to give the power to George Bush to attack and invade, and by all accounts declare war on Iraq!! Or am I missing something here???????

ken

[Trailscout]

Sadaam and the Baathists were long overdue for the invasion. The scud victims of Israel, the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, and the Kuwaiti rape victims deserve recompense and they got it, just a few years late.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by ken0254:
gormenghast,
This war is unconstitional anyways!!! The congress and senate DID NOT have the constitional right to give the power to George Bush to attack and invade, and by all accounts declare war on Iraq!! Or am I missing something here???????

ken

If the House and the Senate could not authorize a war approved by the Executive that would only leave the judicial branch having the power to declare or wage war. Of course it was legal and constitutional.

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Sadaam and the Baathists were long overdue for the invasion. The scud victims of Israel, the Marsh Arabs, the Kurds, and the Kuwaiti rape victims deserve recompense and they got it, just a few years late.

It's not up to the US to rule the world.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by ken0254:
Did anyone see the progam last nite on CNN about the intelligence failures of the CIA and Bush's thin reason's for going to war in Iraq?
Very interesting. It's a crying shame Tenent kept telling Bush what he wanted to hear instead of what the truth was. Bush wanted reasons to go to war, and when he didn't get them, he twisted the facts to support reasons to invade Iraq anyways. Hhmmm... was this a case of the tail wagging the dog??? And to think George Tenent STILL recieved the Medal Of Freedom!!!

ken

I saw most of it and thought it was generally pretty good.

What I would dearly love to see is a program inquiring into the biggest deception with regard to invading Iraq -- not the WMD deception pulled by the White House on the American public, but the deception that invading Iraq would be a walk in the park. It is this latter deception that is ultimately the real issue. And unlike the WMD one, I strongly suspect the White House (at least Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz) really did believe Iraq would be a picnic.

I believe such an analysis is needed because this failure to understand Saddam, the Baathists, and Iraq's cultures and history, is by far the biggest intelligence failure and self-deception by the White House. In order for America to decide what to do about Iraq today, it must learn what it has not yet begun to comprehend since the invasion.

[Captain Zen]

BUSH BASHING AT ITS BEST:

By Doug Thompson

08/22/05 "Capitol Hill Blue" -- -- My first reaction to George W. Bush’s all-too-obvious politicizing of the memories of September 11, 2001, in his latest lame attempt to justify his illegal and immoral war in Iraq, was anger.

Than anger gave way to sadness.

Sadness over a morality-challenged politician’s use of the deaths of 3,000 plus Americans for his own political gain.

And even more sadness because there are still people out there stupid enough to fall for this kind of crap.

Bush has pulled this stunt before. He keeps 9/11 in his bag of tricks as a last-ditch effort to save his corrupt political hide when things go bad. And, according to polls, things are bad. An increasing majority of Americans no longer buy his lies about Iraq and oppose the war along with growing numbers who finally realize the President of the United States is a liar who cannot be trusted.

Reality, however, will not stop the dwindling numbers of Bu****es from defending their failed leader to the end – and it is that maniacal devotion to Bush that may signal the end to America as we know it.

Sometimes it is difficult to decide who to fear the most – the ethically-bankrupt President whose madness drives what was once the greatest country on earth closer and closer to ruin or the blind, brain-dead lemmings who continue to follow him into the abyss.

In more normal times we might be able to dismiss Bush’s followers as just another gaggle of misguided political miscreants who bet on the wrong horse and now try to justify that mistake.

But these are not normal times and the wild-eyed fanatics who continue to buy this charlatan’s snake oil are, in too many ways, as dangerous as Bush himself.

Bush and his klavern of crooks, con-men and thieves have turned this nation into a monster that threatens world peace, an arrogant bomb-throwing bully who poses a far-greater danger than any Islam-spouting lunatic with a turban.

When you get past the hyperbole and sound bite rants of the rabid right, you are left with one sad fact – the United States of America, a nation that once prided itself in never, ever, being the aggressor in a conflict, invaded another nation on false pretenses, a nation that posed no immediate threat to us or our way of life.

It is no longer Osama bin Laden and his fanatical followers who pose the greatest threat to the future of this country. It is George W. Bush and his equally-fanatical, zoned-out legions who buy into his destructive, anti-American actions.

Osama’s still at large and still planning ways to attack this country but he remains at large because Bush ordered the military to all-but-abandon the search for the Al Qaeda leader and divert resources to an ill-conceived, ill-planned and ill-executed illegal invasion of Iraq.

Now the Army admits it is planning for “at least” four more years in Iraq as the death toll of young American men and women races headlong towards 2,000.

So a desperate George W. Bush goes to the well once more, invoking the memories of September 11, 2001 to try and save his political skin.

We can hope, of course, that this blatant political opportunism won’t work. We can hope that Americans will finally see through the sham that is Bush and the fanatics who follow him.

We can hope that Americans recognize that more than one terrorist seeks to destroy America and that the most dangerous terrorist of all lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7252.shtml

[Captain Zen]

Hypocrites and Liars

Where are the pro-war people

By Cindy Sheehan

If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your *** over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9894.htm

[Captain Zen]

And here is the news you DONT see on CNN

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3995.htm

take of your clothes and enjoy the true and pure Bush bashing, stay with the topic boys!

[jon71]

Only the house of representatives can declare war. The invasion of Iraq was stupid and unconscionable but technically legal. However it is not a war officially. I doubt that's any comfort to the people dying there but on paper it's not a war. For that matter neither was Vietnam, Korea, Panama, and Iraq the last time around.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by hm0504:
I strongly suspect the White House (at least Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz) really did believe Iraq would be a picnic.

I don't think they thought it was going to be a picnic. Remember they fired, actuallyhumiliated in media, then fired, anyone who said any different. Remember General Shineski (sp?) when he said it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq? What did they do? They humiliated him in media, then fired him. Any person who spoke out about how hard it would be was quickly done away with.

They wanted their view of a cakewalk to be heard and no one elses. I don't think that means they thought it would be, but that they wanted to attack Iraq and had to tell the peole it would be easy to sell it properly.

Why the hell is Bush going on a 5 day tour to promote war? On the face of it it is idiotic in the extreme. His polls on the war are so bad he has to go out and promote how great war is...

*sigh*

Qikdraw

[Bob S.]

"And now your specifying that it had to target civilians..."

Qickdraw, I refernced 9/11, with the civilian targets implied. And this was in response to Zen's insistence that 9/11 was a government conspiracy that the US put together in order to inflame the Us populace and go to war with Iraq (which in itself makes no sense).

"Both Deomcrats and Republicans are responsible for secret government testing on US & Canadian civilians."

Yes. I am aware of that, but mass murder on the scale of 9/11 that was so public? The US was not immune to the Eugenics fad of the 20th century and sterilized many people. Other govt tests were done secretly on other minority groups.

"it is concievable that 9/11 was a government conspiracy."

There is always that small iota of belief that it could have been, but only the conspiracy theorists will take that and blow it up into their own convoluted beliefs.

"I could make you a list of over 100,000 what ifs, and have you type away answers until the sun burns out."

I wonder how many what ifs of those I have thought about? Probably a good number of them. I am a dreamer. I am a storyteller. The treks to hypothetical land make me a more rounded person. They help me more able to think about more than one side of an issue. Including the Iraq war, 9/11, nudism, abortion, capital punishment, etc. The look at both sides that I get a look at from hypothetical land helps me decide where to stand. And on some issues, I am still on the fence.

"You must be a true believer in fairy tales, Hollywood movies and FOX news!"

I love fairy tales and can see how truth can be extracted from them. I am more of a fan of indie movies and foreign movies. My subject preference is psychology of children and Hollywood just doesn't produce that very well. I do have a liking of Harry Potter, however.

I stopped watching Fox News when they had a negative story about nudism a few years ago. I watch CNN and MSNBC. I love Keith Olbermann's Countdown. I also occasionally listen to Rush. Get all sides.

Bob S.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Qickdraw, I refernced 9/11, with the civilian targets implied.

C'mon Bob. I'm seeing the green eyed asian excuse now.


"Both Deomcrats and Republicans are responsible for secret government testing on US & Canadian civilians."

Yes. I am aware of that, but mass murder on the scale of 9/11 that was so public? The US was not immune to the Eugenics fad of the 20th century and sterilized many people. Other govt tests were done secretly on other minority groups.

So scale matters? You're saying that the secret deaths and diseases that the US government had its direct hands in mean nothing because its not the scope of 9/11? Thats messed up doode.

Besides the Vietnam war was highly public and killed far more people, or do Vietnam's civilians not matter? How many died starting from a lie that was held secret for many many years?


"it is concievable that 9/11 was a government conspiracy."

There is always that small iota of belief that it could have been, but only the conspiracy theorists will take that and blow it up into their own convoluted beliefs.

Conspiracy theorists have been right from time to time haven't they? Plus there are conspiracies that have been real. I've mentioned a few.

So we've proven that conspiracies happen.

We've proven that the US government has done secret tests that have resulted in deaths and disease on the US's own citizens.

Yet you still refuse to admit that the US government "could" have done this. I'm not saying they have, but the possibility is there. US history has proved that the government will go to extrodinary lengths to do bad things to US citizens, and keep it secret.

Hiding behind the scale arguement is beneath you Bob.

Qikdraw

[Captain Zen]

I have read and can recite a score of fairy tales from the heart from Sufi Teaching stories, 1001 nights, Hans Anderson and Grimm, and a few more.
For news go to Information Clearing House.
for government killing its own citizens see
http://www.boydgraves.com/timeline/
I not so much insist myself that 9/11 was a flase flag op, but when reading the collected scientific facts by different sites it is hard if not impossible to deny...
http://physics911.net/spine.htm
And to be politically correctly informed I read this
http://www.politicalsoundoff.com/
just undress and relax, it wasn't me......

[Captain Zen]

Quickdraw, you are on a wavelength I can receive. Loud and clear.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
I strongly suspect the White House (at least Cheney, Rove, and Wolfowitz) really did believe Iraq would be a picnic.

I don't think they thought it was going to be a picnic. Remember they fired, actuallyhumiliated in media, then fired, anyone who said any different. Remember General Shineski (sp?) when he said it would take several hundred thousand troops in Iraq? What did they do? They humiliated him in media, then fired him. Any person who spoke out about how hard it would be was quickly done away with.

They wanted their view of a cakewalk to be heard and no one elses. I don't think that means they thought it would be, but that they wanted to attack Iraq and had to tell the peole it would be easy to sell it properly.

Why the hell is Bush going on a 5 day tour to promote war? On the face of it it is idiotic in the extreme. His polls on the war are so bad he has to go out and promote how great war is...

*sigh*

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the White House did not believe going into Iraq would be a picnic, then why did the demand such minimal military forces be sent in? I think their condemnation of others who said otherwise fits in well with the idea that the White House had next to no clue about the dangers of invading Iraq.

[Captain Zen]

To the moderators of my posts.
Dear naked moderators or should I say censors, why is it that you do not post many of my well informed posts? please explain your objections, as I see my own stuff no where.
Thank you in advance, you can answer to abaldal@gmail.com if you do not want it on the forum,
Alexander Captain Zen

[hm0504]

I guess my point is that if the White House knew Iraq would be difficult and that they were sending in insufficient troops to win the war, the that implies the White House always intended to lose the war in Iraq, and in doing so, likely cause near irreparable harm to America. Though I have been quite critical of the Bush administration, I do not think they would intentially set out on such a path.

Originally posted by hm0504:
I guess my point is that if the White House knew Iraq would be difficult and that they were sending in insufficient troops to win the war, the that implies the White House always intended to lose the war in Iraq, and in doing so, likely cause near irreparable harm to America. Though I have been quite critical of the Bush administration, I do not think they would intentially set out on such a path.

You make such good points!

[Trailscout]

It's been a tragic loss of many lives in an occupation that has lasted longer than we expected. The past is water under the bridge, but there's still a future to be secured. We should demand that the U.S. government step up the transition to Iraqi police and military so our men and women can go home or to the next theater of operation. We can also take bold decisive steps away from fossil fuels and the entanglement with Venezuela and the Middle East that these fuels entail.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
It's been a tragic loss of many lives in an occupation that has lasted longer than we expected. The past is water under the bridge, but there's still a future to be secured. We should demand that the U.S. government step up the transition to Iraqi police and military so our men and women can go home or to the next theater of operation. We can also take bold decisive steps away from fossil fuels and the entanglement with Venezuela and the Middle East that these fuels entail.

I agree Trailscout, however we cannot forget what brought us here, and hold those responsible for the mess we are in. Yes we need to look to the future, and hold our leaders responsible for that as well, but to ignore the massive mistakes going in, and continuing, without holding those responsible weakens the US.

Qikdraw

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Quickdraw, you are on a wavelength I can receive. Loud and clear.

I don't think so Zen.

What I'm debating with Bob is more of an intellectual exercise. I'm not saying this administration did it, I'm just pointing out that in the history of the US the government has done a lot of things against its citizens and kept it secret for many years. So its a "possibility", not a certain fact as you are saying.

So we aren't on the same wavelength. Sorry, but I'm not sure if I want to partake of the signals you're recieving. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thats not to say you don't have some interesting thinsg to say from time to time, I just don't follow your line of thinking most times.

Qikdraw

[gormenghast20]

Originally posted by ken0254:
gormenghast,

An excuse of convenience is NEVER a reason to attack another country!!!! That's almost like finding out, after the fact, that an executed felon was innocent of the crime he was put to death for, but since he had a record as long as his sleave his death, well, he probably was guilty of something else anyways, so it was no great loss anyway. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that rational approach. Anyway, where is the preponderonce of evidence we should have had to declare war on another country in the first place. This war is unconstitional anyways!!! The congress and senate DID NOT have the constitional right to give the power to George Bush to attack and invade, and by all accounts declare war on Iraq!! Or am I missing something here???????

ken

I said that was my theory...not that it was the only theory or that it was necessarily right.

Here's a good read, it've very long...sorry, but I don't have a link to it anymore (and don't scream at me for it's length...I'm going on vacation for 7 weeks and won't be able to hear you...LOL)....

"Islamists have proved adept at winning liberal exemption from criticism.

F or all the talk of imperial America, and our frequent "police actions," we are hardly militarists. Protected by two oceans, and founded on the principles of non-interference in Europe's bloody internecine wars, the United States has always been rightly circumspect about going to war abroad. The American people are highly individualistic, skeptical of war's utility, and traditionally distrustful of government — and wary of the need of their sacrifice for supposed global agendas.

So we go to war reluctantly. And being human, our support for war hinges on its being short and economical, and waged for professed idealistic principles. Wars that drag on past three years — from the Civil War to Vietnam — can often lead to demonstrations and popular disdain.

By the same token, some politics are more compatible with the American perception of the need to fight.

It was not only Lincoln's gifted rhetoric that got the Union through Cold Harbor and the Wilderness, but after the war's initial months of hard fighting, his reinvention of the North's very aims, from a utilitarian struggle to restore the United States to a moral crusade to end slavery and the power of the plantationists for good. In that effort, he was willing to suspend habeas corpus, sidestep the Congress, and govern large chunks of the border states through martial law.

Woodrow Wilson intervened liberally in Central America. He led us to war against right-wing Prussian militarism. His "too proud to fight" slogan in was no time scrapped for the Fourteen Points, a utopian blueprint for the nations of the world, handed down by a former professor from his high and moralistic Olympus.

Few worried that Franklin Delano Roosevelt not only waged a savage global struggle against Italian, German, and Japanese fascism, but in the process did some pretty unsavory and markedly illiberal things at home. It was no right-wing nut who locked up Japanese Americans without regard for habeas corpus or ordered German agents to be shot as terrorists.

To end the dictatorial and genocidal plans of Slobodan Milosevic, liberal Bill Clinton was willing to bomb downtown Belgrade, commit American forces to a major campaign without U.S. Senate approval, and bypass the United Nations altogether. Few accused him of fighting an illegal war, contravening U.N. protocols, or cowardly dropping bombs on civilians. In all these cases, public opposition was pretty much muted, despite the horrendous casualties involved in some of the conflicts.

Some general principles, then, can guide us in determining American reactions to war, and they transcend even the notion of comparative sacrifice and cost. Progressives such as Wilson and Clinton, who, we are assured, hate war, can intervene far more easily, and are more likely to receive a pass from a hypercritical elite media.

In the end, they always seem forced to fight by circumstances, since their very liberal natures are supposed to abhor optional conflicts. FDR's wartime criminal-justice apparatus trumped anything that John Ashcroft could imagine, but it has remained relatively unexamined even to this day: Liberals must have had very good reasons to put non-white people in camps, so contrary to their innate notions of social justice.

Second, the United States seems to be more united against right-wing fascism than left-wing totalitarianism, perhaps because our elites in academia, journalism, and politics feel authoritarian dictators from the right lack the veneer of egalitarian empathy for the poor. In any case, we are more prone even today to assume the 6-8 million Hitler slaughtered puts him in a category far worse than Stalin or Mao, despite the fact that the two combined did away with ten times Hitler's tally.

During World War II, here at home we experienced nothing like the Rosenbergs or Alger Hiss working for the Axis, even though Soviet-inspired global Communism would end up liquidating 80 million in Russia and China alone. Fighting North Korea or North Vietnam — or even waging the Cold War — was a far more difficult enterprise than opposing the Kaiser, Hitler, Mussolini, or Tojo. Our successes were often due to the efforts of strong anti-Communist democrats such as Harry Truman, who could assure our influential universities, media, politicians, writers, actors, and foundations of the real danger, and the fact that the president had little choice but to go to war.

In this context, many had some apprehensions about the present so-called war on terror. Ostensibly, the Islamists who had pulled off September 11 largely fit past definitions of fascism and so should have galvanized universal traditional American furor.

The tribal followers of bin Laden advocated a return to a mythical age of ideological purity uncorrupted by modernism, democracy, or pluralism. Islamism certainly held no tolerance for other religions, much less any who were not extreme Muslims. Sexism and racism — remember bin Laden's taunts about Africans, ongoing slavery in the Sudan, and the genocide in Darfur — were an integral part of radical Islamist doctrine. Al-Qaeda was not so much chauvinistic as misogynistic. Substitute bin Laden's evocation of "believer" for the old "Volk," and the crackpot rants about world domination, purity, and the anti-Semitic slurs of "apes and pigs" fall into the old fascist slots.

It is no accident that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and Mein Kampf are still popular sellers among zealots in some capitals of the Arab world. Was our war on terror, then, going to be morally clear to even the most progressive utopian, since our enemies lacked liberal pretensions and the charisma of a Stalin, Ho, Che, or Fidel that so often duped the gullible?

Hardly.

Two factors explain the current growing hysteria over Iraq, and they transcend the complex nature of the war and even the depressing media reports from the battlefield. First is the strange doctrine of multiculturalism that has become one of our most dominant boutique ideologies of the last few decades, as the United States experienced unleveled prosperity, leisure — and guilt.

All cultures are of equal merit; failure and poverty abroad are never due to indigenous pathology but rather Western colonialism, racism, Christianity, and gender bias. The Other is never to be judged by our own "biased" standards of jurisprudence and "constructed" bourgeois notions of humanity; those poorer, darker, non-Christian, and non-English-speaking are to be collectively grouped as victims, deserving condescension, moral latitude, and some sort of reparations or downright cash grants. Senator Patti Murray gave us the soccer-mom version of this pathology when she once talked of the need to rival bin Laden's supposed humanitarian projects in Afghanistan, while Senator Durbin assures us from a private e-mail that poor suspects in Cuba (no longer terrorists who plot to butcher more thousands) suffer the similar fate of Hitler's victims.

As September 11 faded in our collective memory, Muslim extremists were insidiously but systematically reinvented in our elite presentations as near underprivileged victims, and themselves often adept critics of purported rapacious Western consumerism, oil profiteering, heavy-handed militarism, and spiritual desolation.

Extremists who would otherwise be properly seen in the fascistic mold were instead given a weird pass for their quite public and abhorrent hatred of non-believers and homosexuals, and their Neanderthal views of women. Beheadings, the murder of Christians, suicide bombings carried out by children, systematic torture — all this and more paled in comparison to hot and cold temperatures in American jails on Cuba. Suddenly despite our enemies' long record of murder and carnage, we were in a war not with fascism of the old stamp, but with those who were historical victims of the United States. Thus problems arose of marshalling American public opinion against the supposedly weaker that posited legitimate grievances against Western hegemons. It was no surprise that Sen. Durbin's infantile rantings would be showcased on al-Jazeera.

When Western liberals today talk of a mythical period in the days after 9/11 of "unity" and "European solidarity" what they really remember is a Golden Age of Victimhood, or about four weeks before the strikes against the Taliban commenced. Then for a precious moment at last the United States was a real victim, apparently weak and vulnerable, and suffering cosmic justice from a suddenly empowered other. Oh, to return to the days before Iraq and Afghanistan, when we were hurt, introspective, and pitied, and had not yet "lashed out."

If one examines the infomercials of a bin Laden or Zawahiri, or the terrorist communiqués sent to the Westernized media, they are almost all rehashes of the Michael Moore Left, from "Bush lied" to "Halliburton" to "genocide" and "Gulag." This now famous "Unholy Alliance" of radical anti-Americans and reactionary jihadists is really a two-way street: Islamists mimic the old leftist critique of the United States, and the Western Left hopes that they in turn can at least tone down their rhetoric about knocking walls over gays or sending all women into burka seclusion — at least long enough to pose as something like disposed Palestinians minus the Hamas bombs laced with feces, rat poison, and nails.

The second problem was that not only were we no longer clearly fighting a right-wing extremist ideology, but Texan, twangy, and conservative President Bush was hard to repackage into the reluctant liberal warrior in the image of Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, or Bill Clinton.

So there was never much room for error in this war. We are not talking in this postmodern era in terms of a past Democratic president invading Latin America, interring citizens in high-plains camps, hanging terrorist suspects, nuking cities, or bombing pharmaceutical factories in Africa, but, at least from the weird present hysteria, something apparently far worse — like supposedly flushing a Koran at Guantanamo.

In a leisured and liberal society, it is very difficult in general for a conservative to wage war, because the natural suspicion arises — as a result of the conservative's tragic view of human nature and his belief in the occasional utility of force — that he enjoys the enterprise far more than a lip-biting progressive, who may in fact order more destruction. George H. W. Bush barely pulled off freeing Kuwait, but only because he fought on the ground for only four days, used the aegis of the U.N., pulled back on televised images of the so-called "Highway of Death," and was able to avoid going to Baghdad and dealing with a murdering despot still in power.

In contrast, once the metamorphosis of the Islamists from fascists to victimized critics of the West was underway, and once a suspect conservative like George Bush eschewed the old League of Nations utopianism, the fireside chat, and the "I feel your pain" persona of traditional Democratic war leaders, I feared we would have real trouble finishing this war.

Contrary to all recent popular wisdom, the war in Iraq is not a disaster, but nearing success. It has been costly and at times tragic, but a democracy is in place, accords are being hammered out with Sunni rejectionists, and the democratic reformist mindset is pulsating into Lebanon, Egypt, and the Gulf. This has only been possible because of the courage and efficacy of a much maligned military that, for the lapses of a small minority at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, has been compared to Stalin and Hitler.

If President Bush were a liberal Democrat; if he were bombing a white Christian, politically clumsy fascist in the heart of Europe; if al Qaeda and its Islamist adherents were properly seen as eighth-century tormenters of humanists, women, homosexuals, non-Arabs, and non-Wahhabi believers; and if Iraq had become completely somnolent with the toppling of Saddam's statue, then the American people would have remained behind the effort to dismantle Islamic fundamentalism and create the foundations to ensure its permanent demise.

But once the suicide murdering and bombing from Iraq began to dominate the news, then this administration, for historical reasons largely beyond its own control, had a very small reservoir of good will. The Islamists proved to be more adept in the public relations of winning liberal exemption from criticism than did the administration itself, as one nude Iraqi on film or a crumpled Koran was always deemed far worse than daily beheadings and executions. Indeed, the terrorists were able to morph into downtrodden victims of a bullying, imperialistic America faster than George W. Bush was able to appear a reluctant progressive at war with the Dark Age values of our enemies.

