Election postponement, and "al qaeda" [Archive]

sammi jo

07-11-2004, 07:49 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. This administration relies on fear, fear and more fear to keep them going. This is all they have left going for them, and this tiny sliver of credibility is being shredded each time they put out yet another phoney terror warning. With each incident of crying wolf, the people will eventually ignore them.

Al Qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda. Al f*cking qaeda. Goddamit, that is all we ever hear of from the administration and the media. Does Al f$cking Qaeda even exist? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm)

One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

International terrorism meanwhile is one of the rarest forms of violent incident on the US homeland, and the Administration has milked the 9-11 attacks (for which we still have NO conclusive proof as to the identity of the perps), as if there is nothing else in life besides "look out everybody, there's a muslim with a bomb about to kill you". The Bush Administration needed their Reichstag (in the form of 9-11) in the same single-minded way a heroin junkie needs a fix to function; without the universally broadcast horror-flick of 9-11, none of their policies would have ever got by the US people. Now they can do what they like, by instill as much fear as they can with the media dutifully in tow, with zero rationality or reason. Terrorists have any number of ways of attacking us...air cargo is not screened, neither is train travel (more passengers go through Penn Station in one day than via all the New York are airports combined, and none are screened, and there have been NO attacks). Similarly, anybody could smuggle a huge bomb into a megahotel in Las Vegas and kill thousands, such is the lack of security there. And if I, who visits Las vegas on occasions have thought about this while visiting the Luxor or MGM, then a terrorist group who wants to hit America has also. Not just Las Vegas, but any our the thousands of cities and towns throughout America. Essential infrastucture which would be a prime target for real terrorists remain largely unguarded, and have they been attacked? Oh look, under NAFTA, thousands of trucks can now stream across the US border without inspection...all approved by the "security obsessed" Bush Administration. What may these trucks be carrying? Al Qaeda agents? Dirty Nukes? 40 tons of military grade explosives to be parked outside a mall?

If the election is actually postponed...this will look more a case of these mythical "terrorists" (whoever they happen to be).... winning. They, not us, will be dictating the course of democracy in America. Who are these terrorists one might ask? Who is to gain by a postponement of the US electoral process? Bin Laden, the man who financed the Embassy and USS Cole bombings? Is he so bothered with who becomes president or which party has a majority in each house? Answer: probably not. And if the election is "postponed", what is to keep it from being perpetually postponed? We will be constantly "informed" that here is a perpetual "danger of an attack" by "al qaeda", whatever that may be, and life will never be the same again.

The people doing the most terrorizing are officials within the Administration...by keeping the American people in a constant state of irrational terror. When the IRA campaign was in its full swing in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s with almost daily bombings with deaths and destruction, the UK goverment didnt appease these real, flesh-and-blood terrorists, as opposed to the hot air variety by elevating their status to rock-stardom. They were treated like the lowlife they were, and now their organization has (currently) disbanded. BushCorp needs the specter of bin Laden and al qaeda, either real, or more likely manufactured...it is their lifeblood.

The likelihood of terror attacks has been inflated outside of all rational proportion, to control the mood of the people by fear of the unknown, the images of 9-11 still fresh in our national psyche. The real reason behind the the possibility of an election postponement, and why we are now being informed beforehand is most likely to keep the issue in the front of our individual and collective consciousness, and justify the phoney, unwinnable war on terror.

This administration relies on fiction, lies, conjuring tricks and false flag operations to "justify" their existence. Combine this with public ignorance and a complicit media, a lack of questioning by the public, and the unholy BushCorp-Al Qaeda perceptual alliance will continue to enjoy their mutual parasitism.

BuonRotto

07-11-2004, 09:33 PM

Is there a point you wish to discuss? ;)

I really doubt that the November elections would be delayed unless a candidate is killed or something. It would be very hard to rationalize or put past the public. I don't think the stipulations for a delayed presidential election is up to the executive branch anyway, nor that the bar could be set so low that an attack would trigger such an event in kind excluding some extreme circumstances. I do think it's important to come up with worst case scenarios though, so I can't say the idea of a delayed election as anything too sinister in itself. The terms are what matters. You figure that people will want to vote sooner than later if something happened. Also, if you are worried about the administration setting these terms to benefit itself, you have to figure that they believe an attack near the election would hurt them, not help them. I'm not sure that's what they would think nor what would happen. People vote with their hearts though, so it's hard to say how things would go. I can't imagine a delay would make the election any more predictable.

Besides, the Executive branch can't set these terms or control how the election is run anyway, right? Seems like an inherent conflict of interest no matter who is in office. Hm, anyone feeling up for a quick run through the Constitution? :D I could swear that Congress would control this with the Supreme Court ultimately passing judgment on whatever they decide.

I wouldn't be too dismissive of Al Qaeda either. They may be over-hyped relative to other problems and threats, but the threat is there nonetheless. Sure, we have domestic terrorists and good ol' fashioned crime too, but that doesn't take anything away from an Al Qaeda or some other foreign terrorist threat. There's no equilibrium of actual threat or anything, just maybe a lack of equilibrium with regards to hype and coverage. I can think of a few sources for that hype, only one of which is the Bush admin.

And, absolutely, we are not prepared for an attack when it comes. It's as much CYA as it is WOT. (IMO ;))

Scott

07-11-2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. ...

You're so right.

http://www.dsscomputer.com/911/images/image014.jpg

http://www.dsscomputer.com/911/images/9-11-j.jpg

http://www.dsscomputer.com/911/images/page-t15.jpg

You're so much smart than the rest of us.

Randycat99

07-11-2004, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

Isn't this line of thought from out of some Michael Moore speech? (that clicking sound is the sound of someones credibility meter rapidly dropping)

sammi jo

07-11-2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Scott
You're so right.

You're so much smart than the rest of us.

OK Scott: We're right down to the wire here....the $200 billion question:

(1) Who did it?