And once that transformation was established, we were into a dangerous cycle of a conservative, tough-talking president intervening abroad to thwart the poorer of the third world — something that has never been an easy thing in recent American history, but now in our own age has become a propagandist's dream come true."

[Captain Zen]

To What Is Cindy a Threat?

She has been referred to as a "crackpot," an "America hater," a "tragedy slut," a "media *****," an "anti-Semite," and a "traitor

By Butler Shaffer

If wars can be started by nineteen men, armed with nothing more than box-cutter knives, perhaps peace can be precipitated by a lone woman standing alongside a road in Texas, demanding that a president be accountable for his actions. Don’t think for a moment that the established order is unaware of and not fearful of just such a possibility.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9927.htm

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Qikdraw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Quickdraw, you are on a wavelength I can receive. Loud and clear.

I don't think so Zen.

What I'm debating with Bob is more of an intellectual exercise. I'm not saying this administration did it, I'm just pointing out that in the history of the US the government has done a lot of things against its citizens and kept it secret for many years. So its a "possibility", not a certain fact as you are saying.

So we aren't on the same wavelength. Sorry, but I'm not sure if I want to partake of the signals you're recieving. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thats not to say you don't have some interesting thinsg to say from time to time, I just don't follow your line of thinking most times.

Qikdraw </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is just as it should be. If you could follow my line of thinking (which is nonexistent) you would not think......
I do receive your wavelength, that does not automatically mean you receive mine.
I like to read other news, different from the mainstream, provocative and opposing, I am a naked anarchist, the law was not made for me, I am not.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:
...

You make such good points! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Cyndiann!

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Qickdraw, can you or Zen give any real life examples of government covert military activity that entailed the mass murder of even hundreds of American citizens?
Bob S.

I have answered this one before but my post did not show, so I try again.

The US government has in secrecy in laboratoria constructed the HIV/AIDS virus, to be a tool for "population control", to get the population down to "managable numbers" as the neo-con cabal calls it. Not only homosexuals and drug abusers, but whole population groups in Africa and the rest of the world. I know it sounds too crazy to be true, but still, after you read all about Boyd Graves, come back and comment.

http://www.boydgraves.com/

"The 1971 flowchart makes it perfectly clear, the design, intent and purpose of the U.S. Special Virus program. As Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of UNAIDS says, the HIV/AIDS virus is the result of many steps in the laboratory, it was no accident.

The 1971 flowchart provides absolute evidence of the United States' intent to kill its own citizens and others."

Dr. Boyd E. Graves

September 28, 2002


Here is the court case he started against the US government about the virus construction and the cure and vaccin that has been with held for all too long!
http://boydgraves.com/letters/davis012603.html

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
It's been a tragic loss of many lives in an occupation that has lasted longer than we expected. The past is water under the bridge, but there's still a future to be secured. We should demand that the U.S. government step up the transition to Iraqi police and military so our men and women can go home or to the next theater of operation. We can also take bold decisive steps away from fossil fuels and the entanglement with Venezuela and the Middle East that these fuels entail.

Chinese economic bubble is about to burst. Oil prices will fall as a result of that. Also the situation in Iraq is uncertain but oil production is back to pre-war levels and that gov't has oodles of cash to buy loyaliy and security both of which CAN be bought in Iraq.

[Bob S.]

"So scale matters? You're saying that the secret deaths and diseases that the US government had its direct hands in mean nothing because its not the scope of 9/11? Thats messed up doode."

I give up http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"do Vietnam's civilians not matter?"

No. I was talking about American citizens. Either I am not describing it right or you are not reading it right. Whichever way, it seems like we can't communicate effectively on this.

"Yet you still refuse to admit that the US government "could" have done this."

No, I don't reduse to believe in the possibility. I wrote there is always that small iota of belief that it could have been. I also mentioned that those who believe more in conspiracies will take that small belief and make it more impressive than it should be.

Everytime I hear someone talk about Bush and his previous-held international policy, it was about going into Iraq. The problem is that 9/11 took us into Afghanistan. This issue has never been explained by the conspiracy theorists. If 9/11 was an excuse to go into Iraq, why wasn't that the result?

Zen:
"The US government has in secrecy in laboratoria constructed the HIV/AIDS virus"

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"after you read all about Boyd Graves, come back and comment."

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bob S.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2005082301407.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082301407.html)

"THE ANNOUNCEMENT by a group of researchers at Harvard University that they have managed to turn adult skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells offers the potential for an end run around the political feud over stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because generating stem cells requires the destruction of a days-old human embryo. Yet the Harvard team has produced apparent stem cells by a different means: Using existing embryonic stem cells, they coaxed adult skin cells to "reprogram" into stem cells themselves."

Given what appears to be a scientific breakthoug, perhaps we should be praising Bush not bashing him as the President who stood up for rights of the unborn child.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
......... that behave like embryonic stem cells offers the potential for an end run around the political feud over stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because generating stem cells requires the destruction of a days-old human embryo.

Given what appears to be a scientific breakthoug, perhaps we should be praising Bush not bashing him as the President who stood up for rights of the unborn child.

So a days old embryo is a living human being? Only because a sperm cell has penetrated the egg wall? You are a true joker who should be in Iraq by now, repairing water pipes and electricity to help the innocent suffering Iraqi people. Ancient birthcontrol was by washing the vagina with lemon juice just after intercourse, because even in case an egg in the womb is penetrated, the acidity of lemons is enough to kill it. To undo the acidity of the lemon juice a washing with [chicken] egg white was/is done. Now, if Bush comes to know that; lemons will soon be forbidden and illegal in the USA yes?
You must be against birthcontrol and condoms too?


This from your former post:
"Chinese economic bubble is about to burst. Oil prices will fall as a result of that. Also the situation in Iraq is uncertain but oil production is back to pre-war levels and that gov't has oodles of cash to buy loyaliy and security both of which CAN be bought in Iraq."

Your source please, and of course keep on printing dollars, and give them to the Iraqi governement puppets, so they feel rich, untill the day that all the countries and people that hold surplus dollars come to cash them in in the country of original printing........

[shomymojo]

PRESIDENT HILLARY CLINTON - coming soon - to rescue us from ourselves

[ken0254]

and I thought we needed to be saved from the republicans!!!! OHHHHH Silly meeeeeeeeeee!!! What was I thinking??!!!

ken

[Baron Lake]

Wow. All this Iraq stuff is much more complicated than I figgered. I thought it was just dubbya's idea to start a nice civil war between islamic factions so's they'd be too busy to worry about us.
b.l.

[Captain Zen]

I have mentioned this before, but my post never showed, here it comes again, only better.

Iran in the Crosshairs
Iran's danger to America is not its nuclear program but its plan to introduce a euro-based energy exchange.

By Ryan McGreal

08/24/05 "RTH" -- -- Starting in 2006, Iran will start up an "oil bourse", or a stock exchange for trading energy, that will be based on the euro, not the US dollar. While this may seem innocuous, it will be a grave risk to continued American global hegemony.

Petrodollar Hegemony

Today, most oil trading takes place on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) and the London-based International Petroleum Exchange (IPE). Since the 1970s, the OPEC countries have all agreed to sell oil for US dollars only. This means every country that wants to buy oil must first acquire enough US dollars to buy what it needs.

Year after year, America imports much more than it exports. It must pay out that difference (its current accounts deficit) in dollars. Last year, the US ran a current accounts deficit of over $600 billion USD; this year, it's expected to increase to $700 billion.

If there were no good reason for other countries to buy all those American dollars, then the dollar would decline in value until the US economy could no longer afford to import goods from abroad. This is what happens when other countries run large current accounts deficits over long periods.

However, the deal with OPEC means other countries have no choice but to buy all those excess American dollars, which props up the value of the dollar and allows the American "import economy" to go on year after year. Effectively, America's main export is US dollars, and it is absolutely imperative to preserve a captive market for those dollars among oil-consuming countries.

The continued viability of the US economy depends on it. Americans can still afford to consume because their economy is suffused with cheap imports; a falling dollar will raise the prices of imported goods. At the same time, Americans enjoy some of the lowest oil prices in the world, largely due to the petrodollar arrangement. This has skewed the American vehicle market toward gas-guzzling but profitable SUVs and light trucks.

Selling Oil for Euros

One of the major unstated reasons the United States invaded Iraq was to stop Saddam Hussein from trading oil for euros, which he had begun in 2000. Hussein actually made more money selling oil for euros, as the euro appreciated 17 percent against the dollar between 2000 and 2003. Other countries in the region, particulary Iran and Syria, began public musing about switching from dollars to euros around the same time.

All three countries were subject to a barrage of threats from the United States government, but only Iraq went through with the switch, and it was summarily invaded. One of the US government's first acts in Iraq was to switch oil sales back to dollars.

Now, Iran plans not just to sell oil for euros, but to create an exchange market for parties to trade oil for euros. The oil bourse will provide a euro-based price standard, the way West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) and North Sea Brent crude do today. To the extent that the balance of reserve holdings starts to shift from dollars to euros, that's very bad news for America's system of dollar hegemony.

Iran is taking a calculated risk that enough countries have an interest in a petro-euro market to contain American aggression. Many central banks are already quietly shedding their dollar reserves, nervous that America's economic fundamentals ($500 billion federal deficit, $700 billion current accounts deficit, $4.5 billion federal debt, record business and personal debts, zero savings) cannot be sustained for long, and hoping to insulate themselves from what they see as an inevitable recession. The US dollar has declined by a third against the euro since 2000, despite the petrodollar arrangement.

At the same time, Europe is eager to enjoy more of the "virtuous circle" that comes from supplying a major reserve currency: a ready market for its currency and guaranteed reinvestment as euro-holders plant their money in European markets. Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, has also expressed interest in switching from dollars to euros. Russia would benefit from getting paid in a stronger currency, and it would represent a political victory over America after fifteen years of watching its clients and assets in the oil-rich Caspian region co-opted by American expansion.

Nuclear Politics

Iran may, indeed, be attempting to acquire nuclear weapons. However, it also has a "legitimate" interest in developing nuclear power, since its own oil reserves are already post-peak and it aims to continue in its role as an energy exporter. Iran is a signatory in good standing to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has openly informed the International Atomic Energy Agency of its intentions as requried by the Treaty.

However, Iran's presumed attempt to acquire nuclear weapons is only the politically acceptable excuse for America's threats. The real danger is that Iran will lay down the foundation for a post-hegemonic international energy industry in which America is merely one of many players. If Iran is, in fact, developing nuclear weapons, it is doing so to acquire a deterrent against exactly this kind of American encroachment.

Indeed, recent world events have only enforced the notion that a nation's successful efforts to acquire nuclear weapons confer respect and status, not the opprobrium it deserves. India, a growing economic power that possesses a nuclear arsenal and refuses to sign either the NPT or the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), has just been rewarded for its efforts by US President Bush, who has agreed to "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation with India." This is a straightforward violation of the NPT, which forbids signatories from exchanging nuclear materials or support with non-signatories.

If Iran really is trying to acquire nuclear weapons, is it any wonder why? Look at the advantages that having nuclear arsenals have given to US allies India, Pakistan, and Israel, all of which have benefitted immensely from a playing field tilted in their favour by their ability to project devastating power. As official hysteria about Iran's intentions escalates in volume and intensity, remember the real force undermining the moral authority of the NPT: the big nuclear 'have' countries that still refuse either to apply the ban consistently or to take any meaningful steps of their own toward "general and complete disarmament" - ostensibly the NPT's ultimate goal.

Ironically, America originally invaded Iraq - a poor, defenseless country - partly to send a message to other oil producing countries not to rock the petrodollar system, but the real message for small countries is that they need to present a credible deterrent threat or risk being ignored and/or invaded.

Further Reading

From Petrodollars to Petroeuros: Are the Dollar's Days as an International Reserve Currency Drawing to an End? Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 11 (November 2003)
Iraq, the Dollar and the Euro, Hazel Henderson, The Globalise, June 02, 2003
The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War With Iraq: A Macroeconomic and Geostrategic Analysis of the Unspoken Truth William Clark, January 2003 (Revised March 2003, with Post-war Commentary January 2004)
US Dollar Hegemony Has to Go Henry Liu, Asian Times, April 11, 2002
Raise The Hammer © 2004

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
"THE ANNOUNCEMENT by a group of researchers at Harvard University that they have managed to turn adult skin cells into cells that behave like embryonic stem cells offers the potential for an end run around the political feud over stem cell research. Embryonic stem cell research is controversial because generating stem cells requires the destruction of a days-old human embryo. Yet the Harvard team has produced apparent stem cells by a different means: Using existing embryonic stem cells, they coaxed adult skin cells to "reprogram" into stem cells themselves."

Given what appears to be a scientific breakthoug, perhaps we should be praising Bush not bashing him as the President who stood up for rights of the unborn child.


However, this here makes the whole stemcell debate a bit more ridiculous:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article307947.ece

[Captain Zen]

Dear Kirk and Bob S., have you gone to Iraq? Or does the daily struggle to make enough money to fill your gas tanks keep you away?
Here is a good writing that explains the present mentality of the Catholic Church Boss, protecting not only his pedophilic underlings, but now is promoting the Holy Crusade....
I for one find this a very good article.
Pope Rat in Cologne

Papal Double Standards

By Rachard Itani

08/25/05 "Counterpunch" -- -- In the course of the second ever visit by a Catholic pontiff to a Jewish Synagogue, Pope Benedict, in Cologne, Germany, called for "trust and mutual respect between Christians and Jews". Earlier that day, during a meeting with leaders of Germany's Muslim community, he "appealed to Muslims to help combat the 'cruel fanaticism of terrorism.'" A few years ago, following a terrorist act perpetrated in Paris by North-African Muslims, Jean-Marie Cardinal Lustiger, archbishop of Paris at the time, invited Muslims, i.e. all Muslims, to cast out the hate that dwells in their hearts.

Western-Christian forces invade Muslim countries, kill innocent children, women and men by the tens of thousands, and it's Muslims whom Pope Benedict calls upon to "combat the cruel fanaticism of terrorism"? Are we still living in the age of the crusades? In the time of the "Holy Inquisition"? In the period of the Christian pogroms against the Jews who, upon being expelled from Spain, found refuge amidst Muslim communities around the Mediterranean and in Mesopotamia?

Pope Benedict wants trust and mutual respect to reign between Christians and Jews. Trust and mutual respect are the hallmarks of a relationship between equals. However, when it comes to Muslims, the Pope wants "them" to combat the "cruel fanaticism of terrorism." No mention of trust, respect and equality here. As if "terrorism" was endogamous to Islam. As if Muslims were collectively responsible for criminal acts perpetrated by a small minority of people with a political agenda.

Erst Cardinal Ratzinger never intimated that Catholics possibly were collectively responsible for the murderous acts of Catholic Irish terrorists. He never called upon "them" to excise the evil of terrorism from their collective hearts when the IRA planted bombs and waged a terrorist war that led to the death of more than 3,500 people.

When a few fanatic white anglo-saxon Protestants detonated a truck bomb that destroyed the Murrah federal building in Oklahoma city in 19995, killing 168 people, including 19 children, led to the wounding of more than 800 people, and destroyed or seriously damaged more than 300 buildings, Cardinal Ratzinger did not call on all Protestants to look into their hearts and cleanse them of hatred that begets hatred and leads to barbarism.

When a state that calls itself officially a "Jewish Democracy" uses the Bible to justify its very existence, kills thousands of Palestinians, dispossesses them of their land, their dignity, and their means of earning a decent living to feed their families, Cardinal Ratzinger never called upon all Jews to wash their souls of some unspecified darkness of evil. Nor did he suggest that Judaism as a religion was responsible for the state-sponsored violence that Israel is meting upon the Palestinian people.

Cardinal Ratzinger was of course absolutely right in not blaming individual Christians or Jews or their religion for the violent actions of a few extremists. Why does he think that he can now, as Pope Benedict, burden Muslims around the world with collective, guilt-ridden responsibility for the impending "darkness of a new barbarism" unless "they" do something about it?

Once again, a Western leader blames the victims for the mistakes of their tormentors. Let a person of the Muslim faith perpetrate a violent or terrorist act, Christians will point their collective fingers at Islam and Islamic society as the repositories of violence and barbarism. An atavistic fear grips Catholics and Protestants alike when Muslim terrorists cause a few dozen civilian victims in London. Meanwhile, in the 20th and 21st centuries, it is Muslim societies that have born the greatest brunt both of Islamist terrorism, as in Algeria and Pakistan, and of Christian and Jewish state-sponsored and executed terrorism, as in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine.

Using recent Islamist violence as excuse and justification, Western leaders have embarked on a revolutionary societal transformation that ditched centuries of hard-earned human-rights gains and liberties paid for with the blood and unimaginable suffering of an uncountable multitude. What is it that turns these same leaders, and many of their followers, blind to the causes of the "Islamist" terrorism they fear so much? What is it that makes them believe they can, with impunity, launch raids that destroy whole countries and civilisations without taking the time to ponder that maybe, perhaps, possibly, their actions, according to the inexorable laws of physics, will produce an unavoidable reaction? What makes them believe that they are not directly responsible for the terrorist, murderous acts of a few fanatics? Can't Western people discern that it is their own politicians who are actually aiding and abetting the terrorists who are targeting their societies? Had the politicians actually meant to do so, they wouldn't have acted differently.

Here's one possible answer to the above questions: it is not Muslims alone who are "living in the past" as many Western critics of Islamic societies often intone. Christian cultures have been equally unable to advance morally and ethically beyond the mindset of the 16th to the 19th centuries that led to the brutal colonisation by Western powers of such a multitude of nations around the Earth. Zionist Jews are similarly stuck in the past, using religious propaganda to justify and underpin their neo-colonialist political agenda. Christian and Jewish cultures are no more advanced than Muslim cultures, or no less developed if you prefer. The only difference seems to be that technology and relative wealthy comfort have served to mask the West's moral under-development that leads Westerners to believe that their lives are infinitely more valuable than those of their darker skinned brethren.

The irony, of course, is that this same technological advance contains within it the seeds of self-inflicted destruction. Prominent amongst them is the accelerating process of global warming. It should be called the Samson Warming. For just as Samson brought the temple down upon him and his foes, so Western governments, who refuse to recognise the seriousness of the peril represented by their societies' carbon-based energy profligacy, are in danger of bringing the whole biological edifice crashing down upon them and upon life on Earth. Other seeds are obscene income and wealth disparities, chronic poverty in lands of plenty, and unsustainable economic systems that prosper only through consumption and plunder of the Earth's resources.

There is one moral to this narrative, directed at the attitude implicit in Pope Benedict's comments to Germany's Muslim leaders: "Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. (Matt. 7:1-5)"

Rachard Itani can be reached at: racharitani@yahoo.com

[Captain Zen]

No, no, no conspiracy, no lies, just eyewittness reports, please dont believe this truth, it is the ennemy of the state.......