(2) Answer with undeniable proof, please.

If you can satisfy me with your answer, I will be eternally grateful.

Scott, a sensible, balanced reply would be surely appreciated, as opposed to some "anti-America" or "conspiracy theory" twaddle.

Thankyou.

GreggWSmith

07-11-2004, 11:33 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/11/election.day.delay/index.html

Terrorism, terrorism, terrorism..... so much BS. This administration relies on fear, fear and more fear to keep them going. This is all they have left going for them, and this tiny sliver of credibility is being shredded each time they put out yet another phoney terror warning. With each incident of crying wolf, the people will eventually ignore them.

Al Qaeda, al qaeda, al qaeda. Al f*cking qaeda. Goddamit, that is all we ever hear of from the administration and the media. Does Al f$cking Qaeda even exist? (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DFED.htm)

One of these days people are going to realize that there is far, far more danger in being struck by lightning, being run over by a bus, seeing a flying saucer or catching tuberculosis than being involved in an "al qaeda" related terror attack, real or otherwise. Terrorism in the United States has always been an extremely rare event. What attacks there have been, most are domestic terrorism (abortion clinic bombers, the Unabomber, anthrax distribution, the Olympics bomber, the Maryland sniper, inner city gang driveby shootings etc,).

International terrorism meanwhile is one of the rarest forms of violent incident on the US homeland, and the Administration has milked the 9-11 attacks (for which we still have NO conclusive proof as to the identity of the perps), as if there is nothing else in life besides "look out everybody, there's a muslim with a bomb about to kill you". The Bush Administration needed their Reichstag (in the form of 9-11) in the same single-minded way a heroin junkie needs a fix to function; without the universally broadcast horror-flick of 9-11, none of their policies would have ever got by the US people. Now they can do what they like, by instill as much fear as they can with the media dutifully in tow, with zero rationality or reason. Terrorists have any number of ways of attacking us...air cargo is not screened, neither is train travel (more passengers go through Penn Station in one day than via all the New York are airports combined, and none are screened, and there have been NO attacks). Similarly, anybody could smuggle a huge bomb into a megahotel in Las Vegas and kill thousands, such is the lack of security there. And if I, who visits Las vegas on occasions have thought about this while visiting the Luxor or MGM, then a terrorist group who wants to hit America has also. Not just Las Vegas, but any our the thousands of cities and towns throughout America. Essential infrastucture which would be a prime target for real terrorists remain largely unguarded, and have they been attacked? Oh look, under NAFTA, thousands of trucks can now stream across the US border without inspection...all approved by the "security obsessed" Bush Administration. What may these trucks be carrying? Al Qaeda agents? Dirty Nukes? 40 tons of military grade explosives to be parked outside a mall?

If the election is actually postponed...this will look more a case of these mythical "terrorists" (whoever they happen to be).... winning. They, not us, will be dictating the course of democracy in America. Who are these terrorists one might ask? Who is to gain by a postponement of the US electoral process? Bin Laden, the man who financed the Embassy and USS Cole bombings? Is he so bothered with who becomes president or which party has a majority in each house? Answer: probably not. And if the election is "postponed", what is to keep it from being perpetually postponed? We will be constantly "informed" that here is a perpetual "danger of an attack" by "al qaeda", whatever that may be, and life will never be the same again.

The people doing the most terrorizing are officials within the Administration...by keeping the American people in a constant state of irrational terror. When the IRA campaign was in its full swing in the UK in the 1970s and 1980s with almost daily bombings with deaths and destruction, the UK goverment didnt appease these real, flesh-and-blood terrorists, as opposed to the hot air variety by elevating their status to rock-stardom. They were treated like the lowlife they were, and now their organization has (currently) disbanded. BushCorp needs the specter of bin Laden and al qaeda, either real, or more likely manufactured...it is their lifeblood.

The likelihood of terror attacks has been inflated outside of all rational proportion, to control the mood of the people by fear of the unknown, the images of 9-11 still fresh in our national psyche. The real reason behind the the possibility of an election postponement, and why we are now being informed beforehand is most likely to keep the issue in the front of our individual and collective consciousness, and justify the phoney, unwinnable war on terror.

This administration relies on fiction, lies, conjuring tricks and false flag operations to "justify" their existence. Combine this with public ignorance and a complicit media, a lack of questioning by the public, and the unholy BushCorp-Al Qaeda perceptual alliance will continue to enjoy their mutual parasitism.

I will make sure to tell the next terrorist group to kill your family and friends instead of the ones I lost on September 11, 2001. You ignorant prick. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties are participating in talks to address the chance that the election could be delayed due to a terroristic attack. We were not prepared for what happened on 9/11 and that very well could be because Clinton was too busy jamming his cigars in interns. The Bush administration is far from perfect but at least Mr. Bush takes his Presidency seriously with a sense of pride. Complicit media? You have got to be kidding me! The media is so biased toward the left I am surprised Dan Rather doesn't tip right the fuck out of his chair!

Scott

07-11-2004, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
OK Scott: We're right down to the wire here....the $200 billion question:

(1) Who did it?

(2) Answer with undeniable proof, please.

If you can satisfy me with your answer, I will be eternally grateful.

Scott, a sensible, balanced reply would be surely appreciated, as opposed to some "anti-America" or "conspiracy theory" twaddle.

Thankyou.

I'm sure I can't. You're an unreasonable person hell bent on anti-american conspiracy theories. I think I have the perfect site (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) for you.

GreggWSmith

07-11-2004, 11:42 PM

bunge

07-12-2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by Scott
I'm sure I can't.

Wow. You just admitted you were wrong (even if you didn't mean to do it.) This is a first.

Frank777

07-12-2004, 01:32 AM

Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:34 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Find something sensible to say, and then try again.

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:38 AM

Originally posted by Scott
I'm sure I can't. You're an unreasonable person hell bent on anti-american conspiracy theories. I think I have the perfect site (http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html) for you.

You fell for it, Homer. How about arguing in an adult fashion. Come on..demolish what I posted instead of stamping your feet like an angry 4 year old.

Take it away....three...four:

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:53 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Very weak, Frank. Limp as a month-old stick of celery. I want to hear a cast iron case that would stand up solidly in a court of law...not the kind of tenuous, evidence-less propaganda we've been spoon fed for the last 3 years or so. There's the remains of 3000 American dead in that lot: their families deserve 1000 times better than the appalling way they've been screwed over by this shit-heap administration and it's phoney "investigation".

I have yet to hear a explanation for what happened that day that stands up to scrutiny. Virtually every aspect of the government's explanation can be soundly debunked by juxtaposing reports which came out in the regular media many by government departments themselves. You don't need to go anywhere the "tinfoil hat land" oft quoted by Scott and co to destroy the Bush administration's kidology. You know as well as I do as to why this is such a touchy subject.

Try again.

segovius

07-12-2004, 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
Huh? He said he didn't think any answers could ever satisfy Sammi Jo and the rest of the tin foil hat crowd..how's that an admission of error?

Thing is Frank, that your 'tin hat crowd' have far more evidence against al-Qaeda being the perps than you or anyone who maintains the party line do in favour of it.

Of course this evidence is never addressed - not by anyone here, Michael Moore, the 911 commission or anyone else. That means it can be dismissed as 'conspiracy whacko whatever' but the fact is 'it revolves just the same'.

We were promised the evidence of al-Q responsibility by both Bush and Blair within weeks of 911 - it never showed up and Iraq took center stage. We still haven't seen it. All you have is Bush and Blair's word for it. That's it. No more.

Against it you have:

A (genuine this time) video tape from al-Q containing a denial by OBL

Atta's cocaine binges and alcohol fuelled whoring on the nights before this 'muslim fundamentalist' heads to his maker.

Numerous of the alleged hijackers appear to be still alive.

Un-Islamic and nonsensical Last Will of Atta which somehow miraculously survives even though he strangely attempts to draft a will which he decides to take on a suicide mission to be destroyed.

Ditto his passport.

And on and on and on......

It's all a bit boring. You either want to think, want to see the truth or you don't.

Now I'm not saying I know what the truth is or who it will implicate or exonerate, I don't, but that's irrelevant - the truth is the truth and one either wants to know it or one doesn't, wherever it leads. What we have now is a situation where no-one knows the truth but we know what we have been told is not it.

There's a door and there's something horrible behind it - may be al-Q, may be something worse, may be something opposite - we don't know.

Belief is not enough. It's not enough to just listen to our 'leaders' about what is behind that door, not any longer. We need the truth - we need to open that door and take the risk of facing what is there.

That means people like me and Sammi Jo need to face the risk that we may be wrong and Bush (and you and Scott et al) may have been right all along.

And you need to take the risk of opening the door and facing the fact that you might be wrong and have been lied to.

trumptman

07-12-2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
You fell for it, Homer. How about arguing in an adult fashion. Come on..demolish what I posted instead of stamping your feet like an angry 4 year old.

Take it away....three...four:

Didn't Al qaeda repeatedly claim responsibility for the bombings, across multiple videotapes released to Al Jazeera who broadcast them? It is one thing to claim Bush is lying. It is another thing to include press that he doesn't control and terrorists in other lands all working actively to help his story.

There is obviously world press that took issue with Bush and Iraq. Wouldn't these same elements have spoken up if Al Quaeda were in fact being accused instead of proclaiming their responsibility?

Nick

segovius

07-12-2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Didn't Al qaeda repeatedly claim responsibility for the bombings, across multiple videotapes released to Al Jazeera who broadcast them ?

No. Two videotapes were released making these claims that in one case undoubtedly featured a 'fake' Osama and the other was debunked as being a counterfeit. Links available on request.

Conversely, Bin Laden denied any involvement (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines) for the attacks.

Why would he do this ? Al-Q's mo is to hit the US on small-scale guerilla attacks (as opposed to grandstand events like 911) and to take credit on all occasions. Indeed this is the complete rationale of terrorist acts - it's hardly like they care about their reputation, the more fear the better.

AQ would be far more likely to claim responsibility for an act they didn't commit than deny one they did. Especially the most 'successful' (in their terms) one ever.

Surely no-one can really believe they planned this for years, spent all that time, risk and money only to realise after the fact 'uh-oh, better deny this'.

InactionMan

07-12-2004, 09:36 AM

Democracy is unpatriotic.

trumptman

07-12-2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by segovius
No. Two videotapes were released making these claims that in one case undoubtedly featured a 'fake' Osama and the other was debunked as being a counterfeit. Links available on request.

Conversely, Bin Laden denied any involvement (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines) for the attacks.

Why would he do this ? Al-Q's mo is to hit the US on small-scale guerilla attacks (as opposed to grandstand events like 911) and to take credit on all occasions. Indeed this is the complete rationale of terrorist acts - it's hardly like they care about their reputation, the more fear the better.

AQ would be far more likely to claim responsibility for an act they didn't commit than deny one they did. Especially the most 'successful' (in their terms) one ever.

Surely no-one can really believe they planned this for years, spent all that time, risk and money only to realise after the fact 'uh-oh, better deny this'.

Yes, his credibility of blaming the "Jews" for attacking the U.S. over Florida amd the 2000 election sounds so credible.