VI: THE COLLAPSE OF WORLD TRADE CENTER 1, 2,
AND 7
We now reach the center of the tragedy, the hecatomb of innocent airline passengers and
office workers occasioned by the unprecedented and inexplicable collapse of the two
World Trade Center towers. Here is where vast numbers of ordinary persons were
immolated by the terrorist controllers for the sake of their insane geopolitical plans.
Coming from a family which lived in New York for six decades after about 1910, having
lived in New York City (Flushing, Queens) from the age of 4 to the age of 16, having
attended New York City public schools from the first grade through the twelfth (PS 23,
PS 20, JHS 185, Flushing High School), having worked in the city for a year as an adult
living in Brooklyn, and having had an uncle who was a New York City policeman, the
author is as much of a New Yorker as anyone. 9/11 has marked a decisive new step
downward in the city’s decline, and the bitter recognition of this tragic situation can only
spur on the exposure of the actual process involved in 9/11.
THE KEY: SECONDARY EXPLOSIONS
According to the official version, which the 9/11 commission hardly comments on, the
twin towers fell because of the impact of the planes and of the effects of the subsequent
fires. The problem is that this is physically impossible, as we will show. The fall of the
towers thus depends on some other cause: controlled demolition of some kind is the only
possible hypothesis. The key to seeing beyond the official version is to chronicle the
presence of secondary explosions, since these are the tell-tale signs of controlled
demolition. When we examine the literature, we find a multitude of references to such
secondary explosions.
Louie Cacchioli, aged 51, was a firefighter attached to Engine Company 47, based
uptown in Harlem. “We were the first ones in the second tower after the plane struck,”
Cacchioli recounted later. “I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the twentyfourth
floor to get in a position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off.
We think there were bombs set in the building.” Cacchioli was trapped in an elevator but
was able to escape with the help of some fireman’s tools. (People Weekly, September 24,
2001)
Auxiliary Fireman Lt. Paul Isaac Jr. also spoke of bombs in an interview with internet
reporter Randy Lavello. Isaac had served with Engine Company 10 in lower Manhattan
during the late 1990s, so he knew the area around the WTC. Isaac said that many New
York firemen were very concerned about the ongoing cover-up of why the World Trade
Center collapsed. “Many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings,” he
revealed, “but they are afraid for their jobs to admit it because the higher-ups forbid
discussion of this fact. There were definitely bombs in those buildings.” Among those
suppressing real discussion about what had happened, Isaac cited the neocon heavy
James Woolsey, who had been CIA Director under Clinton, who had become the New
York Fire Department’s antiterrorism consultant. (Marrs 34)
Teresa Veliz was a manager for a software development firm. She was on the 47th floor
of the North Tower when American 11 struck. Veliz was able to reach the ground level at
about the same time that the South Tower collapsed. Flung to the ground in total
darkness, Veliz and a colleague followed another person who happened to have a
flashlight. As she narrated later: “The flashlight led us into Borders bookstore, up an
escalator, and out to Church Street. The explosions were going off everywhere. I was
convinced that there were bombs planted all over the place and someone was sitting at a
control panel pushing detonator buttons. I was afraid to go down Church Street towards
Broadway, but I had to do it. I ended up on Vesey Street. There was another explosion.
And another. I didn’t know which way to run.” (Murphy; Marrs 34)
Ross Milanytch viewed the scene from the 22nd floor of a nearby building. He reported
seeing “small explosions on each floor. And after it all cleared, all that was left of the
buildings, you could just see the steel girders in like a triangular sail shape. The structure
was just completely gone.” (America at War; Marrs 34)
Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that morning. “I
was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he reported. “There
was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook.
I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was
a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human
damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press;
http://www.zeitenschrift.com/news/wtc/_wahrheit.ihtml)
Fox 5 News, a New York television channel, was able to catch on videotape a large white
cloud billowing out near the base of the South Tower. The newsman commented: “There
is an explosion at the base of the building….white smoke from the bottom …something
has happened at the base of the building… then, another explosion. Another building in
the World Trade Center complex….” (Marrs 35)
Tom Elliott was at work at his desk in the offices of Aon Corp. on the 103rd floor of the
South Tower just before 9 AM. When the North Tower was hit, he decided to leave the
building and began walking down the stairs with a small group of people. At the 70th
floor, Elliott was encouraged by a woman to disregard the announcement on the public
address system that there was no need to evacuate. When Elliott had reached the 67th
floor, United 175 struck the South Tower, above where he was. Elliott later told a
reporter what he was able to observe after that: “Although its spectacularly televised
impact was above Elliott, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come
from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the building
and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up the
stairwell. “In front of me, the wall split from the bottom up,” Elliott recounted. Elliott
was able to get out of the South Tower by 9:40. (Christian Science Monitor, September
17, 2001)
At 11:56 AM, NBC News broadcast a segment in which reporter Pat Dawson
summarized a conversation he had just had with Albert Terry of the FDNY. Terry had
told the reporter that he had about 200 firefighters in the WTC buildings at around 9 AM.
Then, Terry said, he had heard a kind of secondary explosion. Dawson:
Just moments ago I spoke to the Chief of Safety for the New York City
Fire Department, who was obviously one of the first people here after the
two planes were crashed into the side, we assume, of the World Trade
Center towers, which used to be behind me over there. Chief Albert Terry
told me that he was here just literally five or ten minutes after the events
that took place this morning, that is the first crash. The Chief of Safety of
the Fire Department of New York City told me that shortly after 9:00 he
had roughly ten alarms, roughly 200 men, trying to effect rescues of some
of those civilians who were in there, and that basically he received word of
a secondary device, that is another bomb, going off. He tried to get his
men out as quickly as he could, but he said that there was another
explosion which took place. And then an hour after the first hit here, the
first crash, that took place, he said there was another explosion that took
place in one of the towers here. So obviously, according to his theory, he
thinks that there were actually devices that were planted in the building.
One of the secondary devices, he thinks, that [detonated] after the initial
impact he thinks may have been on the plane that crashed into one of the
towers. The second device, he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted
in the building. So that’s what we have been told by Albert Terry, who is
the Chief of Safety for the New York City Fire Department. He told me
that just moments ago. (Wisnewski 135-136)
Proponents of the official version have attempted to explain some of these explosions as
having been caused by gas escaping from leaks in gas mains, but this cannot account for
the phenomena described by Terry. Nor can such other explanations as exploding
transformers, etc.
Ann Thompson of NBC reported at 12:42 PM that she had reached the corner of
Broadway and Fulton on her way to the World Trade center that morning when she heard
an explosion and a wall of debris came toward her. She took refuge in a building. When
she came out again about 10:30, she heard a second explosion. Firemen warned her about
another explosion. (Wisnewski 136; Trinkhaus, 4 ff.)
The eyewitness Michael Benfante told a German TV camera team: “As I was leaving, I
heard it. I looked back, and the top of the North Tower was exploding. And even then I
did not believe that the whole tower could fall. I thought, only the top exploded and is
now going to fall on me. I turned around again and ran away. I felt the rumble of the
explosions, the thunder of the collapsing building.” (German ARD network, “Tag des
Terrors – Anschlag aus heiterem Himmel,” August 30, 2002, Wisnewski 136)
A reporter tried to film a standup with the WTC in the background, but was interrupted
by the sound of an explosion: “We can’t get any closer to the World Trade Center. Here
you can see the firemen who are on the scene, the police and FBI officers, and you see
the two towers – A huge explosion! Debris is coming down on all of us!” (“Verbrechen
gegen die Menschheit,” West German Television, Cologne, July 24, 2002; Wisnewski
136)
Yet another eyewitness reported: “We heard a huge explosion, and everything got black.
Glass was falling down, people were getting hurt when the glass hit them. It was a big
explosion, everything got dark, this here is not snow, it’s all from the building, a horrible
nightmare.” “I was on Sixth Avenue and I had just tried to call somebody when I heard
an explosion and saw how the people were throwing themselves on the ground,
screaming and crying, I looked up and saw all that smoke, as the tower came down, and
all that smoke in one tower.” (Segment by Oliver Voegtlin and Matthias Fernandes,
NTV, September 11, 2001)
Another European documentary showed a man with glasses recovering in a hospital bed
who recalled: “All of a sudden it went bang, bang, bang, like shots, and then three
unbelievable explosions.” (“Terror gegen Amerika,” RTL, September 13, 2001)
An eyewitness who worked in an office near the WTC described his experiences to a
reporter for the American Free Press. He was standing in a crowd on Church Street,
about two and a half blocks from the South Tower. Just before the South Tower
collapsed, he saw “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building
between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these flashes and at the same time heard a
“a crackling sound” just before the tower collapsed.” (Christopher Bollyn, American Free
Press, December 2, 2001; Wisnewksi 137)
Kim White, 32, who worked on the 80th floor of the South Tower, was another
eyewitness who reported hearing an explosion. “All of a sudden the building shook, then
it started to sway. We didn't know what was going on,” she told People magazine. “We
got all our people on the floor into the stairwell . . . at that time we all thought it was a
fire . . .We got down as far as the 74th floor . . . then there was another explosion.”
(Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, December 2, 2001)
A black office worker wearing a business suit that was covered with dust and ashes told
the Danish television network DR-TV1: “On the eighth floor we were thrown back by a
huge explosion.” (Wisnewski 138)
The German network SAT 1 broadcast a report featuring survivors who also were talking
about explosions. One of these eyewitnesses, by the name of Tom Canavan, was cut off
in mid-sentence by two FBI agents who barged in, grabbed him as he was speaking, and
hustled him away; this scene was captured on tape. (Wisnewski 138)
NBC TAPES SHOW CONTROLLED DEMOLITION EXPLOSIONS
In his best-selling study and also in his prime-time special broadcast on German
television in August 2003, Gerhard Wisnewski employed out-takes from NBC News
cameras near the World Trade Center to provide actual examples of what are almost
certainly controlled demolition charges being detonated. On the NBC tape, we see the
two towers burning and emitting clouds of black smoke. Then, at about frame 131 of the
tape, there emerges a cloud of white-grey smoke along about two thirds of the 79th floor
of the South Tower. Two thirds of the southeast façade correspond to the dimensions of
the central core column complex, which would be where controlled demolition charges
would have to be placed. This line of white-grey smoke billows up, contrasting sharply
with the black smoke from the fire. At about frame 203, another line of white-grey smoke
emerges several floors below the first, and billows up in its turn. This represents decisive
photographic evidence of controlled demolition charges being triggered in the World
Trade Center. (Wisnewski 216)
Andreas von Bülow, the former Social Democratic Technology Minister of Germany
under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, noted in his study of 9/11 that news tapes show
smoke being forced out of the hermetically sealed windows of both towers in the minute
or so just before they fell. (Von Buelow 146-147) This is very likely also evidence of
controlled demolition charges or other artificial processes going on inside the buildings.
FIREMEN WERE CONFIDENT OF EXTINGUISHING THE FIRE
The Guiliani administration in New York City, and its successor, the Bloomberg
administration, refused for a long time to allow the public to hear tapes of the radio
conversations among the FDNY firemen on the scene at the WTC. In the summer of
2002, press accounts surfaced which indicated that firemen had been able to climb to the
Sky Lobby on the 78nd floor and been able to survey the extent of the fire from there. The
fuselage of United 175 had struck the 80th floor, and one of its wings had clipped the 78th
floor itself. The FDNY officers describe a situation with only two pockets of fire, and
they express confidence that they will be able to fight the fire successfully with two hose
lines. Two officials who are mentioned by name on the tape are Battalion Chief Orio J.
Palmer and Fire Marshal Ronald P. Bucca, both of whom died when the South Tower
collapsed. “Once they got there,” the Times says, “they had a coherent plan for putting
out the fires they could see and helping victims who survived.” According to the New
York Times summary, the two officers “showed no panic, no sense that events were
racing beyond their control…. At that point, the building would be standing for just a few
more minutes, as the fire was weakening the structure on the floors above him. Even so,
Chief Palmer could see only two pockets of fire and called for a pair of engine companies
to fight them….
The limited transcripts made available on the internet were as follows:
Battalion Seven…Ladder Fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire.
We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor
numerous Code Ones.
The audio tape has never been released to the public. The Justice Department claims that
it is evidence in the trial of Zacarias Moussawi in Alexandria, Virginia. (New York Times,
August 4, 2002) Christopher Bollyn, already cited, commented: “The fact that veteran
firefighters had ‘a coherent plan’ for putting out the ‘two pockets of fire’ indicates they
judged the blazes to be manageable. These reports from the scene of the crash provide
crucial evidence debunking the government’s claim that a raging steel-melting inferno
led to the tower’s collapse.” (Marr 38-39)
Earlier in the morning, Pete Ganci, the Chief of the Department, and thus the highestranking
uniformed firefighter in the city, had told Giuliani: “We can save everybody
below the fire. Our guys are in the building, about halfway up the first tower.” (Giuliani
8) Ganci was killed in action later in the day.
THE CASE OF WTC 6
CNN broadcast the image of smoke rising up from street level near the base of Building
6, the Customs House. This video footage had originated at 9:04, about one minute after
United 175 struck the South Tower. Remember that WTC 6 was on the north side of the
north tower, so any explosions there cannot be regarded as having been generated by the
impact to the South Tower. A powerful explosion inside WTC 6 had hurled a cloud of
gas and debris 170 meters high. A CNN archivist commented, “We can’t figure it out.”
(Marrs 36) This incident was soon eclipsed by the collapse of the South Tower, and has
tended to be forgotten. The various official reports have had precious little to say about
WTC 6. Overhead views of the ruins later showed a large crater in the steel structure of
WTC 6; it was clear that this crater could not have been caused by fire. (Von Bülow 163-
164)
THE AGONY OF THE FDNY
FDNY lost 343 firefighters that day, more than their casualties in the previous hundred
years. It is worth asking why this came about. In the case of fires in high-rise skyscrapers,
outside ladders cannot be used above a certain level. Therefore, the firemen are trained to
use staircases to climb up to the fire and fight it within the building. They could do this
with a certain degree of confidence because no modern, steel-framed, fireproof building
had ever collapsed as a result of fire. On 9/11, three of them – WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC
7, all collapsed. Veteran firefighters knew what they were doing. Their losses are not
attributable to any mistake on their part, but, in all probability, to the fact that the twin
towers and WTC 7 were brought down by some form of controlled demolition.
The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia had burned lustily for many hours in 1991, but
came nowhere near collapsing. The 1 Meridian fire burned for 19 hours, leaping from
floor to floor and burning out as combustible materials were used up. On May 4-5, 1988,
the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles – a structure that was more or
less comparable to the twin towers – burned for more than three hours, with bright,
intense flames licking up the sides of the building. In a post-blaze assessment, Iklim Ltd.,
a company that specializes in building inspections and structural analyses after fires,
concluded: “In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to
the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small
number of floor pans.”
These comparisons were noted with some discomfort by the New York Times, which
commented that “High-rise buildings are designed to be able to survive a fire, even if the
fire has to burn itself out. The strategy is to ensure that the steel support structures are
strong enough or protected well enough from fire that they do not give way in the time it
takes for everything inside an office building, like furniture, to burn. In major high-rise
fires elsewhere in the country, such as the 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia in 1991
and the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles in 1988, this approach has worked. But
the fires at 7 World Trade Center raged mainly on lower floors and never burned out, and
in the chaos of Sept. 11, the Fire Department eventually decided to stop fighting the
blazes.” One can sense the acute embarrassment of the mythographs; this is all just
absurd. “What the hell would burn so fiercely for seven hours that the Fire Department
would be afraid to fight it?” said one member of the investigation team quoted in this
same article. (New York Times, March 2, 2002)
THE ROMERO ANALYSIS
An important early contribution to the discrediting of the official version regarding the
WTC came in an interview with a New Mexico expert in mining technology which
appeared a few days after 9/11. This highly realistic analysis appeared in the Albuquerque
Journal of September 14, 2001 under the headline “Explosives Planted in Towers, New
Mexico Tech Expert Says,” the byline belonged to Olivier Uyttebrouck.
Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that
explosive devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech
explosion expert said Tuesday. The collapse of the buildings appears "too
methodical" to be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of
Mining and Technology.
“My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the
World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the
buildings that caused the towers to collapse,” Romero said. Romero is a
former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at
Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on
buildings, aircraft and other structures.
Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on national television
broadcasts. Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of
controlled implosions used to demolish old structures. “It would be
difficult for something from the plane to trigger an event like that,”
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on a Washingtonarea
subway when an airplane struck the Pentagon. He said he and Denny
Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to
an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research
programs at Tech.
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have
been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. “It could have been a
relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points,” Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more than two points in
each of the towers, he said.
Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would
have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common
terrorist strategy, Romero said. “One of the things terrorist events are
noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device,” Romero said.
Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts
emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he
said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack
would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.
(http://www.abqjournal.com/aqvan09-11-01.htm -removed from archive;
see http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm)
Here was an honest appraisal from a qualified expert. Romero successfully identified
some of the main anomalies presented by the spectacle of collapse, and proceeded from
there to the only tenable hypothesis: controlled demolition. He was also acutely
perceptive in seeing that the aircraft impacts could not in themselves have been the cause
of the fall of the twin towers; they rather had to be regarded as a diversion or cover story
to make the fall of the buildings plausible to public opinion. However, the America of
late September 2001 was marked by a climate of neo-McCarthyite hysteria wholly
antithetical to public truth; Van Romero later retracted his highly insightful remarks, and
is rumored to have since found preferment from the federal government.
But numerous foreign experts arrived independently at similar conclusions. Steffen Kretz,
the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the World Trade
Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of this same
network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an additional
explosion. (Wisnewski 138) On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview with Jens
Claus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His view was:
“Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise they
would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the former NATO
General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been installed
in the buildings.” (Wisnewski 138) The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, the
leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives
expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of
the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside
the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende, September
12, 2001; Wisnewski 138)
THE VIEW OF A SWISS ENGINEER
Another leading authority who raised the issue of sabotage from within the towers was
Hugo Bachmann, professor emeritus of building dynamics and earthquake engineering at
the world-famous Swiss Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule in Zürich – where
Einstein had taught. As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September
13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The
first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative:
“In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of
the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center
can be destroyed without great logistical exertion.” The article went on to say that
“Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports
in a lower floor before the attack.” If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these
“explosive tenants” could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts
of the building “without having anyone notice.” Bachmann thought that it was less likely
that explosives in the below ground parts of the building could have caused the collapse.
Here the logistic problems would be harder to solve in order to put the charges in the
right places, and the foundations were probably of more stable construction than the steel
towers. Bachmann commented that “the question of whether in fact one of these two
scenarios is applicable cannot be answered at this time.” But he felt it was a central issue
that the second scenario should get more attention, whether or not it applied to the WTC.
Bachmann observed that anyone who had enough knowledge of static structures and
explosives technology could in principle destroy any building, since every structure has
its Achilles heel. An attack aimed at that weak point would be relatively easy to carry out,
but would require careful and time-consuming planning. Not all buildings were equally
vulnerable, but the twin towers of the World Trade Center were in Bachmann’s opinion
probably among the more sensitive targets. (Wisnewski 141-143)
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TAMPERING
There are numerous pieces of unconfirmed anecdotal evidence suggesting strange and
unusual activities in the World Trade Towers in the days and weeks before their
destruction. One New York businessman told me in an interview three years after the fact
that he had visited a client in one of the towers numerous times during the months
preceding the attack, and had always found that certain elevators were out of service.
Another report came from Scott Forbes, an employee of Fiduciary Trust, a firm which
was located on floors 90 and 94-97 of the South Tower. Eighty-seven employees of
Fiduciary Trust were killed on 9/11. In an email account, Forbes reported that over the
weekend of September 8-9, 2001, floors 50 and above of the South Tower experienced a
“power down,” meaning that all electrical current was cut off for about 36 hours. The
reason officially cited was that the electrical cables in the building were being upgraded.
Forbes was an information technology officer in charge of Fiduciary Trust’s computer
network; his attention was engaged by the power down because it fell to him to shut
down all the company’s computers and related systems before the power went out. After
the power down, he had to turn the computers back on again, and restore service on the
network. Because there was no electric power above the fiftieth floor, there were also no
security cameras and no security locks. There were however many outside engineering
personnel coming in and out of the tower at all hours during the weekend. Forbes lived in
Jersey City and could see the WTC towers from his home; when he saw the conflagration
on the morning of 9/11, he immediately related it to the events of the previous weekend.
(http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm)
SEISMIC EVIDENCE
The seismic effects of the collapse of the towers were observed and measured by
Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory just up the Hudson River in
Palisades, New York. Here seismographs recorded two spikes reflecting two shock waves
in the earth on the morning of 9/11. The crucial fact is that these two spikes came just
before the collapse of the towers began. Specifically, Columbia scientists at the facility
registered a tremor of 2.1 on the Richter scale at 9:59:04 EDT, just before the beginning
of the collapse of the South Tower, and a 2.3 shock just as the North Tower began to
come down at 10:28:31 EDT. Both tremors were recorded before the vast majority of the
mass of the buildings hit the ground. Although they were not of earthquake proportions,
these were considerable shocks, about twenty times more potent than any previously
measured shock wave generated by a falling building. The 1993 WTC truck bomb had
produced no seismic effects at all – it had failed to register. At 5:20 local time on the
afternoon of 9/11, there was also a 0.6 tremor from the collapse of WTC 7, also at the
beginning, rather than the end, of this building’s collapse. Dr. Arthur Lerner-Lam, the
director of the Columbia Center for Hazards and Risk Research, commented that “during
the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and
neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage –
but not causing significant ground shaking.” But Lerner-Lam declined to draw any
conclusions from the glaring anomaly represented by his data, which the 9/11
commission has also avoided. (Marrs 39 ff.)
After most of the pile was removed, experts found that there were pools of what appeared
to have been molten metal which had congealed on foundations of the buildings many
levels underground. Some steel appeared to have partially melted, other steel had
undergone alternations to its crystalline structure, and still other steel was full of holes,
like a Swiss cheese.
GIULIANI OBLITERATES THE WTC CRIME SCENE
Mayor Giuliani, by pedigree, was a creature of the highly repressive bureaucraticauthoritarian
apparatus which had consolidated itself in the Justice Department during the
Reagan years. He now performed yeoman service in defense of the 9/11 myth, a myth
which had its most obvious vulnerability in its most spectacular point: the unprecedented
and physically inexplicable collapse of the twin towers. Giuliani used the pretext that his
term was ending on December 31, 2001 to organize the massive obliteration of the WTC
as a crime scene. Parallel to this, Giuliani engineered a confrontation with the New York
firemen, both to divert public attention from his tampering with the evidence, and also to
neutralize the potential of the firemen, the one group which might have denounced the
presence of controlled demolition charges in WTC 1, 2, and 7, of which, as we have seen,
they were well aware.
During the crisis, Giuliani had been eager to exploit for his own political image the
immense admiration and gratitude which had been expressed around the nation and the
world for the epic feats of the New York firefighters. The firemen were now the most
revered symbols in the country: typical was the cover of Newsweek’s post-9/11 issue,
which showed some firemen raising a flag over the ruins, with an evident allusion to the
flag raising on Iwo Jima. Giuliani made a practice of appearing in public wearing a
baseball cap emblazoned with the letters “FDNY.” The police he relegated to his
windbreaker, which bore the legend “NYPD.” Giuliani proved to be treacherous in
practice to both, and he did this by playing the firefighters against the police, and vice
versa – all in the service of the 9/11 coverup. The firemen, once revered, would soon be
“inexcusable,” according to Giuliani.
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION AGAIN
Giuliani brought in Controlled Demolition, the same highly suspect firm which had
finished the demolition of the Murragh Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, and
which had disposed of the evidence there in the process.
This contract was let surreptitiously just eleven days after 9/11, and empowered
Controlled Demolition to recycle the steel of the World Trade Center. Giuliani has not a
word to say about this in his memoirs. The city accepted rock-bottom prices for the steel;
the priority was to make it disappear fast. Trucks hauling the steel away were equipped
with $1,000 Global Positioning System locators to ensure that none of them went astray,
and that no suspect steel ended up in the back yard of a maverick 9/11 researcher. All
investigators, in fact, were banned from ground zero. Now Controlled Demolition would
eradicate any chance of using the abundant physical evidence present in “the pile,” as the
mass of twisted rubble of the WTC quickly came to be called. It was a scene out of Kafka
– it was impossible to find out which officials were superintending the destruction of the
evidence, to save a myth that was being used to set in motion a world war.
Giuliani, along with ghostwriter Ken Kurson, has produced a relentlessly self-laudatory
and self-promoting autobiography entitled Leadership. This work constitutes a monument
of hypocrisy. During one of his visits to the WTC site, the Mayor noticed that many
visitors were taking pictures of the site. Because there was so much to hide, he found this
troubling: “I noticed a disturbing phenomenon – hundreds of people carrying disposable
cameras and handheld video cameras. I understood the impulse – this was a historic
event, and experiencing it up close had a tremendous impact. At the same time, this was a
crime scene, and a dangerous one. I did not want anyone to get hurt, or to damage
evidence as they scouted out the best angle for their snapshots. If we didn’t do something
about it immediately, it would soon be out of control, a voyeur’s paradise, and we risked
the site developing a distasteful freak show aspect.” (Giuliani 49) An independent
photographic documentation of the crime scene, one the FBI would not be able to
confiscate? Horrors! Giuliani promulgated his infamous order that all photos were illegal
in the area around the WTC complex. Those who risked a snapshot also risked going to
jail.
When it was a question of preventing public scrutiny, Giuliani considered the WTC pile a
crime scene where there was evidence that had to be preserved. But when it was a
question of sending the crucial evidence to the other end of the world, Giuliani’s motto
became “scoop and dump” – with the help of Controlled Demolition. As Thomas Van
Essen, Giuliani’s fawning appointee as Fire Commissioner, described the scene: “…a
full-blown recovery operation was under way, and the site had become an enormous
construction zone. Trucks and plows rolled around everywhere. Giant cranes lofted
massive steel beams over the heads of the men below.” (Van Essen 263) The steel was
being sent to a city land fill at Fresh Kills, Staten Island.
According to Van Essen, by the end of October Giuliani was filled with humanitarian
concern about the danger of accidents to those working on the pile. One of the main
groups present there were firefighters who were seeking the bodies or other remains of
their hundreds of fallen comrades. According to the literary provocateur Langewiesche,
“there were some among the construction workers and the police who grew unreasonably
impatient with the firemen, and became overeager to repeat the obvious – in polite terms,
that these so-called heroes were just ordinary men. On the other hand, the firemen
seemed to become steadily more self-absorbed and isolated from the larger cleanup
efforts underway. “ (Langewiesche 158) “Firemen were said to prefer watches from the
Tourneau store, policemen to opt for kitchen appliances, and construction workers (who
were at a disadvantage here) to enjoy picking through whatever leftovers they came upon
– for instance, wine under the ruins of the Marriott hotel, and cases of contraband
cigarettes that spilled from the US Customs vault in the Building Six debris.”
(Langewiesche 159) Langewiesche reported with great gusto the discovery of evidence
that the firemen had been looting even before the towers came down. “Fifty feet below
the level of the street they began to uncover the hulk of a fire truck that had been driven
deep by the collapse.” According to Langewiesche, the field superintendent who only
wanted to get on with the job at hand felt “delight, then, after the hulk of the fire truck
appeared, that rather than containing bodies (which would have required decorum), its
crew cab was filled with dozens of new pairs of jeans from The Gap, a Trade Center
store. When a grappler pulled off the roof, the jeans were strewn about for all to see. It
was exactly the sort of evidence the field superintendent had been waiting for. While a
group of initially bewildered firemen looked on, the construction workers went wild.”
(Langewiesche 161) The firemen, we must remember, were those who knew most about
the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and they were also the group most
likely to tell what they knew. In this sense, the firemen posed perhaps the greatest
immediate threat to the 9/11 myth upon which the oligarchy had staked so much. The
obvious campaign of psychological warfare against the firemen, therefore, was of worldhistorical
importance. Given the stakes, it would be impossible to exclude that the
dungaree incident which Langewiesche found so delightful had been cynically staged as a
means of keeping the angry and rebellious firemen off-balance, distracted and confused.
The jeans could easily have been planted at a quiet moment during the graveyard shift.
Langewiesche’s reporting came out during the fall in the Atlantic Monthly, and rankled
deeply among the angry firemen and the bereaved families.
On October 31, Halloween, Giuliani decreed without any meaningful consultation that
there would be an upper limit of 25 firefighters on each shift at the WTC pile, along with
25 New York City policemen and 25 Port Authority patrolmen. Soon “the rescue workers
were up in arms. Stories went around that we had simply given up on finding bodies; that
the mayor wanted to speed the cleanup so it would be finished before he left office; that
we had recovered gold from the trade center and didn’t care about anything else….Union
officials started telling the workers we were haphazardly trucking everything to Fresh
Kills – a ‘scoop and dump’ operation.” (Van Essen 265)
Langewiesche defends the Mayor’s justification of cutting the firemen’s representation
on the pile: “when Giuliani gave ‘safety’ as the reason for reducing their presence on the
pile, he was completely sincere.” (Langewiesche 161) In his view, the big problem on the
pile was “firemen running wild.” (Langewiesche 162) In mid-October, an audience of
firemen, policeman, widows, and orphans loudly booed several members of the Giuliani
administration, but also Senator Hillary Clinton and a local Democratic politician. (Van
Essen 258) On Friday, November 2, Giuliani was able to harvest the results of his
provocations. In the morning, more than 1,000 firemen came together at the WTC. Their
chants included: “Bring the brothers home! Bring the brothers home!”, “Do the right
thing!”, “Rudy must go!”, and “Tom must go!”, a reference to Fire Commissioner
Thomas Van Essen, a Giuliani appointee. Their signs read, “Mayor Giuliani, let us bring
our brothers home.” Speakers denounced Giuliani’s hasty carting off of wreckage and
remains to Fresh Kills as a “scoop and dump” operation. One well-respected former
captain appealed to the crowd: “My son Tommy of Squad 1 is not home yet! Don’t
abandon him!” This was met with a cry of “Bring Tommy home!” from the assembled
throng. This scene soon degenerated into an altercation between the firefighters and the
police guarding the site, and then into a full-scale riot. Twelve firefighters were taken to
jail, while five policemen were injured. Giuliani had gladly sacrificed the 9/11 myth of
national solidarity to the needs of his campaign of psychological warfare and
provocations against the firemen. It was All Souls Day, the day of the dead, November 2,
2001.
At a press conference that same day, Giuliani hypocritically condemned the actions of the
firemen as inexcusable. The police wanted to make more arrests, and were scanning
videotapes of the riot to identify firefighters. The city was appalled by what had
happened; many newspapers were anti-Giuliani this time. One trade union leader,
Gorman, called Giuliani a “fascist,” and referred to the Police Commissioner and the Fire
Commissioner as Giuliani’s “goons.”
On Monday, November 11, Giuliani and his officials were again confronted by 200 angry
firefighters and bereaved families at a meeting. Giuliani was accused again and again of
running a “scoop and dump” operation. One widow protested: “Last week my husband
was memorialized as a hero, and this week he’s thought of as landfill?” When Van Essen
stammered that the department had been overwhelmed, a widow replied, “Stop saying
you are overwhelmed! I am overwhelmed! I have three children and my husband is
dead!” Dr. Hirsch of the “biological stain” theory discussed below tried to defend
Giuliani by arguing that nothing resembling an intact body was being found any longer,
but he was shouted down by firemen who knew from their experience on the pile that this
was not so. Van Essen was forced to concede that, based on photographic evidence he
personally examined, remains were indeed still be found that had to be “considered intact
bodies.” (Van Essen 270-271)
Giuliani’s rush to eradicate the crime scene without regard to the preservation of human
remains thus served two important goals. He was able to destroy much pertinent
evidence, and he succeeded in throwing the firefighters on the defensive and playing
them off against the police, the construction workers, and other groups. He was able to
split the firefighters themselves. The firefighters were tied into knots emotionally, and
were left with no time or energy to pursue the issue of justice for their heroic fallen
comrades, which could only have been served by directly raising the issue of the
indications of controlled demolition in numerous points of the World Trade Center
complex. Nor was the cynical oligarchical strategy limited to Giuliani: at the 9/11
commission’s last set of hearings in New York City, the FDNY, NYPD, and other line
departments of the city were mercilessly baited by the likes of former Navy Secretary
John Lehman, who told them that their operational coordination was inferior to that of a
Boy Scout troop. So far the firefighters have not been able to mount a challenge to the
9/11 myth, which necessarily portrays them as incompetent, in spite of their heroism and
huge losses. Only by demolishing the myth, only by unearthing the story of controlled
demolition, can the immense historical merits of the firefighters be duly recognized.
Giuliani’s memoir is mainly for self-aggrandizement, but it also attempts to shore up the
official version at certain key vulnerable points, since the Giuliani legend and the 9/11
myth are now inextricably intertwined. The following remarks are attributed to Dr.
Charles S. Hirsch, the Medical Examiner of New York City in the late afternoon of 9/11:
“Most of the bodies will be vaporized. We’re going to end up with biological stains,
where the tissue has become shapeless, amorphous masses of matter.” According to
Giuliani, Hirsch estimated that the temperature inside the building had reached 2,000
degrees (presumably Fahrenheit). Such a temperature is impossible in the physical
universe as we otherwise know it to be constituted. (Giuliani 22)
CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS: “BORDERLINE CRIMINAL”
The scandalous eradication of the WTC crime scene was one of the main themes of
hearings held by the House Science Committee on March 2, 2002. Congressman Anthony
D. Weiner, a New York Democrat, led off by contrasting the businesslike handling of the
crash scene of Flight 186 on November 12, 2001 with the chaos and disdain for the
integrity of evidence that had prevailed on the WTC pile under Giuliani’s management:
“Within literally moments of that plane crash, the National Transportation Safety Board
was on the ground sequestering evidence, interviewing witnesses, subpoenaing
information, if necessary, and since then, they have offered periodic reports. One month
and a day earlier, when the World Trade Center collapsed, nothing could have been
further from the truth. According to reports that we have heard since, there has been no
comprehensive investigation. One expert in fire engineering concluded that there was
virtually a nonexistent investigation. We haven’t examined any aspects of the collapse
that might have impacted rescue worker procedures even in this last month. Second,
reports have emerged that crucial evidence has been mishandled. Over 80 percent of the
steel from the World Trade Center site has already been sold for recycling, much of it, if
not all of it, before investigators and scientists could analyze the information.”
Weiner pointed out that at the flight 186 Rockaway crash scene on November 11, he had
been able to “watch the National Transportation Safety Board point to pieces of evidence,
[and] say to local law enforcement, don’t touch this or it is going to be a felony if you
do.” (House March 104) That had been the procedure before 9/11, and it had become
procedure once again after 9/11; only in regard to the 9/11 events did these methods,
mandated by federal law, go out the window. It was a massive breakdown of the rule of
law, and all in the service of the coverup.
Weiner pointed out that there was also plenty of blame to go around for the federal
government as well. This centered on inter-agency turf wars, always a favorite means
used by moles to disguise the scope and motivation of what they are really doing: “…we
have allowed this investigation to become woefully bogged down and in fighting and
lack of cooperation among agencies. Researchers from FEMA did not get timely access
to the designs of the building. News accounts have said there has been friction between
engineers in FEMA because of concerns about where the information would wind up.
Even the National Science Foundation, which has awarded grants to several scientists to
study the collapse, but didn’t coordinate these efforts with FEMA or the American
Society of Civil Engineers.”
The reality was even worse. FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT)
was carried out not by full-time government officials, but rather by a group of volunteer
investigators, with a budget of just $600,000. (Ken Starr’s budget for hounding Clinton:
more than $40 million.) FEMA volunteers had no subpoena power, and could not stay the
hand of steel recyclers or confiscate evidenc

[Captain Zen]

And now, back to the topic,
Home / The Rant / ReaderRant / Today in History

Bush Leagues

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Aug 25, 2005, 06:19
Email this article
Printer friendly page


While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that *******ed *****,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”


Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.
Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “mother****ing traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “bull**** protectors” over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW *******s that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying **** what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I *******ed please. They don’t know ****.”

Bush, whiles setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go **** yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”


© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue

[hm0504]

Captain Zen, would you please just provide links to long articles rather than pasting in all the text.

[Captain Zen]

OK, sorry, will do , no more ;long texts, just links, bye

[Captain Zen]

To my naked friend Kirk; have you fallen in the Loch of Nessie? And Bob S., did you try to get him out? You know, when you want to help someone who is in the sh*t, you have to go in that sh*t yourself...
sorry I sent you such long articles, and I understand you need your time to read them. But would you please tell me what your opinion is of the unabridged truth here displayed?
I don't believe anything, I only need to know, and after I have seen it all, I do not think about it any longer. Greetings from the Void.
But I miss you guys a little bit.

[Bob S.]

"Dear Kirk and Bob S., have you gone to Iraq?"

Zen, I chose not to get into the military. It is not everybody's calling. That and I doubt they would have accepted me wit all my chronic ailments.

But I do have my sister and cousin who are in the Marines. My cousin has already served in Iraq and my sister is going there in a few weeks.

But nonetheless, what does our lack of going to Iraq change our opinion?

Now as for him not wanting to talk with Cindy Sheehan, she had already had an audience with him and since then, she has called him all sorts of hateful names. She has a personal vendetta against him and wants the impossible. There is no reason for him to meet with her.

“Who gives a flying **** what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting.

He has a point, if that quote is accurate. He is the president and cannot rely on polls to decide what to do next. He has all the information in front of him, information that we, the public, do not have. What leader would ever go to the public in order to ask them what military strategy they should put in place next? Bush is the Commander in Chief and must make these decisions with his advisors and all relevant information.

"I don't believe anything"

And yet, every other article you provide is severely negative to the US. We created AIDS, we framed Al`Qaeda for 9/11, etc. Can you say something positive about the USA? If you don't believe anything, find some positive articles about the USA.

It sounds like your void is a very hateful place.

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

Hi Bob,
I am so sorry for your family members that are in the military. It indicates they want to be told what to do. Lack of individual creativity and initiative. It's a dangerous job ans may bring suffering and death very close to home. Not my kind of job. You ask me to name good things of the USA.....
Depleted Uranium for ammo, if the bullet does not kill at once, it kills over the years to come. Other good things are Coca Cola, Chewing Gum, baseball, but only the cheerleaders, cowboy movies, Dancing with Wolves and Wounded Knee, Hustler magazine, and Mickey Mouse are a few good things that come to mind first. SUV's, Budweiser, Reverent Robertson's Christian viewpoint, well I could go on and on........
By showing the things that you call negative, and that you yourself rather sweep under the carpet, I remind you that there are things not so wonderfull in the USA, and with your clothes that you may find bothersome you should throw off these negative things from your country. I must show you the other side of the coin, if you yourself never look at it. I see it makes you uneasy. That is good, do something about it.

[hm0504]

I may not have the prophetic powers of Pat Robertson, but I do believe a mini-Rapture might take place soon right here at ClothesFree Forums in which at least one particular member might suddenly vanish from the ether (net).

I spent the latter half of my youth growing up next door to a retired U.S. Marine who was then, and still is though he is well past the age when vast majority of people "retire", one of the most accomplished people I have ever met; he is indeed world-renowned in his chosen (non-military) field. "Lack of individual creativity and initiative" couldn't be further from the truth; nor does it describe the vast majority of those I know presently in, or retired from, the American and Canadian armed forces. Bob S., obviously I don't know your relatives now serving in Iraq, but they certainly have my appreciation and admiration for their service.

[jon71]

I hope all out men and women come home safe and the sooner the better.

[Bob S.]

"obviously I don't know your relatives now serving in Iraq, but they certainly have my appreciation and admiration for their service."

Thanks Albinus. And thank you for not purporting to know what they think, unlike someone else here.

Zen, I feel pity for you. Your world seems to consist of a void in which you live. You will occasionally come out and see only hatred, evil, and the mundane without seeing the good, love, and all other positive things this life has to offer.

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
Zen, I feel pity for you. Your world seems to consist of a void in which you live. You will occasionally come out and see only hatred, evil, and the mundane without seeing the good, love, and all other positive things this life has to offer.
Bob S.
Dear Bob,
I have guided myself through and towards all the beauty and love and good things there are to find in this life. I had my share of toys, cars, small planes and horses, houses, sailing yachts and girls. I live now with my tools and custom design jewelry workshop on a tropical island, surrounded by golden beaches, a turqois clean sea, with exotic young women and lush vegatation. I have never resorted to any violence or witheld help to any poor person that came my way. To pity me, ah well, go right ahead, it's fine with me.
That I point to you guys the evil your government is doing in the world may make you think I see noting else. Your mistake, I AM the Beauty and the Love and the Kingdom and the Power. I made my world as I prefer it. I just want you all to see and stop the wars, the pain and the destruction your country is havocking upon so many innocents. In order to maintain your wasteful lifestyle, to dominate the rest of the world, imposing YOUR way of democracy, culture and capitalism is not asked for. When you talk love, how can you ever support to wear a uniform? With supporting uniforms you undo your personality, your personality, you sell your soul to the devils of violence and destruction. If you can not be content without imposing your will [through war] upon others, I have no respect for you.
Let me tell you a Sufi story:
On the market place in the city of a rich Sheik two men sat eating each their food. One ate a rich plate with meats and cooked vegetables and fruits and was attended by a servant who filled up his pincher with the best wine available. The other had a simple bowl of rice and beans and a beaker with water.
"Hey", said the lavishly attended eater to the other man, "If you was clever and let go of your pride and submit to our Sheik, you would be eating the same nice food as me."
Answered the other: "And if you could be content with a bowl of rice and peas, you would not have to crawl so low and kiss the *** of your Sheik every day."

[P.J.]

Captain Zen's comments about Bob's sister and cousin and their decision to serve in the Marine Corps are way out of line.

The statement that "they want to be told what to do," not only is ignorant, but untrue.

Sure there is a chain of command, with those on the top giving the orders, while those down the ladder being tasked to follow commands.

However, even the lowest ranking servicemembers, after completion of initial entry training, are highly trained specialists. Not everyone shines boots, peels potatoes, cleans latrines, digs foxholes nor lives the lifestyle of the unrealistic old stereotypical military characters who were invented by lifelong civilians (i.e., Gomer Pyle USMC).

Although I admit that I have made jokes about the Marines, as a Sailor, this was my right, as a serviceman. Servicemen make fun of those in the other branches of the Armed Forces, but not so deep down, we have a very deep down respect for those who serve in the other branches as well as those of forces of our allies.

Those of you who wish to criticize our military are free to do so.

Those with no prior service who choose to criticize our military, go right ahead. Many of you make fools of yourselves when you do.

Bob, your sister and cousin are todays heroes. Best of all, like todays servicemembers, they are among the best trained professionals. Whether they are lowly privates who are fresh out of bootcamp or four-star generals, this retired Sailor salutes them and wishes them all the success and a speedy victorious return!!!

[P.J.]

Originally posted by jon71:
I hope all out men and women come home safe and the sooner the better.


I agree!!!
Whether or not this is the right war, we're in it and I want to see our forces win and return victorious.
I personally know guys who are serving over there with the National Guard and want to see them return with medals other than the Purple Heart.

[Ren]

I'm only chiming in because I hate to see what people whose name rhymes with mine are saying. Zen - it is easy to criticize from afar and to see only the bad. But we could look anywhere and find the bad. Many of us who live here are trying to overcome that which is bad in our society and improve it.

I am a pacifist from a family that has a military background - it was borne out of that, because my family didn't find glory in the exploits of war (and they didn't really go in by choice), and I don't think many who serve in wars find them to be "glorious" -- that is for the hyperbolists who get on TV and the radio, some of whom have never been in the military.

I know people who serve by choice - some with a calling to help protect the country. Where I differ with several who would post here is that young people are being duped into "protecting" the U.S. via a lie --- being in Iraq is not about "protecting" the U.S., and that's where this whole situation becomes sad. But I don't fault them for that; I fault those in charge. People who join the military aren't doing it out of a need to be subservient, just as people who join a local club, or even get a job somewhere are doing it because they like being bossed around. Remarks like that are limited in what they can bring to a conversation. If you're truly a person who has found enlightenment, you wouldn't be going about berating people, you'd be trying to find understanding in the situation.

The Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh took no sides in the Vietnam War and chose to see the humanity on each side, to see inside the hurt that would cause people to be so mad and hateful. That's an enlightened way to be if indeed you have found the enlightenment you claim. I vehemently disagree with people on here, but for the most part, I've tried to remain neutral by disengaging and not getting caught in others' rhetoric. You might do a service to us all by thinking before you speak, for in that silence, you might find that words need not be said. In silence, there can be brilliance.

As for the discussion of winners and being victorious; in war, there are no true winners. The soul is sapped at some point - I have seen this firsthand by members of my family who have had their personalities changed for life by what happened overseas. Perhaps if we didn't see things so linearly, our government would be less apt to send our people into battle on a whim.

[Captain Zen]

Thank you for your input, and I agree with all you say. The Enlightenement I have found is fleetingly there and then it isn't. Knowing it is for me the first step towards more of it. I do not claim to be Enlightened, I claim to know what Enlightenement means.The word Christ means the Enlightened One, as does the word Buddha, and compassion towards all senrient beings is a step on the Path. I still think it important to point to the endless suffering war and violence brings and through mentioning it hope that those involved will try to sstop it.
I am a nudist, so a nutcase already, what me worry........

[Captain Zen]

All fine and well, this topic is "Bush Bashing" and I stick to that, and I bash his underlings and him self as the headmadman of the untold suffering he has unleashed. He is asking for more dead to come http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=dom...-PROTEST-BUSH-DC.XML (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-08-27T141355Z_01_SCH670855_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-IRAQ-USA-PROTEST-BUSH-DC.XML)
And no matter for what reason you support your president, it can not be the love for the truth as this here shows:
http://www.citypages.com/databank/24/1182/article11417.asp
Find that spark of light inside of you and set it ablaze......

[Captain Zen]

To Ren, rhyming on Zen,
I ask: "How loud can my silence be?"
The silence you mention is within me, however here we need a different medicine...
If there is a topic about philosophy and mysticism, I should better post some of my words there.
Like that I need to remind [you or] many here, that an animal [or human being] born in captivity will never know what freedom is. Likewise a person born in the USA is unaware of global freedom. He is indoctrinated from day one that HIS is the only country that counts and it is the best! But as a bird flies, borders are not seen from the sky, the planet is truely One. We All breath the same air, and we drink the same water, we all are touching the same planet with out feet. We are all together on this here Earth planet hurtling through space around our star the Sun. And I can push you out of my yard, my town, my country, but I can not push you from my world. I do not believe in nationalism and borders. I am a global citiZEN... One Love for All.
And although I am not so much religious as many here on the forum seem to be, I like to quote from a very old Dr.Bronners Peppermint Castille Soap label:
There are brave souls who dare to dream that men are brothers and not foes,
That hands may clasp across the seas to common good, to common woes,
That beneath God's law the Essene Moral ABC, that 6 billion strong unites All-One-God-Faith men will embrace in brother-love to never kill in bitter hate.
Who Dare to hear the mighty truth reverberating through long years, that faith-love-courage conquer fear & teamwork heal a nation's tears.
Though flood and fire sweep the old earth's sod, & raging wars and evils wreck its calm, still through the awful tumult there is God our glorious world within his upraised palm.
Among the journeying stars, the moon, the sun that have not failed because of that great might; with other pilgrim plants we are one held in His hand, kept in His steadfast sight.
Amidst the cannons' roar you can hear God's voice: "Replace half truth, our real ennemy, that age old hate, with full truth and hard work. God's law uniting mankind in All-One-God-Faith! For centuries man struggles half asleep, half living, small and jealous, bickering with mountains of red tape to be awakened, the night God chose giving His great reward for hard work: Poetry, uniting Love evolving man above the ape!
Machine age man is full of sense & nonsense, fear, greed & jealousy destroy his every land;
Today, this whole wide world craves love-faith-courage, united by the moral ABC we stand!

[Captain Zen]

As Cindy said, "If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your *** over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

[Trailscout]

Who said there are only two sides to this?

Some of us support Bush as the leader we happen to have at the moment, but are aware of his shortcomings, yet are aware of exaggerated or even fabricated accusations against him.

Many of us, including a large number of Democrats, are convinced that remaining in Iraq is not in our long-term interest, but that a hasty departure will not further our goals either.

We must challenge the Bush administration to hasten their efforts and strengthen their efforts to equip the Iraqis for self-rule.

The Iraqis need to sort out their differences and do it quickly, being fair to minorities and women. Iraq cannot be an American-style republic, but it must become a nation that does not make war on its neighbors nor make war on its minority groups.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Who said there are only two sides to this?

Bush said that. His famous words at the beginning of his debacle: "You are either with us or you are against us."
And the US Army will stay in Iraq until the last drop of oil is pumped out, you can take that to the nudist bank.
I said that.

[Bob S.]

As Cindy said, "If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your *** over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

I am pro-Bush but am not pro war. Wars are horrible events full of violence and death. But sometimes, they ar necessary. That point is always going to be debated with each war that is fought. And yes, if you do not agree, it is your right to speak out.

There is the eternal hope of mankind that is world peace. So why can't we accomplish that? Why all the wars? Well, the problem is that nobody can agre on the kind of peace we should have. One person's utopia is another person's dystopia.

"Likewise a person born in the USA is unaware of global freedom. He is indoctrinated from day one that HIS is the only country that counts and it is the best!"

Zen, that is a huge assumption about global freedom. And false in many aspects.

Also, many countries indoctrinate their citizens that their country is the best. Yes, we pledge allegience to our country starting in elementary school, although that recitation is voluntary. Everyone should take care of home first. If their own home is falling apart, they cannot give assistance to anyone else.

The US is not the only country that believes it is the best. That is an arrogance that befalls most governments.

"I still think it important to point to the endless suffering war and violence brings and through mentioning it hope that those involved will try to sstop it."

So point to all of it, Zen. Why not create a new topic and point to all of the suffering in the world. The US is not close to the worst offender. What of those in Iraq who are killing the citizens, police officers, and our troops because they do not want to come to the table and agree on a new government? What of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups that are killing innocent Israelis and whose ultimate goal is to rid the world of the only Jewish state?

What of the Sudan? Sri Lanka? Indonesia? China? Cuba? The list goes on and on Zen. What are you doing to try to help them? Are you speaking out against them as well? Or is your focus just on the US?

Bob S.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
...
The Iraqis need to sort out their differences and do it quickly, being fair to minorities and women. Iraq cannot be an American-style republic, but it must become a nation that does not make war on its neighbors nor make war on its minority groups.

I think Iraq will have to go through a very bloody civil war before the various ethnic and religious groups can "settle" their differences. Things do not look very promising at the moment.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
As Cindy said, "If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your *** over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out."

Ironically her son Casey supported the war, the mission and volunteered to go. So what is her beef? She's angry at her son and she's projecting that anger onto George Bush. She's a very sad case.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Bob S.:
"Dear Kirk and Bob S., have you gone to Iraq?"


And yet, every other article you provide is severely negative to the US. We created AIDS, we framed Al`Qaeda for 9/11, etc. Can you say something positive about the USA? If you don't believe anything, find some positive articles about the USA.

It sounds like your void is a very hateful place.

Bob S.

I don't usually read his posts. I stopped at holocaust denial but I noticed something about AIDS being created in a lab by the CIA. There's little point really is there?

[jon71]

She's trying to stop others from dying for nothing in Iraq. I hope she succeeds.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
She's trying to stop others from dying for nothing in Iraq. I hope she succeeds.

No she's just acting badly and making herself look bad. She's probably created more support for Bush and opposition to him.

[NudeAl]

She's trying to stop others from dying for nothing in Iraq. I hope she succeeds.

Support our troops. End the Iraq war now.


You know Jon I'm sitting here trying to bite my tongue right now. I have lost friends in this war and I know they didn't die for nothing and I don't like hearing others who haven't been there sit around and tell me what fools they were to go over there and fight and die in that place. I think it would be better for everyone if you kept those kind of remarks to yourself.

You can criticize the government and the war all you want but when you start putting down my fellow fighting men, well like the old country song says you're walking on the fighting side of me.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

Sadly the claim to support the troops is not really genuine. We now have wounded vets being harassed with similar signs as they lie injured in American hospitals. These brave men amd women deserve better.

[jon71]

I'm not putting down the men and women who died there at all. Their families and friends have my sympathy. I was stating a painful truth. Because of the errors of the govt. they did die for nothing. That is a damn shame, they and their loved ones deserved better. I have respect for the soldiers which is part of the reason I so strongly oppose this war. Their mission is America's national security and that is a noble mission. This tragedy has absolutely nothing to do with national security and never did. Direct your anger at George Bush where it belongs, he sent them to die in order to ensure that the last election didn't focus on the economy.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71: Direct your anger at George Bush where it belongs, he sent them to die in order to ensure that the last election didn't focus on the economy.

Ahhh Jon..the economy was in recovery before, during and after the last election.

[jon71]

I don't know if you are lying Kirk or if you are truly that ill informed but no it wasn't and sadly is still in the crapper. Greenspan just warned that the housing sector, which has been the rare bright spot over the last four years, is looking at a big down turn.