So does the fact that the questions were submitted in writing and also received written replies.:rolleyes:

The part where they don't want to harm anyone but are also not harmed by freezing of assets because they have sources who "love Jihad" is just the cherry on top I suppose.:rolleyes:

Nick

Sondjata

07-12-2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by GreggWSmith
I will make sure to tell the next terrorist group to kill your family and friends instead of the ones I lost on September 11, 2001. You ignorant prick. I believe that both the Democratic and Republican parties are participating in talks to address the chance that the election could be delayed due to a terroristic attack. We were not prepared for what happened on 9/11 and that very well could be because Clinton was too busy jamming his cigars in interns. The Bush administration is far from perfect but at least Mr. Bush takes his Presidency seriously with a sense of pride. Complicit media? You have got to be kidding me! The media is so biased toward the left I am surprised Dan Rather doesn't tip right the fuck out of his chair!

Bush takes presidency seriously. Ok.

This is a man who is running around talking about how the war in Iraq has made the world ( and I assume the US is a part of the world) safer, Yet now we get this crap about postponing the election based on some fears of an 'unspecified" Al-Q attack. Get the damn shutters off your head. I got no love for Clinton ( much of what is in the Patriot Act was already law passed by Clinton's admin...), but to think that Bush and Co. is being straight with you is downright STUPID? How can the same admin tell you that "we are safer" and then turn around and even hint at moving elections based on terrorism fears.

segovius

07-12-2004, 10:19 AM

Originally posted by trumptman
Yes, his credibility of blaming the "Jews" for attacking the U.S. over Florida amd the 2000 election sounds so credible.

So does the fact that the questions were submitted in writing and also received written replies.:rolleyes:

The part where they don't want to harm anyone but are also not harmed by freezing of assets because they have sources who "love Jihad" is just the cherry on top I suppose.:rolleyes:

Nick

I'm afraid that's fuzzy logic.

The issue is whether he takes responsibility for 911 not who he thinks did do it.

So he hates Jews and (assuming he wasn't responsible) sees them as a likely candidate. That's his view and sure, it's ***ed up but what else do you expect ?

How exactly does that invalidate his claim to have nothing to do with it.

Right now we have this:

On the anti al-Q side: A (written) denial which may or may not be genuine.

On the for side: two proven faked tapes and the mass opinion of the public who derive their belief from one place (and one place only) with no supporting evidence whatsoever: Bush.

Oh and try this:

FBI admits no evidence linking hijackers to 911 (http://100777.com/doc/224)

a10t2

07-12-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by BuonRotto
Besides, the Executive branch can't set these terms or control how the election is run anyway, right? Seems like an inherent conflict of interest no matter who is in office. Hm, anyone feeling up for a quick run through the Constitution? :D I could swear that Congress would control this with the Supreme Court ultimately passing judgment on whatever they decide.

NO ONE has the Constitutional authority to change the date of an election. Not that that will stop anyone from taking the initiative to do so; in the US government as it exists today the Constitution is something to be paraded in front of the cameras when it's politically expedient to do so.

FYI: Bush is about 500 yards from me right now. I have no doubt this is the closest I'll ever get.

edit: Yahoo! News link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040711/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_vote_040711175832

The head of the new US Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries Jr, wrote to Ridge urging him to ask Congress for emergency legislation that would allow his agency to reschedule the election if terrorists were to strike.
"The federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election," Soaries wrote, according to the weekly.

kneelbeforezod

07-12-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by a10t2
FYI: Bush is about 500 yards from me right now. I have no doubt this is the closest I'll ever get. Tell him AO says hi.

FormerLurker

07-12-2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
Tell him AO says hi.
Better still - tell him AO says "buh-bye".

a10t2

07-12-2004, 11:28 AM

I would but I'm a little scared to go outside, what with the guys with guns on every corner.

It looks like Europe. ;-)

Aurora

07-12-2004, 12:25 PM

More Bush Spin, thats all. he has shown us he wont stop at anything for what he wants. Just more of the B.S from Bush, here is an idea if they are scared of loosing a few votes lets move the election UP! how about tomorrow so we can get this guy out of office. Current administration is amazing on how they pretend one thing and do another,war,health,enviroment, and now elections. how low can the Republicans go? throwing away all those independent votes like mine. After 4 years of Bush it will be a long time before the republicans become a majority again. watch and see. I predict a very strong Democratic showing whenever elections are held.

Wrong Robot

07-12-2004, 02:06 PM

I don't like this set-up jet, I don't like it at all

MaxParrish

07-12-2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by segovius
I'm afraid that's fuzzy logic.

The issue is whether he takes responsibility for 911 not who he thinks did do it.

So he hates Jews and (assuming he wasn't responsible) sees them as a likely candidate. That's his view and sure, it's ***ed up but what else do you expect ?

How exactly does that invalidate his claim to have nothing to do with it.

Right now we have this:

On the anti al-Q side: A (written) denial which may or may not be genuine.

On the for side: two proven faked tapes and the mass opinion of the public who derive their belief from one place (and one place only) with no supporting evidence whatsoever: Bush.

Oh and try this:

FBI admits no evidence linking hijackers to 911 (http://100777.com/doc/224)

And while you're there, you might want to check out the 'other' articles on the Order of the Illuminati and the Council of Foreign Relations and the New World Order.

Also feel free to click on their banner "Top Conspiracy Sites"
:no:

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 02:09 PM

Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by segovius

We were promised the evidence of al-Q responsibility by both Bush and Blair within weeks of 911 - it never showed up and Iraq took center stage. We still haven't seen it. All you have is Bush and Blair's word for it. That's it. No more.

Against it you have:

A (genuine this time) video tape from al-Q containing a denial by OBL

Atta's cocaine binges and alcohol fuelled whoring on the nights before this 'muslim fundamentalist' heads to his maker.

Numerous of the alleged hijackers appear to be still alive.

Un-Islamic and nonsensical Last Will of Atta which somehow miraculously survives even though he strangely attempts to draft a will which he decides to take on a suicide mission to be destroyed.

Ditto his passport.

And on and on and on......

Let me add a few more, taken at random from an huge list, dealing with many different aspects of the story. These have have been reported in the mainstream media, but all but forgotten about, overshadowed by the subsequent call to get into line and shut up.

Tin lids are unnecessary:

*Why did the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI pay $100.000 to Mohammad Atta prior to the attacks?

*Why, in the the knowledge that some of the hijackers are still alive, does the FBI website still feature those 19 Middle Eastern people?

*Alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour's name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket, according to American Airlines (!)

*How did the FBI distinguish between "innocent muslims" and "hijacking muslims" instantly?

*Why did Deutsche Bank-Alex Brown purchase 4,744 put options on United Air Lines stock as opposed to only 396 calls on September 6-7? What was the purpose of doing that? Why were there 1200% more 'put options' on UA & AA leading up to 9/11?
Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 UAL put options between August and September 11, 2001, and why has his identity been classified by the Bush Administration?

*Why did an FAA manager destroy, on the day of September 11, an audiotape, crush the cassette in his hand, cut the tape into little pieces and drop them in different trash cans around the building, according to a report made public by the inspector general of the Transportation Department?

*Why aren’t there credit card records of the hijackers' ticket purchases?

*Why did it take 411 days to form the 9/11 Commission when others took 7 days?

*Why did Cheney say that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 (!!!???)

*Why was crash debris of Flight 93 (Pennsylvania crash) spread out over a 5 mile swath, with one engine landing in a lake some 8 miles from the eventual crash site? If they found metallic debris from the plane 5 miles away it was either shot down or a bomb exploded in the plane. This would make the cellphone calls from the plane, as well as the famous "lets roll" heroism, phoney.

*What was the cause of the large explosions that *PRECEDED* by a few seconds both of the twin towers' collapses, explosions powerful enough to register 2.1 and 2.3 earthquakes on the Richter scale, picked up by seismic stations, much larger ground shocks than those caused the actual towers' collapses?

*Why did the FEMA report of the collapse of WTC 7 involve a lengthy but vague analysis pointing to an unlikely/impossible scenario, while roundly ignoring the evidence of owner Larry Silverstein's decision, taken in conjunction with officials of the NYFD, who authorized they "pull the building" meaning demolish it in a controlled explosion? If WTC #7 was demolished with explosives charges, as implied by building owner Larry Silverstein, then WHO set the charges and WHEN? To fell a 47-story building onto its own footprint requires extreme skill, with detailed knowledge of the building's structure, with lots of time to set and wire the charges, all of which which must to be detonated in a precise and timed sequence, an operation that typically takes days, even WEEKS planning.

*Call me anti-Semitic...but: Why were 5 Israelis dancing and hi-fiving on the roof of a building in New Jersey while the Twin Towers burned and collapsed? When taken into custody by the FBI, they were found to be in possession of boxcutters, multiple passports, maps with the World Trade Center highlighted, explosives residue and $4000 cash hidden in a sock (!!!!!!). The arrested men were Israelis, later identified by Pacific Radio as agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. According to Carl Cameron's FOX News story on the Israeli spy ring, the US Government classified evidence that linked the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. The Mossad agents were using a moving company, Urban Moving Systems, for a cover. The owner of the company, Dominic Suter, abandoned his business after 9-11 and fled to Israel on 9-14. Why were these men deported back to Israel without being charged? To repeat...this story was broadcast on FOX NEWS shortly after the attacks.

and

*Why did Bush just remain there in that school for another 33 minutes after learning of the second airplane hitting the WTC? Why did the Secret Service not evacuate him from the classroom a half-second after Andy Card told him, "Mr. President, the nation is under attack", when it was clear that the president himself could be a target? His whereabouts in Florida was public domain 48 hours before the attacks. But far more telling than Bush's reaction, or lack thereof, is that of Card himself who, as can be seen in the video clip, steps in to inform Bush of the second impact (without mentioning the fact that more hijacked planes were in the air), then immediately steps back without waiting for a reply. Bush's job is to make decisions. How does Card know that Bush will not make one then and there?

And many, many more. This is the tip of a very large and jagged iceberg.

If anyone who supports the Administration's version of events can give a credible answer to any of these anomalies regarding numerous aspects of the disaster, then I would be most grateful if you could persuade me that I'm barking up the wrong tree. And I am sorry, but to spout "anti-Americanism" and "conspiracy theory" doesn't cut it. All the above facts I quoted have been published in mainstream newspapers, and broadcast on mainstream television. To repeat, tinfoil hats are surplus to requirement.

As Segovius said: the door of 9-11 has been slammed shut in our faces, padlocked and welded up, with images of Osama bin Laden's face pasted over it in multiple layers.

The dead and their relatives deserve far better. Is America not strong and mature enough to handle the truth? If not, then as a nation we are in the deepest of trouble.

jimmac

07-12-2004, 02:40 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.

Sorry but it does seem a bit odd. Everytime Bush has had a problem in the last 3 years all of a sudden we have a terrorism alert. And you know what? None of them have come true. The one that did he didn't seem to know anything.

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi:

Your opening post is so absurd, I almost don't even know where to begin. I will try, though:

Your post is typical of your maniacal anti-Bush, anti-corprorate and anti-American views. You are WAY beyond simply disagreeing with Bush and his administration. You're way beyond dedicating yourself to his defeat. Hell, you're even way beyond irrational Bush bashing.

According to you, Bush is essentially a politically immature Hitler. According to you, 9/11 was an isolated event and Al-Qaeda doesn't exist. According to you, Bush is so obessed with power that he would seek to permantently cement himself in power by not just postponing the election in the event of a terror attack, but by ending elecions permenantly. According to you, a War on Terrorism should not even exist. According to you, international terrorists are not plotting a catastrophic attack on the US Homeland...just because there haven't been any bombs in Vegas or Penn Station.

The above leads me to get down on my knees and thank God Himself that you will never be in a position of power.