[NudeAl]

They died for their country Jon. They died so that you and I could have freedom. It is disrespectful and it dishonors their sacrifice to say they died for nothing. I know a few families that have lost someone over there and they don't feel they died for nothing. They died in service to our nation. Now if our nation really didn't want to fight a war we as a nation should have said and done something but the majority of Americans did support the war. We can't take it back now, we have to stand by them and honor their memory by seeing this through to the end, otherwise they will have died for nothing.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
I don't know if you are lying Kirk or if you are truly that ill informed but no it wasn't and sadly is still in the crapper. Greenspan just warned that the housing sector, which has been the rare bright spot over the last four years, is looking at a big down turn.

Jon the housing sector is at the end of a huge boom that has to come to an end. Housing prices are too high. That is not an economic downturn. Lowest interest rates in 40 years. Low inflation. Soaring demand. That creates a boom. The US economy has been in recovery for the past 18 months.

[jon71]

It is not disrespectful to say the truth. My way of honoring them is to oppose this war to try and prevent others from dying in vain too. There was and is no national interest there. They died in an honorable fashion yes, but the war is pointless. The war did not serve America in any way, it served politics and that is not a good enough reason for their sacrifice. Also it is not true that a majority of Americans supported the Iraq war. At the beginning it was 50-50 and now has a solid majority in opposition. Furthermore we certainly can "take it back". A lot of people who used to support this war have reconsidered and now oppose it. They wisely reviewed the facts and saw that it was a poor decision. It is in our nations national security interest to wash our hands of this before we lose any more good people over there.

[Captain Zen]

Go here:
http://mwhodges.home.att.net/inflation.htm

INFLATION - WHO SAYS IT'S DEAD?

87% EROSION OF PURCHASING POWER - AND CONTINUING

- a dollar in 1950 will buy only 13 cents worth of goods today, 87% less than before -

Inflation in my adult years increased average prices 1,000% or more -
example 1: a postage stamp in the 1950s cost 3 cents; today's cost is 37 cents - 1,233% inflation;
example 2: a gallon of full-service gasoline cost 18 cents before; today it is $2.28 for self-service - 1,267 % inflation;
example 3: a new house in 1959 averaged $14,900; today it's $282,300 - 1,795% inflation (+1,510% if quality-adjusted);
example 4: a dental crown used to cost $40; today it's $740 - 1,750% inflation;
example 5: an ice cream cone used to cost 5 cents; today its $2.50 - 4,900% inflation;
example 6: monthly Medicare insurance premiums paid by seniors was $5.30 in 1970; its now $78.20 - 1,475% inflation;
example: several generations ago a person worked 1.4 months per year to pay for government; he now works 5 months.
And in the past, one wage-earner families lived well and built savings with minimal debt, many paying off their home and college-educating children without loans. How about today?

Few citizens know that a few years ago government changed how they measure and report inflation, as if that would stop it - - but families know better when they pay their bills for food, medical costs, energy, property taxes, insurance and try to buy a house.

Is inflation a threat to society, beside the prices we pay and the fact fewer children have a full-time mother at home? Consider this famous quote:
"There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." Lord John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), renowned British economist.

DEFINITION OF INFLATION:
Inflation is the loss of a constant purchasing value of the dollar,
caused by an increase out of 'thin air' of the supply of money and debt creation by the financial system


-----------------------

[KirkOntario]

For those of you who think the way the world views America is going down think again...


http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508260816.asp



"According to the massive Pew Global Attitudes Survey, views of the United States have been improving. We’re not exactly back to the days when Kuwaiti babies were being named George Bush, but the trends are in our favor. The share of people with a favorable view of America went up in Indonesia by some 23 points, in Lebanon by 15 points, and in Jordan by 16 points. Trends in France, Germany, Russia, and India have been moving our way, too.

But the news gets even better. Support for terrorism and Osama bin Laden has been plummeting across the Arab and Muslim world (save for in Jordan, where the large Palestinian population plays a big role). Support for democracy, meanwhile, has improved. According to Pew, “nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries.” The share of those supporting suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians has fallen by more than one-third in Lebanon — where democracy is on the move, by the way — and by 16 and 27 points in Pakistan and Morocco, respectively. Similar declines in support for Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the like have been recorded. "

Originally posted by NudeAl:
They died for their country Jon. They died so that you and I could have freedom. It is disrespectful and it dishonors their sacrifice to say they died for nothing.

Going into Iraq not only didn't make us more free, it greatly increased our chances of getting attacked again. And in Iraq, the casualties are going up, not down. The insurgents are drawn to Iraq like a magnet, they weren't there before we went in. Wake up Al. Those poor soldiers are there for reasons that have been struck down time and time again.

Meanwhile our own borders are wide open and anyone can and does come in at will.

It's not disrespectful to tell the truth. They are over there getting killed for lies, and many of them are under the age of 25.

Jon only wants them to stop dying. I don't find that disrespectful at all.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
For those of you who think the way the world views America is going down think again...


http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200508260816.asp



"According to the massive Pew Global Attitudes Survey, views of the United States have been improving. We’re not exactly back to the days when Kuwaiti babies were being named George Bush, but the trends are in our favor. The share of people with a favorable view of America went up in Indonesia by some 23 points, in Lebanon by 15 points, and in Jordan by 16 points. Trends in France, Germany, Russia, and India have been moving our way, too.

But the news gets even better. Support for terrorism and Osama bin Laden has been plummeting across the Arab and Muslim world (save for in Jordan, where the large Palestinian population plays a big role). Support for democracy, meanwhile, has improved. According to Pew, “nearly three-quarters of Moroccans and roughly half of those in Pakistan, Turkey and Indonesia see Islamic extremism as a threat to their countries.” The share of those supporting suicide bombings and the targeting of civilians has fallen by more than one-third in Lebanon — where democracy is on the move, by the way — and by 16 and 27 points in Pakistan and Morocco, respectively. Similar declines in support for Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the like have been recorded. "

Wow! That does sound like wonderful news from National Review. That is, until one actually reads the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, available at
http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=247
for oneself and finds that National Review's review was, shall we say, extremely selective -- they seemed to have used a microscope to focus on the few non-negative aspects and ignored the rest which basically contradicts NRO's whole article.

[Captain Zen]

Dear Kirk took it a little bit out of context, but he is forgivem, he needed a boost, after all my nasty posts, to each his own.
Work on your countries image friends,
love the world as you love yourself.

[hm0504]

I should add that the dramatic downturn of world opinion regarding the U.S. seems to be intrinsically tied to the fact that the President is Bush. During the Clinton years, the U.S. was, relatively, quite admired and respected (as shown by the Pew numbers).

Hence, I think the stats generally indicate world opinion about the U.S. President, not the U.S. as a whole.

Let me repeat, for the record, that I think the world is, on the whole, very fortunate to have had the U.S. as a global superpower since WW II.

[hm0504]

A few points regarding the "bring the troops home" discussion:

a) When the number of troops dying or being injured is relatively small, then that cannot be a major factor in deciding the policy of the war. Was it a mistake to go into Iraq? Yes, I think so. Would it be a mistake to retreat from Iraq now that the U.S. is in? Yes, I think so. Is it a problem that the U.S. seems to be handing Iraq to Islamic militia groups as the U.S. focuses on wiping out the secular insurgents. Yes, I definitely think so. At this point arguments about the policy of the war need to the primary discussion.

b) I don't want to sound like I'm being unsympathetic toward the loss of American troops -- they are definitely not just statistics. However, when a country chooses to engage in a supposedly pre-emptive war, it is making a declaration that it will accept the loss of potentially many troops. Sorry everyone, but that part has been done. As I said in a), the question now is what is best policy regarding the war in Iraq given the current situation. (Heck, never mind the "best policy", I'd like to know what "the policy" is.)

[Captain Zen]

Bush says he knows that Iraq's still unfinished constitution will be a victory for women because Condoleezza Rice told him so. But if the president were to check in with Suhail, he might come away with a different story. According to a Reuters report, Suhail, who is now Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, believes that the draft Iraqi constitution represents a major setback for the women of her country.
From Tom Paines site:
http://www.tompaine.com/uncommonsense/index.php#5983



"The policy" is to stay the course untill the last drop of oil is pumped out, and the Zionists have taken over. Only you will not hear that in CNN or FOX, check Jeff Rense, Kaminsky, Icke and the other oddballs on the net. Don't only believe what the established "media" give you.

[smoothm]

Originally posted by NudeAl:
They died for their country Jon. They died so that you and I could have freedom. It is disrespectful and it dishonors their sacrifice to say they died for nothing. I know a few families that have lost someone over there and they don't feel they died for nothing. They died in service to our nation. Now if our nation really didn't want to fight a war we as a nation should have said and done something but the majority of Americans did support the war. We can't take it back now, we have to stand by them and honor their memory by seeing this through to the end, otherwise they will have died for nothing.
I haven't found anyone who doesn't support our troops. If you believe that aguing for a timely withdrawal isn't supporting out troops, perhaps you have a case. The POINT is we are there under false pretences, Bush won't give anyone a timeframe on when we can even expect the Iraquis to take over, and people want answers. If the administration would just try to answer the question, it would go a long way towards helping us move on. Is that too much to ask?

[NudeAl]

the majority of Americans did support the war. We can't take it back now, we have to stand by them and honor their memory by seeing this through to the end, otherwise they will have died for nothing.[/QUOTE]
I haven't found anyone who doesn't support our troops. If you believe that arguing for a timely withdrawal isn't supporting out troops, perhaps you have a case. The POINT is we are there under false pretences, Bush won't give anyone a timeframe on when we can even expect the Iraqis to take over, and people want answers. If the administration would just try to answer the question, it would go a long way towards helping us move on. Is that too much to ask?[/QUOTE]

Yes.

I'll give you an analogy say we are in the middle of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, would you expect to know how long the recovery would take and when we could bring all the added emergency aid workers off the line? No, you would expect to get an answer after the storm had passed and there ceased to be damage being inflicted,, we have not reached that stage in this conflict. When we have killed every insurgent terrorist that are currently responsible for these attacks then it is reasonable to expect some sort of a time table. Perhaps the average American is really unaware of how long and drawn out a process this all is not everyone makes a study of war. But, if you take a look at how long our armies of occupation have been in place in such countries as Germany and Japan you can begin to see. We, as an army of occupation, have a responsibility to see these countries are back on there feet before we talk of an exit strategy. War should only be used as a means of last resort. That point needs to be driven home with each succeeding generation because every time something like this pops up suddenly everyone's an armchair general, everyone knows better than the men and women who make this their life's work. Listen to the Generals, they know what they're taking about. This is to in include the present administration who ignored the advice of these same generals when they were told that the occupation would take double the number it took to actually win the war. We may have improved the way in which we can win wars but the actual occupation still relies upon a boots on the ground approach. Just look to our own nation. Whenever the civilian authorities are overwhelmed, such as in a natural disaster, they institute marshal law. By putting a uniform every ten feet or so they are able to enforce the law. Same deal here, except you are introducing many cultural and national differences we are not the best at being able to differentiate between a Jordanian and a Yemeni citizen but you can bet those differences are obvious to an Iraqi, hence the need to put them in charge of security. But, there's always a but isn't there, we need to instill in these same Iraqi's a sense of national pride not regional or religion based but a sense of nationalism in order to build a sort of cohesion that is sadly missing. To quote my division commander, there is no Spartacus to unite them.

Another point, this is directed to Jon. Would you walk up to a pair of grieving parents and say, "So sorry for your loss, but you know of course, your child died for nothing?" I think not, and further then if you wouldn't say that to them why would you feel entitled to say that to us here? I am closer to many of my fellow Marines than I am to members of my own family. You may not believe that but it's true. There is no stronger bond than that between men who have endured combat together. Nothing in life can prepare you for it. I would die for my brothers and sisters and they would do the same for me. You cannot comprehend that unless you too have joined their number by actually facing a life an death struggle and putting yourself into harms way to protect another, no greater love hath a man than this that he would lay down his life for another etc., etc. I still have life long debts that I expect to pay in the future. To say that this is for nothing is not only rude and insensitive but also ignorant. It is excusable though if you have never been in a situation where you are engaged in a life or death struggle where someone is actively trying to kill you. I have been in such a situation and I can tell you I owe my life to a number of folks and some are likewise in debt to me. C' est la vie, C' est la guerre, viva la France, Viva la Legionnaire.

[Captain Zen]

I like to believe a lot of this newsletter online http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ or http://snipurl.com/ayzc

[smoothm]

1. This is not a natural disaster.
2. our occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was based on several factors not presant in Iraq.

It is an honest question to ask what kind of timeframe we should expect for our troops to return home. During the election Bush made it seem as if we would be starting a pullout in a short time. Now no one wants to posit a theory as to when it may happen.

If this administration would just try to be open and honest with the American public, it would have much less criticism than it know gets.

Why do you contine to equate Bush criticism with being against the service men and women? Of coures no one would talk to a grieving parent the way you describe. My own nephews are involved in this conflict, and they, too would like to hear a time frame for a pullout of our troops and a takeover by Iraq's troops.

[KirkOntario]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/lk20050817.shtml


For those of you who think the economy is bad, think again.

And see also unemployment which remains low (in good old socialist Canada it's 3 to 4 points higher than in the USA...or try Germany with 11 percent or France with 10 per cent.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_buzzcharts/buzzcharts200508190831.asp

[NudeAl]

Originally posted by smoothm:
1. This is not a natural disaster.
2. our occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was based on several factors not presant in Iraq.

It is an honest question to ask what kind of timeframe we should expect for our troops to return home. During the election Bush made it seem as if we would be starting a pullout in a short time. Now no one wants to posit a theory as to when it may happen.

If this administration would just try to be open and honest with the American public, it would have much less criticism than it know gets.

Why do you contine to equate Bush criticism with being against the service men and women? Of coures no one would talk to a grieving parent the way you describe. My own nephews are involved in this conflict, and they, too would like to hear a time frame for a pullout of our troops and a takeover by Iraq's troops.

According to my understanding of the Geneva conventions we are bound by our being a signatory of that document to remain in that country until we can legitimately say it is back on it's feet and is able to take care of itself. There are many aspects of these conventions I personally disagree with but, be that as it may, we are legally obligated to do so regardless of how you or I may feel. So, we must remain there until our obligations in that regard are met. Now I have no strong personel attachments to that part of the world and would love to see our servicemen and women brought home now but that isn't possible. I also have many strong feelings regarding the present war due to my being an active participant in it. This may explain some of my reactions to those who insist upon saying that those same brave men and women died for nothing. I will never stand for that. They died for our nation and that is a fact! Now if that nation is ungrateful of, or unwilling to acknowledge this debt then so be it, nothing new there. However, it is a fact none the less and I will not let it go unnoticed or unchallenged.

One more thing the POINT is we are in a war. We are engaged in a conflict, the ramifications of which we may not ever fully comprehend. Every effort, every fiber of our being should be dedicated to the winning of that war. If not we should never, ever be willing to send our brave men and women into another war again. It requires a level of commitment that we as a nation may not be able to give. But we as a nation sent them over there and we need to see this thing through, or discharge everyone of them. Because we as a nation are unworthy of their sacrifice

[KirkOntario]

People who die in military combat die for their nation and that is not for 'nothing.' Hard to believe that anyone would ever suggest otherwise. We honour the fallen and never forget them. They died for us.

But here's how those who claim to 'support the troops' act when they actually meet an ex-soldier

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/hall_schweizer200508290810.asp

"Just ask Marine sergeant Marco Martinez, a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a full-time psychology major at Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, Calif.

“A woman on campus had apparently learned I might be a Marine. When I told her I was, she said, ‘You’re a disgusting human being, and I hope you rot in hell!’ ”"

[Captain Zen]

As far I know the army is volontary. Any body taking part, from day one does so with his consent and knowledge that he may [and by Murphy's law will] die. This has nothing to do with Bush Bashing.

[NudeAl]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
As far I know the army is volontary. Any body taking part, from day one does so with his consent and knowledge that he may [and by Murphy's law will] die. This has nothing to do with Bush Bashing.

Yes true enough. However if you were to die while trying to save a drowning person I would not say that you died for nothing. That is rude, insensative and ignorant. That is my point! You would have died in an effort to save a life, much as these young people are doing to save a nation. Their sacrifice is noble and deserves recognition as such.

[Captain Zen]

Every one his opinion, in the far Easst nobody would try to save a drowning person, because when you do that, you are responsible for the rest of that person's life they say. If destiny has that person drowning, who are you to interfere they say...
I see many different points of view, I don't agree to none but the non-violent, diplomatic, sharing, helpful and friendly approach.

[NudeAl]

Every one his opinion, in the far Easst nobody would try to save a drowning person, because when you do that, you are responsible for the rest of that person's life they say. If destiny has that person drowning, who are you to interfere they say...

Uh, I hope you're not a lifeguard or a sailor.

[Captain Zen]

You hope I was not a sailer was right, I was never a sailor, I was captain and instructor on ocean going sailing yachts for 15 years. Thanks to right conduct I never had to rescue a man from drowning.

[Gothmog]

I don't know if the moderators here have checked Mr. Zen's profile.. but he states openly that he has leanings toward hebephilia (attraction to teenage boys).

dum de dum dum

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[jon71]

This nation is not being serve in any way by the occupation of Iraq. Our national defense is weaker now than before. When I point out that the soldiers are dying for nothing I am not criticizing the soldiers (whom I respect) but the government "leaders" (for whom I have no respect) of both parties who sent them there for reasons of politics, not national security. If I met a family member who lost someone I would be polite enough to not mention that it was in vain although I imagine they would already know that, no matter how painful that truth may be. I see a parallel with the Schiavo case. I had no beef with her parents, they were acting out of grief and pain and can be easily excused for hanging on so tenaciously even after hope was gone. I only feel sympathy for them. The politicians however I have nothing but contempt for. They used and abused the situation for personal political advantage. There is a HUGE distinction between those who are personally involved and the politicians involved. Let me add I would only show respect to any soldier or veteran I met. They are honorable people who are victims of an idiotic policy. I want to see everyone there to come home alive and intact to be with their families and friends and loved ones again. I pray for their safety and their speedy return home. Let me add one more thing. My father served in Vietnam. That war served no purpose either and I believe he knows it. I respect him however. I am of course glad he came home when so many others did not. I can and will continue to oppose the policy and adamantly reject the libelous claim that doing so disrespects people in uniform. To sum up, I respect the soldiers, not the policy killing them.

[Captain Zen]

One investigative reporter, who has been keeping a close eye on the actual number of Americans killed in Iraq, claims it's near 9800 as of June 30, 2005. He also says he lost count of the wounded at about 50,000.

What we do know for certain is that a Knight Ridder newspaper report states that a 150-bed hospital in Germany has already treated over 24,000 wounded military patients from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many of these severely wounded soldiers die and are never counted. That's because administration lawyers speak the new lexicon: "He did not actually die in combat, he died in surgery, therefore he is not a KIA statistic." In other words, the U.S. government only counts those who died IN Iraq, not BECAUSE of Iraq. If that doesn't bring back what the definition of "is" is, nothing will.

There are certain other "sick" aspects of this numbers game which should be told here.
One, I believe, will particularly startle you. It concerns our wounded soldiers. It has been said that the enemy doesn't care how many dead we have; they prefer the severely wounded. Why? Because those soldiers who survive with physical scars and deformities and are released in the general population are like ambassadors to the enemy's cause. It's our amount of wounded that will lose the war with Iraq and other Muslim countries, not the number of our dead.

taken from : http://www.rense.com/general67/coubt.htm

[Captain Zen]

Wrong, I am attracted to young women!
My latest GFs are 26, and 19.
My last wife was 17 years younger than I and the 4 serious longer term relations I had always started with a woman age 19.
First time when I was 22, with Margona Erriksson Sweden, a redhead with snow white skin, 2nd time in Holland at 28, with Cathaarine, a blondy with freckles, third thime with Vicky Tamar from Israel, a sunburnt Sabra with shaggy hair, and last time with Linda from Dominica when I was 46, an African woman with perjy ****. Valentina, my present sidekick is from Santo Domingo and pure black and 26. I don't know from which dictionary you got your explanation of the word hebephile, mine says attracted to teenage women.
I think I am also lesbian, as I only ever had sex with young women.

[Naturist Mark]

The following article is from Capital Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com). I can't directly link the article because of the language used by the president:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Aug 25, 2005, 06:19

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

“I’m not meeting again with that *******ed *****,” Bush screamed at aides who suggested he meet again with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother whose son died in Iraq. “She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!”

Bush flashes the bird, something aides say he does often and has been doing since his days as governor of Texas.
Bush, administration aides confide, frequently explodes into tirades over those who protest the war, calling them “mother******** traitors.” He reportedly was so upset over Veterans of Foreign Wars members who wore “BS protectors” (http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7262.shtml) over their ears during his speech to their annual convention that he told aides to “tell those VFW ***holes that I’ll never speak to them again is they can’t keep their members under control.”

White House insiders say Bush is growing increasingly bitter over mounting opposition to his war in Iraq. Polls show a vast majority of Americans now believe the war was a mistake and most doubt the President’s honesty.

“Who gives a flying **** what the polls say,” he screamed at a recent strategy meeting. “I’m the President and I’ll do whatever I *******ed please. They don’t know ****.”

Bush, while setting up for a photo op for signing the recent CAFTA bill, flipped an extended middle finger to reporters. Aides say the President often “flips the bird” to show his displeasure and tells aides who disagree with him to “go to hell” or to “go **** yourself.” His habit of giving people the finger goes back to his days as Texas governor, aides admit, and videos of him doing so before press conferences were widely circulated among TV stations during those days. A recent video showing him shooting the finger to reporters while walking also recently surfaced.

Bush’s behavior, according to prominent Washington psychiatrist, Dr. Justin Frank, author of “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President,” is all too typical of an alcohol-abusing bully who is ruled by fear.

To see that fear emerges, Dr. Frank says, all one has to do is confront the President. “To actually directly confront him in a clear way, to bring him out, so you would really see the bully, and you would also see the fear,” he says.

Dr. Frank, in his book, speculates that Bush, an alcoholic who brags that he gave up booze without help from groups like Alcoholics Anonymous, may be drinking again.

“Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office,” Dr. Frank says. “Is he still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his psychological state.”

Last year, Capitol Hill Blue learned the White House physician prescribed anti-depressant drugs for the President to control what aides called “violent mood swings.” As Dr. Frank also notes: “In writing about Bush's halting appearance in a press conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic Tom Shales speculated that ‘the president may have been ever so slightly medicated.’”

Dr. Frank explains Bush’s behavior as all-to-typical of an alcoholic who is still in denial:

“The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it's rarely limited to his or her drinking,” he says. “The habit of placing blame and denying responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush's personal history that it is apparently triggered by even the mildest threat.”

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue [/list]

-Mark

[Captain Zen]

Yaya, I posted the same story on this thread three pages back August 25, 2005 11:23 PM . But happy you are catching up and post it again. Interesting topic. Bush seems to be raving mad, uses drugs and a hidden earpiece to be the mouthpiece of the Neo-Con heads. And he likes to read the Pet Goat book for twenty minutes after he is told his country is under attack! Yaya, what a world we living in.

[hm0504]

Frankly, I think whether an enlisted person dies fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or of friendly fire in Iraq (which accounted for 24% of U.S. troop fatalities in Gulf War I), or from a military warehouse accident in Alabama during peace time, they are all equally dying honourably in service for their country.

The goal is of course to lose as few lives as pssible while maintaining the security of the country. Unfortunately, the current Iraq war is not the simple U.S. vs. Saddam bout that was sold at the beginning; it is a quagmire of Kurd/Arab/Persian and Sunni/Shi'ite and other conflicts that somehow the U.S. is trying to mold into secular, Western-like democracy. Or at least was, because as far as I can figure out, despite the constitutional process, is that Iraq is being taken over by Shi'ite militias -- and the U.S. seems unwilling or powerless (or perhaps both) to do anything about that.

Because the reasoning for going into Iraq was false, and because there seems to be no clear idea of what consitutes victory or what the path to victory is, Americans are naturally becoming quite dismayed. And it isn't just "lefties" and "liberals", even those who have been hailing Bush's every twitch for years are now beginning to wonder what the heck is happening.