All I can do further is address the thread topic itself. What's being discussed is a short-term postponement strategy to PREVENT terrorists from directly impacting an election like they did in Spain. The plans are similar to ones being designed to reassemble the government in case of say, the US Congress being wiped out when it was in full session. Example: The night before the US Presidential election, a fundamentalist extremist group detonates a suitcase nuclear weapon at Lincoln Financial Field in Phildelphia during a Monday night football game. We're supposed to go vote the next day? Somehow I'm thinking that wouldn't be appropriate.

Perhaps you should see what such a plan looks like (and by whom it was created) before you create another one of your conspiracy laden 5,000 word post bombs.

SDW, you can rant and rave till the cows come home about how unpatriotic, or conspiratorial, or anti-American, or whatever you think I may be. But that changes nothing about what happened on the day of 9-11. If you have some facts to back up your assertions, please, please let's have them, as opposed to just waving your arms around.

The Administration's line on 9-11 does not pass the classic "duck test". According to Bush and co. if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is more likely to be a pigeon.

**I want an explanation that holds water.

**I want to see the perps tried, found guilty, and locked up for life.

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.

a10t2

07-12-2004, 02:59 PM

If the election is postponed it HAS been impacted. However, your example of a bombing immediately before the scheduled election is drastically different from the Bush administration making a statement, months in advance, that basically says, "Hey terrorists! Attack and we'll postpone the election!" This is, IMHO, fear-mongering and ass-covering on a scale that's embarassing.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Sorry but it does seem a bit odd. Everytime Bush has had a problem in the last 3 years all of a sudden we have a terrorism alert. And you know what? None of them have come true. The one that did he didn't seem to know anything.

Oh come on, jimmac. "Everytime Bush has a problem?" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Even you can't be that cynical.

"None of them have come true". Wow. Now we're faulting Bush for NOT having more terror attacks on his watch.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, you can rant and rave till the cows come home about how unpatriotic, or conspiratorial, or anti-American, or whatever you think I may be. But that changes nothing about what happened on the day of 9-11. If you have some facts to back up your assertions, please, please let's have them, as opposed to just waving your arms around.

The Administration's line on 9-11 does not pass the classic "duck test". According to Bush and co. if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is more likely to be a pigeon.

**I want an explanation that holds water.

**I want to see the perps tried, found guilty, and locked up for life.

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.

Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.

What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.

I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?

segovius

07-12-2004, 03:18 PM

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by a10t2
If the election is postponed it HAS been impacted. However, your example of a bombing immediately before the scheduled election is drastically different from the Bush administration making a statement, months in advance, that basically says, "Hey terrorists! Attack and we'll postpone the election!" This is, IMHO, fear-mongering and ass-covering on a scale that's embarassing.

Oh really now. You're just playing bullshit semantical games. The point is that we would not want the OUTCOME of the election to be affected, like it was in Spain. Get real.

Edit: Most people would agree that a terror attack in the US would have the opposite effect here than it did in Spain. In other words, the citizenry would rally around Bush and elect him in a landslide. I, as a Bush supporter, am arguing a position that would prevent would, in all likelihood, prevent that from happening. But I forgot, I'm just a blind Bush partisan. :no:

Scott

07-12-2004, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
...

**I want to see whoever were responsible for the worst example of gross negligence in failing to defend the US mainland on 9-11 to be fired and if necessary, charged with accessory to the mass murder of 3000 people.

Riiiiiight. Sure you do. And if they had done what was need to stop 9-11 and prevent future ones you be here crying about that. Oh wait you are here crying about that.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Riiiiiight. Sure you do. And if they had done what was need to stop 9-11 and prevent future ones you be here crying about that. Oh wait you are here crying about that.

Agreed. And Sammi's post is telling, because it's obvious from reading it that she wants terror to be treated as criminal law enforcmement matter. Gee, where have we seen that tried before?

Scott

07-12-2004, 04:06 PM

She doesn't even want that. Had they arrested Atta pre 9-11 she'd slander Bush as a racist. Had the US gone into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden pre 9-11 she'd slander Bush as an imperialist. She wants an inditement before the US does anyting and then want to indite the Whitehouse for not keeping us safe.

She's a lot like Moore. Moore likes to bash Bush for flying that group of Saudis out of the country and then slams him for going into Iraq when we all know the real target is in Afghanistan. Which is it? The Saudis that flew out? The ones in Arabia or the ones in Asia? What move could Bush have done pre or post 9-11 that wouldn't have people like Moore or SJO foaming at the mouth? None.

a10t2

07-12-2004, 04:28 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh really now. You're just playing bullshit semantical games. The point is that we would not want the OUTCOME of the election to be affected, like it was in Spain. Get real.

What the hell? I responded directly to what you said. If it wasn't what you meant, word your posts more carefully.

The outcome of the election is significantly less important, IMHO, than the election itself. If someone tries to influence the outcome of an election, and the election is postponed, he HAS. Democracy is more important than some wacko with a bomb.

jimmac

07-12-2004, 04:44 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh come on, jimmac. "Everytime Bush has a problem?" What the fuck is that supposed to mean? Even you can't be that cynical.

"None of them have come true". Wow. Now we're faulting Bush for NOT having more terror attacks on his watch.

You come on! Don't play dumb! you know exactly what I mean.;)

jimmac

07-12-2004, 04:48 PM

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by a10t2
What the hell? I responded directly to what you said. If it wasn't what you meant, word your posts more carefully.

The outcome of the election is significantly less important, IMHO, than the election itself. If someone tries to influence the outcome of an election, and the election is postponed, he HAS. Democracy is more important than some wacko with a bomb.

You're insane and you're still playing games. Influencing an election means to influence the outcome. That's what terrorism is all about; causing political change through violence.

I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

jimmac

07-12-2004, 05:31 PM

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.

Examples, please. I imagine this request will be met with a roaring silence.

What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.