What is desperately needed regarding Iraq is truth, clarity, and honest debate about what the current Iraq situation is, what America's goals are for Iraq, and what must be done (or not done) to achieve those goals. Unfortunately, we may have to wait for 2008 for that to happen.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The following article is from Capital Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com). I can't directly link the article because of the language used by the president:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE> <LI>Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides
By DOUG THOMPSON
Aug 25, 2005, 06:19

While President George W. Bush travels around the country in a last-ditch effort to sell his Iraq war, White House aides scramble frantically behind the scenes to hide the dark mood of an increasingly angry leader who unleashes obscenity-filled outbursts at anyone who dares disagree with him.

...

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue [/list]

-Mark

Fortunately, the President plans to clean up everyone else's obscenity with a new push to censor the Internet (and no doubt every other media channel):
http://tinyurl.com/8kawk

[Captain Zen]

Fortunately, the President plans to clean up everyone else's obscenity with a new push to censor the Internet (and no doubt every other media channel):
http://tinyurl.com/8kawk

I would not be so sure that Bush' intentions are healthy, by trying to curb porn he will make the public more eager to find it. As most of his policies ( abstinence) the effect will be the reverse. I know that some rather see only the link, but here I must paste this interesting view of Makov in its entirity because of the links in it...

Sexual Liberation
Is Illuminati Subversion
Pseudo Religion
By Henry Makow PhD
2-20-5

Throughout modern history Illuminati bankers have used sexual "liberation" to subvert society and establish their subtle tyranny.

The Illuminati bankers need to introduce "world government" in order to translate their unjust monopoly over credit into total world control. (http://www.savethemales.ca/000808.html )

They realized that they couldn't take control until they destroyed the family. This was a central plank of the Communist Manifesto in 1848.

Every major "revolution" in modern history has increased Illuminati banker control and the sexual revolution is no exception.

The bankers encouraged sexual dissipation using their various "progressive" fronts: liberalism, feminism, socialism and communism. The great appeal of left wing movements has always been the promise of "free" sex (i.e. free of the restraints of love & marriage.)

How is free sex subversive?

A healthy society is concerned with its survival and the propagation of its values. This requires that new generations are born and raised in a healthy manner, i.e. in a nuclear family. In a healthy society, women are honored for nurturing and educating the young, a role for which they are naturally suited.

Thus, the bankers set out to undermine and disparage women's role as wives and mothers.

They extolled "sexual liberation" because promiscuous women are less dedicated to family, and less attractive and suitable as wives and mothers. Furthermore, if sex is freely available, men have much less incentive to marry or be faithful.

Women were brainwashed to think they were being "exploited" by their family and should seek fulfillment in career and independence instead.

The bankers used paid subversives like Betty Frieden (http://www.savethemales.ca/000185.html) and Gloria Steinem (http://www.savethemales.ca/180302.html ) and the mass media to make it seem that Feminism was a spontaneous occurrence.

At the same time, they severed sex from marriage and procreation and exalted romance as the main source of fulfillment. Hollywood practically has angels singing hosannas when the stars have sex. It created this bogus religion.


THE TRUTH ABOUT SEX

Sex is a natural function like eating food. If we didn't have food, we would think about nothing else.

Because of the gender confusion (caused by Fe-manism) many people are sex starved and obsessed. Society suffers from arrested development manifested as an adolescent preoccupation with bodily functions, genitals, pornography and homosexuality.

If we have plenty, we know that, divorced from love, "sex is the biggest nothing in the world." (Andy Warhol)

Similarly, romantic love is mostly infatuation based on the expectation of some great advantage (usually sex and security.) I have seen businessmen generate the same kind of heat when making a lucrative deal. But, like AOL-Time Warner, romantic mergers often go sour.

A marriage based on sexual attraction is like a chair with one leg. True love is based on character, personality and trust, tested over a long period of time.



YOUNG WOMEN

The inflated status of fertile young women is another characteristic of our Illuminati-induced dysfunction. These women remind me of poker players recklessly overplaying their hand. They have lost the capacity to love, and sex is a paltry substitute.

Their dependence on sex appeal is very tenuous. The shelf life is short and competition is fierce. Jaded males can look at 1000's of practically identical naked women on the Net these days without being turned on. Increasingly they need drugs to respond and I suspect /disgust/ with women is the unconscious reason. Viagra and Cialis sales are in the billions.

Does it make sense for men to use these drugs?

Socrates said that when he no longer had a sex drive in old age, he was "released from the jaws of a wild beast." Why would a man take a drug to be captive once again?

Hormones generated by the testes cause the male sex drive that takes control of the mind. Just how powerful are these hormones?

Consider: Most young men would agree that their sisters are barely tolerable. However, /other/ men's sisters are a source of endless wonder and fascination. What's the difference? Sex of course.

Do harmless drugs exist that could suppress the production of these mind-altering sex hormones? Perhaps they could be made available to young men.

Then women, deprived of their magical spell, could be seen clearly and men could concentrate on something else. When a man falls in love based on a girl's character, he could go off the drug.

Of course, a better solution is for people to marry (or establish a long-term loving relationship) at a much younger age (i.e. 18-21) like they used to.

People decry marriage because sex declines in importance over time. I thought that was the purpose of marriage.

Sex belongs to an age-and-stage, i.e. courting and procreation. We weren't meant to be obsessed with it for our whole lives. There are much more important and interesting things to do.



CONCLUSION

Modern women are the victim of a monstrous hoax perpetrated by Illuminati bankers and their lackeys in media, government and education.

Women have been defrauded of a secure and essential social role, that of wife and mother. In exchange they have accepted the shaky role of sex objects and worker drones.

They tart it up with terms like "freedom" and "independence" but many are lonely, bitter and increasingly desperate. They have been cruelly duped by an evil power and we all suffer as a consequence.


Sex is used by the Illuminati as a 'reductum ad absurdum'. Everything good in life, culture, love, caring, justice, beauty, art, politics and intelligence; is flattened by what has become a sick societal obsession.

The Illuminati use sex to corrupt and debase. The pornography that floods our in-boxes is part of a widespread campaign to degrade us. A morally degraded people are a weak people, and a weak people are easily disinherited.

-----------------------------------

A detailed history of this subject can be found in E. Michael Jones' book "Libido Dominandi" Sexual Liberation and Political Control." http://www.culturewars.com/books.htm


See also my "Managing the Male Sex Drive" http://www.savethemales.ca/000535.html

And "Love is based on Mutual Dependence" http://www.savethemales.ca/000789.html



Henry Makow Ph.D. is the inventor of the board game Scruples and author of "A Long Way to go for a Date." His articles exposing Fe-manism and the New World Order can be found at his web site http://www.savethemales.ca <http://www.savethemales.ca/> He enjoys receiving your comments at Henry@savethemales.ca <mailto:Henry@savethemales.ca> Some may be posted on his site using first names only.

[Naturist Mark]

New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367/print)
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.

It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.

I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to.

There is an economic ripple effect, too. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.

[hm0504]

Finally, an article that clarifies U.S. policy in Iraq:
http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1386

I found the above looking while looking for an update on the event, which really happened, of August 11 in which a Shi'ite militia group took over the Baghdad mayorlty office from the U.S.-installed mayor. [1] [2]
[1] http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/10/news/baghdad.php
[2] http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05230/555585.stm

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504:Unfortunately, the current Iraq war is not the simple U.S. vs. Saddam bout that was sold at the beginning; it is a quagmire of Kurd/Arab/Persian and Sunni/Shi'ite and other conflicts that somehow the U.S. is trying to mold into secular, Western-like democracy. Or at least was, because as far as I can figure out, despite the constitutional process, is that Iraq is being taken over by Shi'ite militias -- and the U.S. seems unwilling or powerless (or perhaps both) to do anything about that.

.

The strategy HERE is clear: if Bush succeeds in setting up a democratic state blame him for imposing Western values. If Iraq does not end up being democratic blame him for failing to democratize the Middle East.

[Captain Zen]

Bash that Bush man with the truth.
No lie is needed to pleasure me.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article10034.htm

A mixture of a lie stinks.
French Porky said that...

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:Unfortunately, the current Iraq war is not the simple U.S. vs. Saddam bout that was sold at the beginning; it is a quagmire of Kurd/Arab/Persian and Sunni/Shi'ite and other conflicts that somehow the U.S. is trying to mold into secular, Western-like democracy. Or at least was, because as far as I can figure out, despite the constitutional process, is that Iraq is being taken over by Shi'ite militias -- and the U.S. seems unwilling or powerless (or perhaps both) to do anything about that.

.

The strategy HERE is clear: if Bush succeeds in setting up a democratic state blame him for imposing Western values. If Iraq does not end up being democratic blame him for failing to democratize the Middle East. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't seen many on CFF say it is wrong to democratize the Middle East -- quite the opposite. I, for one, applaud the efforts, begun in the mid-90s, by Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright in helping Kuwaiti women achieve voting rights and the right to hold political office. And though I did not support the decision to invade Iraq, I support forcefully democratizing Iraq now that the U.S. is in it. Unfortunately, it looks like the White House may be caving into the Iraqi mullahs because, inter alia, they have failed to, and continue to fail to, provide enough troops and have grossly mismanaged the occupation.

[Naturist Mark]

In the Garden of Armageddon (http://tinyurl.com/9z7nh)

They were Iraq's only real WMDs. The U.S. refused to secure them. Now Saddam's nuclear and bioweapons scientists are dispersed and more dangerous than ever.

[Captain Zen]

If you have been many times in Arab countries as I, you would not have that dream of democratizing Iraq, it will not work. Islam is a one way system that does not listen to what the people want or say. With massive outside power democracy may be enforced, it will never be from within.
Until the last drop of oil/blood is spilled...

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
If you have been many times in Arab countries as I, you would not have that dream of democratizing Iraq, it will not work. Islam is a one way system that does not listen to what the people want or say. With massive outside power democracy may be enforced, it will never be from within. Until the last drop of oil/blood is spilled...


The following was taken from Wikipedia.org

The entire article in question can be seen here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy)


Examples of Islamic democracies

The following list indicates those countries which are members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and are either generally considered to be democratic or have substantial democratic elements in their system of government. For example, Iran has popular elections, but the candidates are selected by the Council of Guardians and the Assembly of Experts. Furthermore, the political climate in some of these countries has varied greatly in recent years, while in some of the countries there have been accusations of vote-rigging.

* Albania (Europe)
* Algeria
* Bangladesh
* Benin
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Burkina Faso
* Central African Republic
* Comoros
* Côte d'Ivoire
* Guinea-Bissau
* Guyana (South America)
* Indonesia
* Iran
* Kyrgyzstan
* Lebanon
* Malaysia
* Mali
* Morocco
* Mozambique
* Niger
* Nigeria
* Palestinian territories (see Elections)
* Senegal
* Sierra Leone
* Suriname (South America)
* Tajikistan
* Thailand
* Turkey
* Uganda
* Yemen

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
In the Garden of Armageddon (http://tinyurl.com/9z7nh)

They were Iraq's only real WMDs. The U.S. refused to secure them. Now Saddam's nuclear and bioweapons scientists are dispersed and more dangerous than ever.

Just another example of the very serious lack of planning that went into this invasion.

[Captain Zen]

Ok, I read it and wish you luck with the Islamic Democracy in Iraq. That's what you need, much luck.

[kraut4191]

I have been interested in both views on this subject. There have been some I would like to send on to friends and others just to download for myself. I have not found a way to do either. Can somebody help me please? There has to be a way.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The following article is from Capital Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com). I can't directly link the article because of the language used by the president:

[LIST] <LI>Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

I had a good chuckle when I read this. Took me back to when the democrats were losing in 1980s and the sort of articles they wrote about Reagan suggesting that he was mentally incompetent. We've seen a whole string of these: suggesting Bush was 'obsessed' with exercise and a psychiatrist who wrote a book on Bush suggesting he was unstable --of course he never met Bush and did't ask him any questions but he 'diagnosed' him anyway. Oh, I see they dragged him out from under his rock just for this article.
ROTFLMAO http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The following article is from Capital Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com). I can't directly link the article because of the language used by the president:

[LIST] <LI>Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

I had a good chuckle when I read this. Took me back to when the democrats were losing in 1980s and the sort of articles they wrote about Reagan suggesting that he was mentally incompetent. We've seen a whole string of these: suggesting Bush was 'obsessed' with exercise and a psychiatrist who wrote a book on Bush suggesting he was unstable --of course he never met Bush and did't ask him any questions but he 'diagnosed' him anyway. Oh, I see they dragged him out from under his rock just for this article.
ROTFLMAO http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah the inconsistancies of the right:

1. Wasn't it here where it was Dr. Bill Frist was defended for (wrongly) diagnosing a certain Florida woman with PVS based upon a decade old videotape?

2. Wasn't it here that child/teen cursing was stated to be a "liberal problem"?

Conservatives; the right has never been so wrong.

Originally posted by kraut4191:
I have been interested in both views on this subject. There have been some I would like to send on to friends and others just to download for myself. I have not found a way to do either. Can somebody help me please? There has to be a way.

What is it that you would like to send on or download? The posts here or the info found at the links? Either way, you could just bookmark them.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Naturist Mark:
The following article is from Capital Hill Blue (http://www.capitolhillblue.com). I can't directly link the article because of the language used by the president:

[LIST] <LI>Bush's Obscene Tirades Rattle White House Aides

I had a good chuckle when I read this. Took me back to when the democrats were losing in 1980s and the sort of articles they wrote about Reagan suggesting that he was mentally incompetent. We've seen a whole string of these: suggesting Bush was 'obsessed' with exercise and a psychiatrist who wrote a book on Bush suggesting he was unstable --of course he never met Bush and did't ask him any questions but he 'diagnosed' him anyway. Oh, I see they dragged him out from under his rock just for this article.
ROTFLMAO http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

During the latter part of his first term and throughout his second term in office, Reagan (sadly) was showing the symptoms of Alzeimer's disease. And in 1994, it was revealed publicly that he had it.

So if I understand KirkOntario's parallel that he states above, he is saying that he too thinks Bush may be afflicted with a mental illness.

While it is interesting to speculate on whether Bush has or hasn't the mental competence to continue in office, ultimately the question has to be is whether the White House is functioning adequately or not.

In the latter Reagan years, it is rumoured that Nancy Reagan was able to exert a stronger influence and hence was crucial to bringing the Cold War to peaceful and good end. I'm not sure what Laura Bush's influence could be should her husband be so afflicted as I've never been confident that President Bush really is the one primarily in charge.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifuring the latter part of his first term and throughout his second term in office, Reagan (sadly) was showing the symptoms of Alzeimer's disease. And in 1994, it was revealed publicly that he had it.


.

But strangely enough it wasn't until 1994, 6 years after he retired that Reagan was diagnosed with altsheimers even though he had the best medical care in the world. Why? Because he didn't have it office.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifuring the latter part of his first term and throughout his second term in office, Reagan (sadly) was showing the symptoms of Alzeimer's disease. And in 1994, it was revealed publicly that he had it.


.

But strangely enough it wasn't until 1994, 6 years after he retired that Reagan was diagnosed with altsheimers even though he had the best medical care in the world. Why? Because he didn't have it office. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point was that he began to show Alzheimer's-like symptoms during his office, not that he was publicly diagnosed then. How much of it was just old age or not, we many never know. I think most people who remember the latter Reagan years think of him kindly despite his apparent slowness. Nonetheless, it was pretty well know at the time, that in the latter half of his Presidency, he had slowed down quite a bit.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504:
My point was that he began to show Alzheimer's-like symptoms during his office, not that he was publicly diagnosed then. How much of it was just old age or not, we many never know. I think most people who remember the latter Reagan years think of him kindly despite his apparent slowness. Nonetheless, it was pretty well know at the time, that in the latter half of his Presidency, he had slowed down quite a bit.

He wasnt' privately diagnosed with it either.

A 'slowed' Reagan was enough to bring the Soviet Union to its knees and win the cold war.

I'd take a 'slow' Reagan over a 'quick' Carter any day!

[Captain Zen]

Instead of nagging over how sick various presidents were and are, here is again something unbelievable, something you will not want to even consider true...
Please click here
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=77&contentid=2660&page=1
and read the whole story before you attack me for being a harbinger of bad news...
It starts with:
Hurricane Katrina: Weather Warfare Conspiracy?
by STEFAN GROSSMANN (CLOAKANDDAGGER.DE)

"Did the Shadow Government decide to sacrifice an entire city, New Orleans, to cover up the coming news of Bush fraud and bribery and in order to further rig the price of oil?"

Weather engineering includes the blow-up of small hurricanes into large ones. The technology is zealously denied by so-called meterologists and physicists, but it exists anyhow.

It has been described, for example, by veteran Pentagon scientist and scalar researcher Col. Tom Bearden at his web site, http://www.cheniere.org. Here are some quotes:

Soviet Weather Engineering over North America

This taped presentation, which was made in 1985, is included for historical reference purposes only. Since then, the technology has been developed into more rigorous longitudinal EM wave interferometry, which is the exact nature of those earlier weather engineering weapons. The foundations of scalar electro-magnetics are well explained in this presentation.

U.S. Defence Secretary Cohen expresses concern about eco-terrorism using scalar electromagnetic weapons.

[KirkOntario]

Yeah, hurricane escaped from a secret gov't lab. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Captain Zen]

Dear Kirk, will you please go here:
http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/082705.htm
and then come back with your most learned and intelligent provided by Nessy comments?

[Captain Zen]

And for the unbelievers betwixt us naked nerds, here are three government high officials having their opinion about 9/11.
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?channelid=89&contentid=2396&page=2
It ends with these words:
So there it is folks. No longer are allegations that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attacks the domain of "fringe conspiracy kooks" alone but now also include internationally respected economists, former Bush administration officials and vindicated ex-British government intelligence agents.


ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED
http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm

[jon71]

Reagan actually tended to coast from about 1983 on. He campaigned but tended to only do minimal work as President. I imagine things would have been far worse if he were active. Whether that was Alzheimers, tiredness and apathy, or something else we will probably never know. In Bush's case we are looking at self inflicted brain damage from alcoholism and cocaine use. Whether or not there is more than that will also probably never be known. Keep in mind their doctors won't make public anything that would embarrass them.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
And it's more shameful when you shill for the president. For quite some time the Army Corp of Engineers have been quite vocal that they had to put off their projects to protect this area due to their budget being slashed to finance the Iraqi war.





Originally posted by KirkOntario:

Shameful indeed to suggest the President is responsible for something that is catastrophic and caused by nature. Those projects would not have stopped a Category 4 hurricane almost hitting New Orleans directly.

No one is suggesting the President caused the hurricane; however the flooding which may make much of New Orleans uninhabitable for years due to toxic residues for years, is primarily due to the lack of upkeep of the flood control system, which is due to the diversion of the repair funds to the Iraq war. While the President is not responsible for the hurricane, he is responsible for cutting off the flow of money to the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project.


Originally posted by Cyndiannaked:
What is really sad is that the level of destruction seen in New Orleans could have been much less but funds to upgrade the levees and building pumping stations were diverted to Bush's needless war in Iraq.
********************

New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.

Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars. (Much of the research here is from Nexis, which is why some articles aren't linked.)

More at
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002331.html

[Captain Zen]

What take you so long to react on my latest info?

[hm0504]

New York Times "Waiting for a Leader":
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/01/opinion/01thu1.html

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504:No one is suggesting the President caused the hurricane; however the flooding which may make much of New Orleans uninhabitable for years due to toxic residues for years, is primarily due to the lack of upkeep of the flood control system, which is due to the diversion of the repair funds to the Iraq war. While the President is not responsible for the hurricane, he is responsible for cutting off the flow of money to the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project.

[/QUOTE]

Federal funding was cut to a proposal to conduct a study ONE year ago. A STUDY of the problem. If you can explain how a STUDY can hold back massive amounts of water under 145 mile an hour winds I will concede the point to you.

[Captain Zen]

===
"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming"

By 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war

By Sidney Blumenthal

In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S. But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10050.htm

===
The Devastating Impact of Hurricane George

By Mike Whitney

Welcome to Bush's America; where the uber-rich can expect lavish tax cuts and the huddled masses get a 3 day lock-up at the Superdome; where the government redirects desperately-needed resources to the oil wars in Mesopatamia and entire regions disappear beneath the flood-waters at home.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10065.htm

[KirkOntario]

"A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken."

Yup a year ago they proposed a STUDY. By now the Corp of Engineers might have a nice paper to read.

[Captain Zen]

Before the reports were sent worldwide Kirk allready attacked the world for not helping....
Howw inappropriate again:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9161198/
even my little European country helps Uncle Sam

Offers have been received from Russia, Japan, Canada, France, Honduras, Germany, Venezuela, Jamaica, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Greece, Hungary, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Mexico, China, South Korea, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, NATO and the Organization of American States, the spokesman said.

Venezuela, a target of frequent criticism by the Bush administration, offered humanitarian aid and fuel. Venezuela’s Citgo Petroleum Corp. pledged a $1 million donation for hurricane aid.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hm0504:No one is suggesting the President caused the hurricane; however the flooding which may make much of New Orleans uninhabitable for years due to toxic residues for years, is primarily due to the lack of upkeep of the flood control system, which is due to the diversion of the repair funds to the Iraq war. While the President is not responsible for the hurricane, he is responsible for cutting off the flow of money to the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Federal funding was cut to a proposal to conduct a study ONE year ago. A STUDY of the problem. If you can explain how a STUDY can hold back massive amounts of water under 145 mile an hour winds I will concede the point to you.[/QUOTE]

The Southeaster Louisiana Flood Conrol Project (SELA) was NOT a study; it was a major allotment of funds to BUILD. Here is a link to the first report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web site:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/bro/sela_report1.pdf

The funding was slashed by the White House, in spite of critical projects still needed, in early 2003 in order to fund the war in Iraq.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504:]

Federal funding was cut to a proposal to conduct a study ONE year ago. A STUDY of the problem. If you can explain how a STUDY can hold back massive amounts of water under 145 mile an hour winds I will concede the point to you.[/QUOTE]

The Southeaster Louisiana Flood Conrol Project (SELA) was NOT a study; it was a major allotment of funds to BUILD. Here is a link to the first report from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers web site:
http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/pao/bro/sela_report1.pdf

The funding was slashed by the White House, in spite of critical projects still needed, in early 2003 in order to fund the war in Iraq.[/QUOTE]

You are referring to a separate project. That dealt with existing levees and would not have made the levees able to sustain a near direct hit from a Category 4 hurricane. It has been known for DECADES that the city of New Orleans --run by democrats as all big American cities are--was not prepared to sustain a hit from a Category 4 hurricane.

A larger project expected to be completed in at least 10 years. (some estimates say 2020) might have made the difference.

"The Army Corps' much-maligned levees keep New Orleans safe from spring flooding, and its planned $700 million, 72-mile Morganza-to-the-Gulf of Mexico levee might have held Katrina at bay, were it not still at least a decade from completion."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007190

[hm0504]

KirkOntario, all my posts on this subject have always been in reference to the South East Louisiana Flood Control Project, not some other project or study; perhaps you are confusing my posts with someone else's.

[NudeTopher]

The Republicans, Conservatives, Neo-Cons and their shills went out of their way to defend Bush for not interupting his reading a story on 9/11 after being told of the attacks in New York. But, has anything changed? Not a bit!

Yes, Bush did take a day off his vacation; but after Katrina hit what did he do? It has been reported that he took a day to go play golf in Arizona. It wasn't all that important to visit the ravaged areas and try inspiring hope to those that have suffured such bad losses.

How about Ms. Rice? After the storm and devistation hit did she run back to D.C. or head South? No...Sorry, in her case it has been reported she had tickets to both the Tennis Open in NYC, and a Broadway Play - Spamalot.

It's nice to know that in times of adversity, our President and his staff are right there for us.

BTW-Mr. Shill of Ontario-earlier you dismissed my comment about not having enough National Guard troop available with a quote from the National Guard PR Department. You might wish to google what the mayors and governors of the afflicted cities are saying about the lack of troop.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Yes, Bush did take a day off his vacation; but after Katrina hit what did he do? It has been reported that he took a day to go play golf in Arizona. .

He was not playing golf. He was giving a speech on VJ day's anniversary. Try checking out your blogosphere rumours.