No. There have been numerous stories in the media, in isolation. Did you not read any of those facts about 9-11 I posted? All of those anomalies (and many more) have been published in the mainstream US media ....you know, the ones seen, heard and read by you, and I, and Joe and Jane Public. Are you accusing the mainstream media of publishing a series of stories about 9-11 that are all false, perhaps because they don't gel with the Bush administration's interpretation?

And, it is you who is being not only irrational, but misquoting, and second guessing me. Go ahead and point ou the place where I "said that bin Laden is not a terrorist or financed terrorist attacks". And, nowhere did I say that "al qaeda doesn't exist." What I did say, at the start of this thread, but you obviously can't have read it, was that bin Laden/al qaeda was responsible for the African Embassy and USS Cole attacks...they even admitted culpability. And as for 9-11, the culprits remain largely unknown. Get over it. And as for al qaeda...see the link to the original article written by people who have studied terrorism, and know more about them than you, or I, or any member of this board...that al qaeda is a different kind of entity than what has been so heavily promoted since 9-11.

I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.

In the original thread, I asserted that the chance from dying from an international terrorist act in America is extremely rare, because it is just that...the number of International terrorist acts on American soil since I have been alive.....extremely rare. And the administration has been busy putting fear into the US people for its own agenda, using the images of 9-11 as a tool. Assertion coming...look out...this fortunate lack of international terrorism in the US would have more chance of staying that way if Bush and his blundering Laurel and Hardy team hadn't created the almighty and ongoing mess in Iraq.

Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.

This statement is ambiguous. It could mean delaying the election because of an actual attack "on or about that day"...or delaying the election because of the threat of an event of a terrorist attack on or about that day. What is to stop Homeland Security from postponing the election indefinitely, citing national security reasons and threats of terrorism, or until such times that the administration deems it the "best time" to hold the election?

a10t2

07-12-2004, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
You're insane and you're still playing games. Influencing an election means to influence the outcome. That's what terrorism is all about; causing political change through violence.

I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

I've made the statement I meant to make twice, to wit, that postponing the election sends a message that democracy can be defeated by force, and that that is a message the US can't afford to send to the rest of the world. Your judgements as to my sanity are irrelevant to me, but I never play games when it comes to democracy. My convictions are too strong to allow it. You, on the other hand, make a statement, then back away from it when it's challenged, resorting to personal attacks instead of defending yourself. Don't bother insulting me again; I won't respond.

Scott

07-12-2004, 05:46 PM

Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.

http://www.savah.com.au/images/skaw/straws.jpg

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Agreed. And Sammi's post is telling, because it's obvious from reading it that she wants terror to be treated as criminal law enforcmement matter. Gee, where have we seen that tried before?

SDW, here are some of the most recent notorious cases of terrorism on US soil, all of which led to innocent people being killed:

Oklahoma City bombing...
The Unabomber......
The Olympic Bomber,
The abortion clinic bombers and shooters
The World Trade Center bombing, 1993
The Maryland Sniper attacks 2003
The anthrax biological weapons attacks of 2001

I believe the FBI investigated these cases and in a number of the cases, brought the perps to justice. Whjat are you suggesting here? What is your solution here? That we bring in the military with B-52s and bombs, and keep the FBI etc. out of the picture??? :no: :rolleyes:

Oddly, in the case of the anthrax attacks, the FBI was all over it for a few weeks. Then it was discovered that the anthrax originated from the US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, MD. Right at that point, the story all but disappeared from "all anthrax all the time"...to virtual silence. Remember the notices sent with the powder... "Death to Israel, Death to America, God is Great, Allah is Great"? Recall the way the dates were written in those crude notes, in the US order...ie Month/Day/Year? Middle eastern people customarily write dates as Day/Month/Year. Incidentally, when it became obvious and apparent that the whole thing was a ruse, nothing to do with muslims or international terrorism, it was deemed unimportant, even though some 5 Americans were killed by anthrax infection and many others became seriously ill.

Don't forget....Cheney said that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 ..... WHY?

I may have been born on a Tuesday....but it wasn't last Tuesday.

sammi jo

07-12-2004, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.

http://www.savah.com.au/images/skaw/straws.jpg

Oh look, its Scott and SDW. awwwww so cute...

http://www.afripics.com/images/stockart/WMH/Z1_2499.jpg

Enjoying the sand, huh?

Aurora

07-12-2004, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Scott
Here ya go SJO. Grab one of these.

http://www.savah.com.au/images/skaw/straws.jpg sounds like Bush and his right wing only party is grabbing for these.

rageous

07-12-2004, 06:19 PM

By the way, in case anyone missed it:

The reports that the administration is trying to get the election rescheduled if there is a terrorist attack are patently false. It's not happening.

Aurora

07-12-2004, 06:36 PM

Originally posted by rageous
By the way, in case anyone missed it:

The reports that the administration is trying to get the election rescheduled if there is a terrorist attack are patently false. It's not happening. Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.

Scott

07-12-2004, 07:28 PM

jimmac

07-12-2004, 08:23 PM

Here's a little something related to chew on.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/bush.kerry/index.html

Randycat99

07-12-2004, 08:24 PM

Can we fit the faked moon landing into this somewhere before locking this doomed topic?

bunge

07-12-2004, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
I see no tradegy in postponing the election briefly if a major terrorist attack occurs. When I say briefly, I mean perhaps 10-20 days. So a terrorist learns he can postpone the election for 10 days...WOW! What an accomplishment.

What else do you propose a terrorist is able to change in the Constitution just by blowing up some people? You're anti-American if you find changing the date of the election non-tragic.

bunge

07-12-2004, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
sounds like Bush and his right wing only party is grabbing for these.

All the better to snort coke with.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 11:35 PM

Originally posted by a10t2
I've made the statement I meant to make twice, to wit, that postponing the election sends a message that democracy can be defeated by force, and that that is a message the US can't afford to send to the rest of the world. Your judgements as to my sanity are irrelevant to me, but I never play games when it comes to democracy. My convictions are too strong to allow it. You, on the other hand, make a statement, then back away from it when it's challenged, resorting to personal attacks instead of defending yourself. Don't bother insulting me again; I won't respond.