Here's my questions for our liberal friends: You say you want to send in the U.S. Army and the National Guard but how can you be in favour of that when you yourself haven't served? (just teasing, that's the chickenhawk argument come back to haunt you...I think they should crackdown on the violence by shooting a few looters and criminals)

BTW the problem is not the numbers of National Guard it is deployment. Natonal Guardsmen have regular jobs. Those in New Orleans are scattered and victims themselves. The Guard has to be called up, assembled, equipped, transported and briefed on the situation. It is not a rapid response team. The National Guard criticism is just political games being played in the face of a serious situation.


8000 of Louisiana's 11,000 Natonal Guard are not deployed in Iraq.
http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/1/125948/7993

[NudeTopher]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Here's my questions for our liberal friends: You say you want to send in the U.S. Army and the National Guard but how can you be in favour of that when you yourself haven't served? (just teasing, that's the chickenhawk argument come back to haunt you...I think they should crackdown on the violence by shooting a few looters and criminals)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I don't condone the stealing of tv's, stereos, and similar items; I am certain that if days after a disaster left you with no water, no food, and no dry clothes you would also help yourself to food, water, diapers, shoes, and dry clothes for your family. Survival involves doing whatever is necessary!

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Here's my questions for our liberal friends: You say you want to send in the U.S. Army and the National Guard but how can you be in favour of that when you yourself haven't served? (just teasing, that's the chickenhawk argument come back to haunt you...I think they should crackdown on the violence by shooting a few looters and criminals)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I don't condone the stealing of tv's, stereos, and similar items; I am certain that if days after a disaster left you with no water, no food, and no dry clothes you would also help yourself to food, water, diapers, shoes, and dry clothes for your family. Survival involves doing whatever is necessary!

Is rape also necessary? What was left in New Orleans was a combination of the most vicious, the most ill and weak and the foolish. A most unfortunate group of people. Let's hope despite the water and fact people are scattered, trapped and hiding that help can be provided. Shooting at people trying to help those in need is indefensible.

BTW were you aware that the section of the levee that broke had just been upgraded?

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Yes, Bush did take a day off his vacation; but after Katrina hit what did he do? It has been reported that he took a day to go play golf in Arizona. .

He was not playing golf. He was giving a speech on VJ day's anniversary. Try checking out your blogosphere rumours.
------------------------------------------------
Are you stating with 100% certainty that Bush DID NOT play golf in Airozona after the devestation?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KirkOntario:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
Yes, Bush did take a day off his vacation; but after Katrina hit what did he do? It has been reported that he took a day to go play golf in Arizona. .

He was not playing golf. He was giving a speech on VJ day's anniversary. Try checking out your blogosphere rumours.
------------------------------------------------
Are you stating with 100% certainty that Bush DID NOT play golf in Airozona after the devestation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He was giving a speech on VJ day and he was in an extended conference call with the Director of FEMA, Blanco, DND and others involved. This is the usual canard thrown out by the Left. Sad that they use these events for partisan political gain.

[Captain Zen]

Jay Leno Quotes
Jay Leno President Bush played golf yesterday and I understand Vice President
Dick Cheney also got in a couple of strokes.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jayleno130222.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

ABCNews.com : Message Boards
Conservativeperson Re: Re: Bush May Or May Not Have Played Golf ... I asked if
people knew if Bush actually played golf, hell none of you cons thought to ...
forums.go.com/abcnews/Politics/thread?threadID=210481 - 34k - 31 Aug 2005 - Cached - Similar pages

ABCNews.com : Message Boards
If President Bush played golf today, that is the utlimate of insensitivity....
... Where is the evidence Bush played golf? Your claim "stay the course". ...
forums.go.com/abcnews/Politics/thread?threadID=210452 - 62k - 31 Aug 2005 - Cached - Similar pages
[ More results from forums.go.com ]

[KirkOntario]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Jay Leno Quotes
Jay Leno President Bush played golf yesterday and I understand Vice President
Dick Cheney also got in a couple of strokes.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/jayleno130222.html - 25k - Cached - Similar pages

/QUOTE]

That quote from Jay Leno pre-dates 2003.

[Sanslines]

Let's also not forget that the entire East coast is a disaster waiting to happen. A few years ago I saw in the New Jersey Ledger photos of the Jersey shore in 1950 and today. The amount of construction was totally amazing. The paper made it clear that if one major hurricane were to hit the Jersey shore, it was be catastrophic. The outer banks of North Carolina are also built up and are another disaster waiting to happen. We know what will happen if a major storm hits these areas and yet we continue to build right up next to the Atlantic Ocean. Does anyone have any answers to these potential disasters?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Let's also not forget that the entire East coast is a disaster waiting to happen. A few years ago I saw in the New Jersey Ledger photos of the Jersey shore in 1950 and today. The amount of construction was totally amazing. The paper made it clear that if one major hurricane were to hit the Jersey shore, it was be catastrophic. The outer banks of North Carolina are also built up and are another disaster waiting to happen. We know what will happen if a major storm hits these areas and yet we continue to build right up next to the Atlantic Ocean. Does anyone have any answers to these potential disasters?

When a disaster hits a large urban area like this all the helpers: police, firemen, nurses, hospitals become victims themselves. Half the police force of New Oreans has not shown up, officers are quitting. All of thise suggests the need for better planning for large urban disasters and the need for forced and more rapid evacuation of those who cannot or will not leave.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
BTW the problem is not the numbers of National Guard it is deployment. Natonal Guardsmen have regular jobs. Those in New Orleans are scattered and victims themselves. The Guard has to be called up, assembled, equipped, transported and briefed on the situation. It is not a rapid response team. The National Guard criticism is just political games being played in the face of a serious situation.
-----------------------------------------------

Recently there was a "Table-Top" exercise for a natural disaster that involved FEMA, The National Guard, and other disaster first-responders. Where was this exercise? New Orleans of all places.

The outcome of their table-top exercise was that pre-deployment was neccessary. Now we are be told that the required supplies of water, food, medical supplies, and troops should arrive in New Orleans on Sunday; this a full week after the disaster.

Why didn't pre-deployment happen? Is it possible that there were no available resources because the funds were diverted from FEMA/natural disaster to other areas of Homeland Security and to support the Iraqi war?

Kirk, conservative newspapers from all over the country, including that super-conservative newspaper from New Hampshire are screaming at the administration for it's lack of action, it's lack of leadership, and it's lack of planning. They are also upset that the President isn't there to inspire hope to those suffering without shelter, water, food, and medical supplies. These conservative papers are no longer calling this a national disaster; they are calling it a NATIONAL EMBARRASMENT. These Kirk, are Bush's strongest supporters which leads me to think that you might be the last shill standing.

[Captain Zen]

Kirk, you still don't know what Zen is and you will never know. Shift focus.
The rising waters of the oceans due to global warming, the melting of the polar ice, has not been adequately mentioned. Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol has helped creating the Katrina disaster.
Check the Delta Plan http://www.fluidpowerjournal.com/011Cert.Dir.98/article...lta_plan_project.htm (http://www.fluidpowerjournal.com/011Cert.Dir.98/articles/01/delta_plan_project.htm)
how Holland dealt with a low laying province...
http://www.delta2003.nl/index.php?lng=en

[KirkOntario]

There will be an accounting later. A National Emergency was declared by the President before Katrina made landful. The pre-deployed all kinds of resources in the area before the hurricane hit. The questions to be asked are why can't they get in, what was lacking and who is to blame. Rather than just jump to conclusions without facts or fall into the kneejerk reaction of 'blame Bush' because of preconceived hatred of Bush you might wait for the answers to those questions.

(As for your constant 'shill' comments, they are not productive and are just an ad hominem attack. They don't really interest me nor am I going to attack you personally. I'm sure you are a fine person who just happens to disagree with me.)

[Trailscout]

It's not a lack of funds, the emergency teams were quickly assembled at a safe distance from the hurricane's path.

But then they dropped the ball by not going in right away in a show of overwhelming military force to control lawlessness and airdrop supplies. Parachute troops, amphibious vehicles and boats were needed.

I heard nothing about planning for the contingency of a catastrophic levee break.

And yes, it should be acknowledged that the levees were not built to withstand a 20 foot storm surge and a category 5 hurricane. It would have cost millions of dollars, but would have saved the billions we are now going to spend.

New Orleans as we know it has disappeared beneath the waters of the Gulf of Mexico.

But let's focus our efforts on helping rescue stranded people. They are hungry, thirsty and vulnerable to hoodlum gangs.

I don't have much to offer, but I plan to send a donation to the American Red Cross. If millions of people each donate a few bucks, we can do a lot.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Con-servatist Kirk, you still don't know what Zen is and you will never know. Shift focus.
The rising waters of the oceans due to global warming, the melting of the polar ice, has not been adequately mentioned. Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto protocol has helped creating the Katrina disaster.
Check the Delta Plan http://www.fluidpowerjournal.com/011Cert.Dir.98/article...lta_plan_project.htm (http://www.fluidpowerjournal.com/011Cert.Dir.98/articles/01/delta_plan_project.htm)
how Holland dealt with a low laying province...
http://www.delta2003.nl/index.php?lng=en

"Global Warming" is probably the weakest criticism there is here . The number of hurricanes has remained constant. Galveston Texas was directly hit by a Category 4 Hurricane in 1900 and killed 12,000 people. The 1890's was one of the worst decades for hurricanes in the United States. The hurricanes are not increasing in number or force. That remains constant.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

BTW one wonders why you argue both that the federal government created the hurricane and that Global Warming caused it in the same thread. ...Oh, and as for the London bombings being carried out by the British government,why did Al Quaida take credit for them yesterday? Or were those gov't employees dressing up?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007190

[Sanslines]

With all of the millions and millions spent on the Dept of Homeland Security, why is this department not able to rapidly respond to this situation? I thought one purpose of this department was to overwhelmingly and rapidly respond to national catastrophies, whether they be man made or nature made??

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
With all of the millions and millions spent on the Dept of Homeland Security, why is this department not able to rapidly respond to this situation? I thought one purpose of this department was to overwhelmingly and rapidly respond to national catastrophies, whether they be man made or nature made??

Good question. Heads will no doubt roll.

[hm0504]

Sanslines,
Homeland Security is to counter terrorism. The department you are thinking of is the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
http://www.fema.gov/

BTW, very clever screen name you have.

Originally posted by hm0504:
Sanslines,
Homeland Security is to counter terrorism. The department you are thinking of is the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
http://www.fema.gov/

BTW, very clever screen name you have.

FEMA is a part of Homeland Security now and most of it's effectiveness was taken away by Bush's buddies.

[hm0504]

Mea culpa. Though Homeland Security's budget has gone up, that doesn't mean FEMA's has. It would be interesting to know the numbers.

[Captain Zen]

Sanslines
Posted September 02, 2005 07:41 AM
With all of the millions and millions spent on the Dept of Homeland Security, why is this department not able to rapidly respond to this situation? I thought one purpose of this department was to overwhelmingly and rapidly respond to national catastrophies, whether they be man made or nature made??

I tell you why:

Because the evil of the neo cons is beyond the comprehension of the common man, I will take the flak when I say this whole disaster was manmade. The levees were deliberately not reinforced, the whole city had to be cleaned up, the oil prices had to go up to serve the population control maniacs.
Why did Bush not react the same day when confronted with this national disaster? For the same reasons why he read "My Pet Goat" for 20 minutes after he was told about 9/11. He was not at all surprised, it was all part of his plans.
Now let the flak come.

[Nu]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:

When a disaster hits a large urban area like this all the helpers: police, firemen, nurses, hospitals become victims themselves. Half the police force of New Oreans has not shown up, officers are quitting. All of thise suggests the need for better planning for large urban disasters and the need for forced and more rapid evacuation of those who cannot or will not leave.

Well said, KirkOntario:
Every country in the world needs to heed this advice.
Advance planning is important.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by Nu:
Well said, KirkOntario:
Every country in the world needs to heed this advice.
Advance planning is important.

Given you have two coastlines with huge urban centres that are vulnerable shouldn't you have a permanent rapid deployment force on each coast? Ships off the coast--helicopters and hospitals and supplies -- would be ideal. What has happened is that this is really the first time in many years that major American city got hit this hard when it was so vulnerable: below sea level, surrounded by water on 3 sides, between a lake a a river that floods. Unfortunately spending money on an event that happens once every 100 years is not going to get any politician elected. But it will now. This event will make America stronger and better but it's going to expensive and democracies do not like taking a long term view: they will now, at least for awhile.

[Sanslines]

Perhaps a bit off topic here but one of personal solutions to this mess is to stay home this weekend and the money that I would have spent on gasoline I will instead send that money to the Red Cross. I would rather spend money to help people then spend it on making oil companies even richer!

[smoothm]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nu:
Well said, KirkOntario:
Every country in the world needs to heed this advice.
Advance planning is important.

Given you have two coastlines with huge urban centres that are vulnerable shouldn't you have a permanent rapid deployment force on each coast? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kirk, does your own nation have such forces? Canada does have a lot of population on its coasts, too.

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by smoothm:
Kirk, does your own nation have such forces? Canada does have a lot of population on its coasts, too.

We don't get many hurricanes this far north. In the 1950's hurricane Hazel came over the Appalachians and hit Toronto. Death and destruction. No one was prepared for it. People lived right on the banks of rivers. After that there was planning. Those areas were turned in river valley parks because houses in low lying areas were swept away.

4000 homeless
81 dead.
My parents and everyone talked about it for 30 years. ON the 50th anniversary in 2004 they did a big retrospective.

http://www.hurricanehazel.ca/

Katrina is enormous. An area the size of great Britain. A million people homeless. The US has simply never seen this type of disaster before.

(BTW : our armed forces are pretty run down. We count on America to defend us and have for 35 years)

[hm0504]

Just watched the last remnants (the southwestern part of the outer shell) of Hurricane Katrina move over the Ottawa valley -- quite a sight.

One thing that I keep thinking about is that one often sees on the news how the armed forces airdrop those yellow ration packages right after a disaster -- yet there seems to have been none of that in New Orleans though people have been without food for 5 days. I just can't believe that.

Also, Canada's east coast is fairly thinly populated. On the west coast, there's Vancouver with a population of 2.2 million (in the greater Vancouver area) and Victoria with nearly another 1/2 million. The greatest danger there is a tsunami like that which hit the east Indian ocean. As KirkOntario say, our armed forces, though very professional, are very poorly equipped.

[Nu]

We seem to have gotten a little off the topic of Bush Bashing.
Or,perhaps; we have just "bashed" him enough or all said all that anyone can.
Maybe, it is time to start a new topic called "Bush Praising"?

[hm0504]

Well, we started doing Bush Bashing on the Katrina threads so those were closed down, so I guess now the Katrina discussion has move to Bush Bashing.

Ideally, this thread would be named "Bush: Good or Bad?" or something else neutral. No point starting a Bush Praising thread as they'll be both Bush Praising and Bashing just as there is on this one.

[Captain Zen]

Yes, you all keep wondering and asking how is it possible? And I keep telling you it was meant to be so. Planned by the highest Bush cabal. Evil at its best. Scare the victims, do not feed or treat them, and do with them as you please. Deport them to places of your choise, and make sure you are in control of the chaos...

[Captain Zen]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2005/010905redcross.htm

Don't Give Your Hurricane Donations to the Red Cross
Establishment charities have history of withholding disaster funds

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones | September 1 2005

As the aftermath of hurricane Katrina continues to wreak mayhem and havoc amid reports of mass looting, shooting at rescue helicopters, rapes and murders, establishment media organs are promoting the Red Cross as a worthy organization to give donations to.

The biggest website in the world, Yahoo.com, displays a Red Cross donation link prominently on its front page.

Every time there is a major catastrophe the Red Cross and similar organizations like United Way are given all the media attention while other charities are left in the shadows. This is not to say that the vast majority of Red Cross workers are not decent people who simply want to help those in need.

But what the media fails consistently to remember in their promotion of the organization is that the Red Cross have been caught time and time again withholding money in the wake of horrible disasters that require immediate release of funds.

The Red Cross, under the Liberty Fund, collected $564 million in donations after 9/11. Months after the event, the Red Cross had distributed only $154 million. The Red Cross' explanation for keeping the majority of the money was that it would be used to help 'fight the war on terror'. To the victims, this meant that the money was going towards bombing broken backed third world countries like Afghanistan and setting up surveillance cameras and expanding the police state in US cities, and not towards helping them rebuild their lives.



Then Red Cross President Dr. Bernadine Healy arrogantly responded when questioned about the withholding of funds by stating, "The Liberty Fund is a war fund. It has evolved into a war fund."

Despite the family members of victims of 9/11 complaining bitterly to a House Energy and Commerce Committee's oversight panel, the issue seemed to be brushed under the carpet and the mud didn't stick.

The Red Cross' scandalous activities reach back far before 9/11.

After the devastating San Francisco earthquake in 1989, the Red Cross passed on only $10 million of the $50 million that had been raised, and banked the rest.



Similar donations after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the Red River flooding in 1997 were also greedily withheld.

Smaller charities that were involved with the 2004 Tsunami relief project went public to say that large charities like Red Cross and United Way were engaged in secret backroom negotiations with each other that meant a large portion of the donation money was purposefully restricted from reaching the most needy areas affected by the disaster.

The history is clear, the Red Cross and other large so-called charities are in actual fact front group collection agencies for the military industrial complex.

Many informed historians have even alleged that the Red Cross was used as a Skull and Bones cover to overthrow The Russian Czar and pave the way for the rise of the Bolsheviks.

Do not give any money to the Red Cross unless you support the expansion of empire abroad and police state at home. Find a smaller trustworthy organization in the local area of New Orleans and make your donation to them.

Get Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson's books, ALL Alex's documentary films, films by other authors, audio interviews and special reports. Sign up at Prison Planet.tv - CLICK HERE.E MAIL THIS PAGE

[Captain Zen]

The last URl is where the others come from...
Before your innocense is totaly destroyed by the fearful truth, undres, go sleep, eat something, meditate a little and stay awake:

http://www.enterprisemission.com/weblog/2005/08/hyperdimensional-katrina.html

http://www.license.state.tx.us/weather/weathermod.htm

http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/2070.asp

david@ecommerce-help.co.uk

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Nu:
We seem to have gotten a little off the topic of Bush Bashing.
Or,perhaps; we have just "bashed" him enough or all said all that anyone can.
Maybe, it is time to start a new topic called "Bush Praising"?

What can you possible find to praise about his leadership?

Originally posted by Nu:
We seem to have gotten a little off the topic of Bush Bashing.
Or,perhaps; we have just "bashed" him enough or all said all that anyone can.
Maybe, it is time to start a new topic called "Bush Praising"?

There wouldn't be much posting with a name like that. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Captain Zen]

I like Bush, he proves that an idiot can become president, there is still hope for me.

[Captain Zen]

Who Is Jamming
Communicatins
In New Orleans?
By Wayne Madsen
9-2-5

Who is jamming communications in New Orleans? Ham radio operators are reporting that communications in and around New Orleans are being jammed. In addition, perplexed ham radio operators who were enlisted by the Federal government in 911 are not being used for hurricane Katrina Federal relief efforts. There is some misinformation circulating on the web that the jamming is the resault of solar flares. Ham radio operators report that the flares are not the source of the communications jamming.

If anyone at the National Security Agency is aware of the source of the jamming, from direction finding or satellite intelligence, please discretely contact me at <mailto:waynemadsendc@hotmail.com>waynemadsendc@hotmail.com (from a private or temporary email account). In this case, the Bush administration cannot hide behind national security and it is the duty of every patriotic American to report such criminal activity to the press. Even though the information on the jamming may be considered classified -- it is in the public interest to disclose it.

Also, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is reporting that no aircraft over New Orleans have been fired on over New Orleans or anywhere else in the area. Are the reports of shots being fired at aircraft an attempt by the Bush administration to purposely delay the arrival of relief to the city's homeless and dying poor? The neocons have turned New Orleans into Baghdad on the Mississippi.

http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

[Captain Zen]

American taxpayers pay for Israelis who resettle from comforable illegal settlements in Gaza to other lands stolen from the Palestinian aboriginals... But what do the victims of Katrina get???

MONEYFILES: GLOBAL PREDATORS AND THE UN
(06/02) US taxpayers will pay evacuated settlers an average of $450000 per family
... (05/04) Anne Williamson: How American taxpayers funded and empowered a ...
http://www.moneyfiles.org/predators.html - 291k - Cached - Similar pages
And in this article they get only between 2 and 300K: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050822/ap.../israel_palestinians (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050822/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinians)
quote:"The Gaza pullout represents the first time Israel is abandoning territory claimed by the Palestinians for their future state. The settlers will receive an average of $200,000-$300,000 in compensation."end of quote

[jon71]

The palestinians are not aboriginal. They are foreigners from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region. They tried to "squat" the entire country of Israel away from it's rightful owners, the Israelis.

[jon71]

One thing to point out is usually when disaster strikes the national guard helps out. This time they can't because, A most of them are in Iraq, and B the numbers are falling fast because who would want to join only to be sent to Iraq. On top of that, equipment is in Iraq too. Amphibious vehicles the national guard sometimes uses is in Iraq. Why did the morons are the pentagon (Or white House?) send amphibious vehicles to a desert? It's a shame that decent people are paying for the mistakes of our idiot in chief.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by jon71:
The palestinians are not aboriginal. They are foreigners from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and other countries in the region. They tried to "squat" the entire country of Israel away from it's rightful owners, the Israelis.

Ohh ya, of course, sorry, they were not born in the area, but came there, and then so what? Did the Jewish people who settled there after them not come from even further away? The African Americans are not aboriginals either, brought as slaves remember, so they should also be swept aside and put like the 3 million Palestinians in a Gaza like prison, is that what you mean? And the few left over aboriginal Americans in the reservations, and the soon to be minority white pure aboriginal Americans who came falling from the sky? in the "White" House rule the world...

Oops, now I found a pic of Captain Zen, but can anybody tell me how to make it smaller?

[Bob S.]

If I were to grade the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, I would give FEMA an 'F' and Louisiana's mergency agency a '0'. There is no reason why Louisiana should have waited to get assisstance into New Orleans. I'm sure they have boats, helicopters, etc. and could have been in there immediately.

New Orleans also gets a '0' for evacuating their residents. They knew that many people there were incapable of driving away from their homes, so they should have helped them get away.

All hurricane preparedness kits recommend a certain amount of water per person per day as well as a certain amount of non-perishables. When the city evacuated all those 15,000? people to the Superdome, where was the recommended amounr of food and water?

This whole disaster represents a huge failure of assisstance on all fronts. I hope everyone can learn from this so another New Orleans/Gulfport/Mobile never happens again. Aid must be ready and waiting for dispatch within a few hours of the disaster's end.

Bob S.

[jon71]

The African Americans didn't have a choice. Of course this is 100% their home now. America is the land of immigrants. We all came from somewhere else. I have in me British, Irish, Welsh, German, and Cherokee, that I know of. I imagine there is more in the mix than that. As far as Isreal goes the Isrealis were returning home. It belonged to them since the time of Abraham and Isaac.

[Captain Zen]

Originally posted by jon71:
The African Americans didn't have a choice. Of course this is 100% their home now. America is the land of immigrants. We all came from somewhere else. I have in me British, Irish, Welsh, German, and Cherokee, that I know of. I imagine there is more in the mix than that. As far as Isreal goes the Isrealis were returning home. It belonged to them since the time of Abraham and Isaac.

If you believe today (where you there?) in that fairy tale book, written by a bunch of shepherds, pro slavery and against women rights, changed and altered numerous times at the Councils of Constantinople, used by the Zionists to fool the world, you must also still believe in Santa Clous, I will say no more, as the topic is Bush Bashing, but ohhh yes, of course, Bush is also a naZionist, doing all he can to play along with butcher Sharon, headman of naZion.

http://i-cias.com/e.o/neturei_karta.htm

http://www.nkusa.org/

topic closed

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by jon71:
One thing to point out is usually when disaster strikes the national guard helps out. This time they can't because, A most of them are in Iraq, and B the numbers are falling fast because who would want to join only to be sent to Iraq. On top of that, equipment is in Iraq too. Amphibious vehicles the national guard sometimes uses is in Iraq. Why did the morons are the pentagon (Or white House?) send amphibious vehicles to a desert? It's a shame that decent people are paying for the mistakes of our idiot in chief.

The Louisiana National Guard was in the areas hit. They were victims. Further the National Guard is not a rapid response team they have to be called up assembled, briefed and moved in. The entire infrastructure of the Southern Mississippi area collapsed. Roads were impassable. Could help have come faster? These Questions will all be answered in the weeks ahead. The 'national guard was in Iraq' argument is particularly weak.

"A look at the numbers should dispel that notion. Take the Army for example. There are 1,012,000 soldiers on active duty, in the Reserves, or in the National Guard. Of them, 261,000 are deployed overseas in 120 countries. Iraq accounts for 103,000 soldiers, or 10.2 percent of the Army. "


http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200509020719.asp

Also I heard a report that the National Guard was not even called in until Wednesday. The governor of the state has to make the request. Why did they wait? We have 3 levels of gov't involved and the bureaucracy appears to have messed up. In future where a disaster takes this scale there must be some provision for the US Army to take immediate control.

[Captain Zen]

300! Airforce personel is flown from Iraq to the disaster area around New Orleans to help. 300! wow!
From the Dutch newspaper The Telegraaf:

za 3 sep 2005, 13:38
VS halen troepen terug uit Irak voor hulp na Katrina
DOHA - De Verenigde Staten halen driehonderd militairen van de luchtmacht terug uit Irak en Afghanistan. De manschappen, die al onderweg zijn naar de Verenigde Staten, worden ingezet in het rampgebied rond New Orleans. Dat heeft een woordvoerder van het Amerikaanse centrale commando van de luchtmacht zaterdag gezegd.

[Captain Zen]

This story is from our news.com.au network Source: AFP
back PRINT-FRIENDLY VERSION EMAIL THIS STORY


Castro offers US medical help
From correspondents in Havana
September 03, 2005
CUBAN President Fidel Castro has offered to help the United States, by sending 1,100 doctors and medicine to treat the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Some 100 doctors could board a flight to Houston, Texas, as soon as today and 1,000 could arrive tomorrow and the day after, Castro said in a radio and television address. Cuba would also send 26.4 tonnes of medicines.

"Cuba is ready to help immediately," he said. "We offer concrete things, doctors to the site of the tragedy, which is exactly what is missing now."

Castro said a diplomatic note containing the offer was sent today to the US Interests Section, the American mission in Havana, and was the second such offer of its kind made this week.

He said the first offer to send Cuban doctors to aid in hurricane relief efforts was made during a meeting with Cuban foreign ministry and US officials in Havana on Tuesday, days before the extent of the hurricane's catastrophic damage was known.









At the time, American officials had asked Cuban authorities not to publicise their offer of aid, said Castro, who indicated Havana was still awaiting a response from Washington.

"(American) authorities are going through a difficult time, we are not asking for anything," said Castro, whose country has not had diplomatic relations with the United States in more than four decades. "We're not criticising anyone."

The United States has enforced an economic embargo against its communist nemesis Cuba for four decades.

In July, Cuba declined Washington's offer of humanitarian assistance in the wake of Hurricane Dennis, which killed at least 11 people in the communist-ruled island.

[PascoDoug]

Zen,

You were warned in the past about posting this "Zionist" material here.. Frankly, I'm getting pretty fed up with it. It's going to stop.. now.

If that is all you are about.. I really don't care to have you posting here anymore.

No more Zionists, and no more links to these "factual" websites. I don't want to hear any excuses or whining.

[nakednudists]

YEAH!

[Captain Zen]

ok P sorry I forgot btw, how do I make my avatar smaller?

[ken0254]

Isn't it interesting how all the talking heads are saying it's the fault of the state of Louisana and the Corps of Engineers for not making the levee at Lake Ponchitrane stronger? But WAIT..... Oh yeah, I remember now, Dubya took that money for his war in Iraq. Oh silly me!!!

ken

[Trailscout]

Bush was wrong to divert the funds, but frankly the problem has been well-known for years. Clinton could have pushed it through if he had wanted to. Fact is, local, state, and federal officials in both parties kept hoping that "THE BIG ONE" would never happen and they wouldn't have to spend the money.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by Trailscout:
Bush was wrong to divert the funds, but frankly the problem has been well-known for years. Clinton could have pushed it through if he had wanted to. Fact is, local, state, and federal officials in both parties kept hoping that "THE BIG ONE" would never happen and they wouldn't have to spend the money.

The South East Lousiana Flood Control Project was begun under Clinton and received several hundred million dollars of funding. In early 2003, the Project's funding was cut to a trickle in order to fund the Bush tax cut and the Iraq war.

In reality, the money necessary would have been in the billions -- now nothing compared to what the cost of rebuilding will be.

[Captain Zen]

Now; if Tom Bearden is right with his Electromagnetic Weather Control explanation, it is very well possible that someone is attacking the USA, and therewith the Bush cabal?
Question remains only: "WHODUNNIT?"
If the USA has caused floodings and earthquakes through its own existing secret military programs in other countries like China and Indonesia and Europe, retaliation can be expected.
Will we see more catastrophies to bring the world to still greater misery?
Qui Bono?
I see a pattern with such precise tracks of storms that made turns and twists to arrive at exact spots like never before the last ten years I living in the Hurrican Belt ( which has grown wider and wider...)
Bush is not a "War President", he is a "Disaster President".

[Ren]

Zen - We don't live in a cartoon. Maybe you should stop thanking us for not thinking and start thinking yourself. I'm sorry, but come on man. I don't like G-Dub, but controlling the weather? Seriously?

http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Bob S.]

New Orleans declared the Superdome a shelter before the storm. But my question is where was the food? If they designate a shelter, they should have everything in there that they need for at least a day or two. That includes food and water. But there was nothing in there--for 25,000 people.

"Isn't it interesting how all the talking heads are saying it's the fault of the state of Louisana and the Corps of Engineers for not making the levee at Lake Ponchitrane stronger?"

I believe it was this I heard, but they have been asking for that money for ten years and never received the funding they needed to get everything done. Also, I think I heard that one of the levees that failed was a new section that was completed.

You know what? Sometimes Mother Nature wins.

Bob S.

[ken0254]

Bob S.

That is true, Mother Nature will almost always win. And what is it realtors alway say... Location, Location, Location. It doesn't help most of New Orleans is below sea level.

ken

[Captain Zen]

Mr, if I do not joke, I would go stark raving mad or suicide. This is not a world I want to live in. With politics based on war and destruction, religions untolerant and poverty in most of the globe.
I think weather control is done, please check Tom Bearden, a veteran from the navy who explains what/how it is done. With huge Tesla coils in various parts of the world.
Part of my spiritual education was "cloud Chasing", whereby one concentrates on a cloud, a small one at first, and make it disappear by sheer willpower. It may seem mad but after a few times trying it works. The next excercise was to make a needle magnetic by striking it along a strong magnet a few times, then make it float on a plate of water, by putting vaseline around it, and as it is now a compass, pointing North-South, to make it turn by sheer concentrated will power. That took me weeks to succeed, but also that can be done. Those excercises develop the mindpower and make the adept aware of the fact that in the material world immaterial things like thoughts do have influence.

[Sanslines]

Zen,

Please stop with this utter nonsense. Some of us have a Physics background and frankly your fantasies which completely and totally violate the laws of Physics are rediculous.

[Captain Zen]

Ehm, go to http://www.xtrememind.com/forum/index.php and talk to the guys who practise ask about cloud chasing.
The exercises I described are from Madam Blavatsky's Theosophy books.
http://www.blavatsky.net/
Uri Geller was a hoax also? Untill you sit with him and have it happen before your eyes.
There is more under the sun than you and I will ever know...

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Trailscout:

But let's focus our efforts on helping rescue stranded people. They are hungry, thirsty and vulnerable to hoodlum gangs.

I don't have much to offer, but I plan to send a donation to the American Red Cross. If millions of people each donate a few bucks, we can do a lot.

Well said. I too don't have much to donate. But, if we all gave up our daily latte for a month just think of what we can put in the collective pot. We can deal with helping Starbuck' recover next month.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
A National Emergency was declared by the President before Katrina made landful.

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">One of the definitions of true leadership isn't what is said; but what is done. The FEMA effectivenes (an agency directly controlled by presidential appointment, just didn't perform.</span>


(As for your constant 'shill' comments, they are not productive and are just an ad hominem attack. They don't really interest me nor am I going to attack you personally.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">The R/C Bush base has run from Bush on this issue. They all think that he was late in getting to the effected areas, late in his involvement, and generally lack in his duties. Even the R/C talking heads on Sunday morning TV have distanced themselves from him on this issue. Yet, you are there waving the GWB flag. You are close to being the one in his camp on this issue; isn't that exactly the job of a shill? </span> I'm sure you are a fine person who just happens to disagree with me.<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Nobody has ever accused me of being nice.</span>)

[Captain Zen]

If Shill wants to be on the side of the winning, he better think twice... The misery must stop.

[dalesman]

Seeing the news reports several days after this event of how so many have lost their lives & how SLOW aid seems to be arriving makes it hard to believe that this has all happend in America, AMERICA!!! YES AMERICA........ which is the most ADVANCED & WEALTHIEST country in the world!!!
WHAT IS WRONG!!! WHAT IS WRONG!!! WHAT IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave (UK)

[nakednudists]

Zen, is that you and your brother in your avatar?

[Trailscout]

Originally posted by dalesman:
Seeing the news reports several days after this event of how so many have lost their lives & how SLOW aid seems to be arriving makes it hard to believe that this has all happend in America, AMERICA!!! YES AMERICA........ which is the most ADVANCED & WEALTHIEST country in the world!!!
WHAT IS WRONG!!! WHAT IS WRONG!!! WHAT IS WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dave (UK)

Dave, technology and wealth are insufficient to ward off trouble without careful planning as well.

In addition, you must not assume that technology can completely protect you against violent storms. When a category 5 hurricane comes knocking on the doors of a coastal town, one's best course of action is to run for your life. And one million mobile residents of New Orleans did just that.

However, one need not compound the tragedy by botching the evacuation. New Orleans has probably 300 thousand people without any means of transportation. These citizens should be well known to the emergency workers and well-drawn evacuation plans should be in place. The city is a deathtrap for those who linger in such a storm, so the governments (state and local) should have marshaled all the school buses and any other large vehicles available and removed these people to higher ground days before the storm.

One can argue that New Orleans is doomed, due to coastal erosion and the subsiding of the city below sea level.
Well, the Dutch seem to be doing a better job of preventing their levees from rupturing. Perhaps we could take a lesson.

[Sanslines]

dalesman,

What is Right and sadly not mentioned in our wonderful media is the huge outpouring of help from all corners of the USA to help those in the affected areas. Texas has accepted a huge number of refugees and other cities such as San Diego are sending huge amounts of food, supplies, and personel to help out. We all need to understand that this was a HUGE and Vicious storm that overwhelmed everyone at first. I have no doubt that the American people will take care of their own and do what ever is necessary to help those affected. That is what is RIGHT about America.

[KirkOntario]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050901/480/flpc21109012015

Have you seen the above photo? It is the job of local and state gov't to evacuate people before the storm. Why were these buses not used by the Mayor of New Orleans?

[Bob S.]

"Part of my spiritual education was "cloud Chasing", whereby one concentrates on a cloud, a small one at first, and make it disappear by sheer willpower."

So we can blame you for this tragedy, Zen. You have always been against the US government and you had the power to weaken this hurricane. But no, you chose not to. In fact, knowing that you can alter clouds, it may be that you did, in fact, assist this hurricane in strengthening.

Now this coming from someone who is supposed to be against violence. This person, who could have been of assistance to the residents of the Gulg Shore of the US, allowed thousands to die to punish the US government. That sounds just like what happened on 9/11.

See, you aren't the only conspriacy theorist around here. I have just one question for you, Zen. Why?

Bob S.

[Captain Zen]

These questions serve no purpose, even if the answer was known, it is too late. Crying over spilled milk we call that in English...
And yea, I am against the government. But did you know that the worst governments produce the nicest people and vice versa... Take the Swedish, or French governments, taking care of their people from craddle to grave, but most of those people are nasty nasty...
Here is another part of my spiritual education:

Develop the mind of equilibrium. You will always be getting praise and blame, but do not let either affect the poise of the mind: follow the calmness, the absence of pride.

-Sutta Nipata

[hw]

Originally posted by Captain Zen:
Yes, you all keep wondering and asking how is it possible? And I keep telling you it was meant to be so. Planned by the highest Bush cabal. Evil at its best. Scare the victims, do not feed or treat them, and do with them as you please. Deport them to places of your choise, and make sure you are in control of the chaos...


I am thinking....WOW! When is the mother ship coming back? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[KirkOntario]

For those who would like to buy the media impression Bush was not on the job it was only after G.W. insisted on the evacuation that Governor Blanco made the order.


Go back and read the press clippings from BEFORE the storm hit:

"The mayor called the order unprecedented and said anyone who could leave the city should. He exempted hotels from the evacuation order because airlines had already cancelled all flights.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco, standing beside the mayor at a news conference, said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding."

http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base...&storylist=louisiana (http://www.nola.com/newsflash/louisiana/index.ssf?/base/news-18/1125239940201382.xml&storylist=louisiana)

[Captain Zen]

I am thinking....WOW! When is the mother ship coming back? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif[/QUOTE]

Her Mother ship and His Lordship will be here at 4:36 September 24, be ready, don't forget your toothbrush.

Now this

America Needs To Hear
Mayor Nagin's Entire Interview
From Bob Barnes
9-4-5

Jeff...

This morning I happened to catch the ENTIRE playback of an interview (done last night on WWL Radio) of New Orleans Mayor Nagin on CNN. THIS RECORDED INTERVIEW NEEDS TO BE ON YOUR WEBSITE! It needs to be played on your program and stored in your archives. The networks have reduced it to highly edited sound bytes that simply DO NOT convey the Mayor's frustration with the lack of prompt, active response from FEMA and the US Govt, particularly the President.

In the wee hours (between 5 & 6AM, Indiana time) CNN broadcast the entire (approx 10-min) interview during which Nagin alternately cursed and pled with the federal government to speed help in the form of troops, buses, and rescue equipment. The language was EXTREMELY base and gutsy (and "un-bleeped")... but the logic, though interspersed with emotional desperation, was bluntly to the point.

At one point, he called for a "moratorium on press conferences" until all Americans were safe. At the end, both the Mayor and the interviewer became speechless. The silence went on for what seemed like an eternity--so long that I thought something had gone wrong with the feed. Then... I could faintly hear both men sobbing... the Mayor, having verbally vomited his frustration and despair, abruptly excused himself and hung up.

For the whole story go to http://www.rense.com/general67/vter.htm

[Captain Zen]

from http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/002485.html

September 03, 2005
If he could go to Baghdad, why didn't Bush go to the New Orleans Superdome or the Convention Center? It was bizarre for all of the country and much of the world to be watching those scenes for days on our TVs and news reports, and for Bush's photo ops to be in areas that were far less critical. I know there are security considerations but his visit seemed extraordinarily hollow even by this administration's standard of ultra-stage managed events.

Dutch viewer Frank Tiggelaar writes:

There was a striking dicrepancy between the CNN International report on the Bush visit to the New Orleans disaster zone, yesterday, and reports of the same event by German TV.

ZDF News reported that the president's visit was a completely staged event. Their crew witnessed how the open air food distribution point Bush visited in front of the cameras was torn down immediately after the president and the herd of 'news people' had left and that others which were allegedly being set up were abandoned at the same time.

The people in the area were once again left to fend for themselves, said ZDF.

And remember K.O., this is about "Bush Bashing" not "White Washing", we have to open a new thread for Bush Praising and 'white washing', THIS is not the thread for that...

[usuallylurk]

New Orleans Times-Picayune - editorial today -

http://www.nola.com , click on editorials.

[Bob S.]

"Her Mother ship and His Lordship will be here at 4:36 September 24, be ready, don't forget your toothbrush."

AM or PM and in what year? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

"This morning I happened to catch the ENTIRE playback of an interview (done last night on WWL Radio) of New Orleans Mayor Nagin on CNN."

I can understand his frustrations, but he is supposed to be a leader. Here he is, spouting insults and rage to the public in the middle of a crisis. That is not leadership in any sense of the word.

Mayor Nagin dropped the ball. He did not make sure his constituents were prepared. He knew that a lot of them were unable to evacuate and ignored them during the mandatory evacuation order, he sent people to an ill-equipped shelter that had no food or water.

If he had done more before the hurricane, there would have been a lot fewer deaths, people wouldn't have been without food and water for so long, and the chaos that was New Orleans would have been lessened a lot.

FEMA is not the only one who dropped the ball here. The mayor of the city was derelict in his duties as well.

Bob S.

[Sanslines]

Another thing to remember is that there are a whole bunch of laws and legal procedures that dictate what can be done and when. The hierarchy for government is local, state, then federal. The federal gov't can not immediately step in and take control unless they are asked to do so. I am not excusing the poor response by the federal government; however if the information that is comming out now is true, then there were 'turf disputes' going on between the state and federal governments as to who can do what and when. The tragic result is that people needlessly suffered. I hope one lesson to be learned here that will lead to many changes is how to bypass the legal beaurocracy and get things done asap in times of crisis.

[KirkOntario]

The problem is the U.S. has never really planned for massive catastrophe. Local gov't basically collapsed. State gov't was pretty ineffective. What happens in the event of a nuclear bomb? What happend when the Big One hits San Francisco. Somehow the US gov't has to step in immediately and take charge with the Army and all the greater resources of the State. The tragedy means Americans WILL be prepared next time --we hope. 9/11 was pretty simple: localized disaster. Loss of office towers. No survivors. Everyone in the immediate area was pretty safe. This was truly different. Americans are an ingenious and resourceful people. They will adapt and be ready in the event of another event such as this. I hope Canadians are listening too because our gov't would have done no better.

[Qikdraw]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
The problem is the U.S. has never really planned for massive catastrophe.

Thats part of the problem. Its a failure at both state and federal levels. Another example of poor planning is Devil's Lake. It has no run off, and they've known this for decades, yet nothing was done until they screamed it was an emergency. So they cut a ditch to the Red River and started dumping the water, and any contaminantes Manitoba has to deal with. You can probably tell I'm not happy abou tthat decision.

Winnipeg, Manitoba has a floodway around the city. It was built ages ago to protect the city from a flooding, yet was never used for liek 50 years untill the Red River flooded back in the 90's. They prepared 50 odd years for something. Thats just something the US just doesn't seem to grasp. (I don't know why)


What happens in the event of a nuclear bomb?

What? Drop and cover isn't good enough? http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


What happend when the Big One hits San Francisco. Somehow the US gov't has to step in immediately and take charge with the Army and all the greater resources of the State. The tragedy means Americans WILL be prepared next time --we hope.

I do hope, although I don't have much faith in it.


9/11 was pretty simple: localized disaster. Loss of office towers. No survivors. Everyone in the immediate area was pretty safe. This was truly different.

It was completely different than 9/11, however if we use 9/1 as an example I hope that example doesn';t carry over into being prepared next time either, cause nothing has been done to boost the safety of the US on US soil.


Americans are an ingenious and resourceful people. They will adapt and be ready in the event of another event such as this.

American people are amazing. There has been so much support for the victims of this tragedy. What really does not get played around the world is that Americans are a very generous people, and truely do want to help out, not only in the US but all around the world.


I hope Canadians are listening too because our gov't would have done no better.

I think we would have, I don't think we would have waited days to get help from the federal government in. I don't think we would have federal officials botching up the way the US officials have.

When the Red flooded back in the 90's I remember my father flying with his squadron to find people stranded and get rescue for them immediately, it did not come days later.

So I disagree with your statement that Canada would not respond better. I think we would have, and in my experience through blizzards, and floods it has shown that the government does respond quickly.

Qikdraw

[KirkOntario]

Looks more like local black politicians failed black people. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3kt.htm

"But the TIMES-PICAYUNE published a story on July 24, 2005 stating: City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: "In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own."

Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation."

"In the video, made by the anti-poverty agency Total Community Action, they urge those people to make arrangements now by finding their own ways to leave the city in the event of an evacuation.

"You're responsible for your safety, and you should be responsible for the person next to you," Wilkins said in an interview. "If you have some room to get that person out of town, the Red Cross will have a space for that person outside the area. We can help you.""

[hm0504]

Since 9/11, the United States has spent untold billions preparing for a major disaster. The top three major disasters FEMA had identified were a major terrorist attack killing tens of thousands of people (eg. atomic bomb), a major California earthquake, and a major hurricane in the New Orleans area. While we can talk about conflicts between various levels of government, and we should, the plain fact of the matter is that when a major disaster hits like this, the federal government has to be in charge.

The outrage over the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is because Americans know their government, their federal government, majorly screwed up. Had this disaster happened in Canada or any other Western democracy, the reaction of the people to such monumental incompetence would be, and should be, the same.

Please remember, the White House is not being blamed for the hurricane, hurricanes happen. It is being blamed for, completely unnecessarily, leaving tens of thousands of Americans without food or water or basic sanitation for several days.

[hm0504]

Originally posted by KirkOntario:
Looks more like local black politicians failed black people. http://clothesfreeforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash3kt.htm

"But the TIMES-PICAYUNE published a story on July 24, 2005 stating: City, state and federal emergency officials are preparing to give a historically blunt message: "In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own."

Staff writer Bruce Nolan reported some 7 weeks before Katrina: "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation."

"In the video, made by the anti-poverty agency Total Community Action, they urge those people to make arrangements now by finding their own ways to leave the city in the event of an evacuation.

"You're responsible for your safety, and you should be responsible for the person next to you," Wilkins said in an interview. "If you have some room to get that person out of town, the Red Cross will have a space for that person outside the area. We can help you.""

I see no contradiction in both emphasizing personal reliance in preparation for a disaster and expecting basic federal assistance in the event of such a major disaster.

Not sure how the "black" thing fits into it. Are you suggesting politicians of a certain race may be less competent than those of other races?

[KirkOntario]

Originally posted by hm0504:

I see no contradiction in both emphasizing personal reliance in preparation for a disaster and expecting basic federal assistance in the event of such a major disaster.

Not sure how the "black" thing fits into it. Are you suggesting politicians of a certain race may be less competent than those of other races?

The 'black' thing fits in because the allegation has been made that this is an issue of white neglect. Black politicians are no more or less competent than white politicians but to the extent to which they have claimed to benefit black people they have failed to do so.

The article shows there was no plan to evacuate the city. The dome was to be used as a place of last resort and then they didn't adequately stock it with food and water and when they ran out they didn't advise the feds they were running out of food.

[Sanslines]

While we can talk about conflicts between various levels of government, and we should, the plain fact of the matter is that when a major disaster hits like this, the federal government has to be in charge

Then we need to change the laws to enable the federal government to superseed the local and state government authorities and immediately take charge. I hope changes are made to allow this to happen in future disasters.

[NudeTopher]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">While we can talk about conflicts between various levels of government, and we should, the plain fact of the matter is that when a major disaster hits like this, the federal government has to be in charge

Then we need to change the laws to enable the federal government to superseed the local and state government authorities and immediately take charge. I hope changes are made to allow this to happen in future disasters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I am fairly positive that those laws are already in effect. Of course giving additional powers to the fed's is something anethma to the the conservatives who find state's rights a great way to keep laws and prohibitions on the books that violate federal freedoms.

[rudedogii]

Just dont bash Bush, but bash the rich people who put there man in office! They have sold out the poor and working class American. Just one more thing I have learnd in my time, "The Golden Rule" the one with all the gold makes all the rules. I belong to the shrinking middle class, the working American. I see the American worker loseing jobs to China just so the people at the top can make more money. I am a constrction worker in SoCal and see more jobs going to Mexican workers "illegal" because they will work for less money. I live in a small working class town out side of Los Angeles. My town was once a mixed race communtity, now is like being in Mexico. I see Mexican workers coming and working at construction jobs that once paid good money! I dont see Bush working for me or the working man! I dont think he has ever worked a hard day in his life.