I have backed away from nothing. Postponing and election for 10 days is not "defeating Democracy". Please, explain to me how it is and what is to be gained for terrorists witha short term delay.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
SDW, here are some of the most recent notorious cases of terrorism on US soil, all of which led to innocent people being killed:

Oklahoma City bombing...
The Unabomber......
The Olympic Bomber,
The abortion clinic bombers and shooters
The World Trade Center bombing, 1993
The Maryland Sniper attacks 2003
The anthrax biological weapons attacks of 2001

I believe the FBI investigated these cases and in a number of the cases, brought the perps to justice. Whjat are you suggesting here? What is your solution here? That we bring in the military with B-52s and bombs, and keep the FBI etc. out of the picture??? :no: :rolleyes:

Oddly, in the case of the anthrax attacks, the FBI was all over it for a few weeks. Then it was discovered that the anthrax originated from the US bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick, MD. Right at that point, the story all but disappeared from "all anthrax all the time"...to virtual silence. Remember the notices sent with the powder... "Death to Israel, Death to America, God is Great, Allah is Great"? Recall the way the dates were written in those crude notes, in the US order...ie Month/Day/Year? Middle eastern people customarily write dates as Day/Month/Year. Incidentally, when it became obvious and apparent that the whole thing was a ruse, nothing to do with muslims or international terrorism, it was deemed unimportant, even though some 5 Americans were killed by anthrax infection and many others became seriously ill.

Don't forget....Cheney said that everyone in the White House started taking Cipro on September 12 when the first anthrax letter wasn't postmarked until September 18 ..... WHY?

I may have been born on a Tuesday....but it wasn't last Tuesday.

Keep talking, sammi. Maybe if we ignore international terror it will all go away.

And oh, I forgot: Now you're implying that the administration knew about the anthrax attacks in advance too?

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.

Yep..it's all a power play by Bush. It will give him time to complete his secret bunker and updated Swastika.

SDW2001

07-12-2004, 11:41 PM

Originally posted by bunge
What else do you propose a terrorist is able to change in the Constitution just by blowing up some people? You're anti-American if you find changing the date of the election non-tragic.

Oh shut up and get real.

I see nothing wrong with a short delay in light of a catastrophic attack. If you do, then argue the point or go away.

bunge

07-12-2004, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh shut up and get real.

I see nothing wrong with a short delay in light of a catastrophic attack. If you do, then argue the point or go away.

I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.

kozchris

07-12-2004, 11:59 PM

All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change. Good we can move on.

The way sammy can change a simple topic into a Bush conspiracy is quite comical I must say.

bunge

07-13-2004, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by kozchris
All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change.

Why on earth would they even need to consider changing the date of an election?

giant

07-13-2004, 12:24 AM

After all, as drum points out, we didn't need to do it in 1864, so one would have to be a lunatic to support it now.

Frank777

07-13-2004, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by bunge
I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.

I know it's wrong to generalize, but Americans can be so funny sometimes. :lol:

Bunge, you do realize that most of the countries in the civilized, democratic world don't have fixed election dates. Most elections are generally called whenever the Government decides to go to the people within its five year term.

If a catastrophic attack led to a bipartisan call to delay the election for a month, I really can't see how American democracy is diminished.

Constitutions are changed on a daily basis, which is why Congress or Parliament exists in the first place. I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

midwinter

07-13-2004, 01:15 AM

Were elections even disrupted during the Civil War? I seem to remember that they weren't.

Edit: oops. Didn't see that this comment had been made.

Randycat99

07-13-2004, 01:23 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

The gradual inconspicuous subjugation of the human race by the crab people is not warranting of your alarm? :err: Dear God, man! We're talking about colonization here! Get your bottled water now while you can...

midwinter

07-13-2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
most of the countries in the civilized, democratic world don't have fixed election dates. Most elections are generally called whenever the Government decides to go to the people within its five year term.

Not us.

If a catastrophic attack led to a bipartisan call to delay the election for a month, I really can't see how American democracy is diminished.

Because the American democratic process will have been postponed.

Constitutions are changed on a daily basis,

Not ours.

I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

Come down for a lengthy visit in Sept/Oct/Nov. It's pretty crazy right now.

Now here's what I don't understand: Why does this admin stonewall on matters where it needs to be transparent (e.g. the energy policy meetings) and leak like a sieve on matters that are just, well, stupid. I understand that admins have their legal divisions work through all kinds of scenarios. And I understand that having them play out a "what if" contingency plan in case of a catastrophic event (like a nuke going off in the port in Baltimore, NYC, or Boston) is to a degree reasonable. I also understand that an admin in a war and in need of intelligence would have lawyers look into issues of torture.

But HOW ON EARTH does this stuff get leaked/do they leak this stuff? I mean, if it's on purpose and designed to change the subject, that's one thing. If it's to frighten folks, that's another. If it's all out of their control, that's another.

But good lord. Harumph.

FormerLurker

07-13-2004, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by Frank777
Constitutions are changed on a daily basis It didn't used to be a "daily basis", but in fact happened periodicly, following a well proscribed process requiring a vote of ratification by two-thirds of the states.

And, it wasn't called "changing" the constitution - it was called "amending" it.

But yes, these days, it seems to be changing daily, and certainly not in a good way, much less one that follows our longstanding principles of democracy.

kozchris

07-13-2004, 01:35 AM

Why on earth would they even need to consider changing the date of an election?

Maybe some wackos figure out a way to take out all the canidates. Who the hell knows. Does a disaster need to happen before people can prepare. If you'd call losing all the canidates a disaster ;)

Randycat99

07-13-2004, 01:45 AM

Now that is an interesting proposition. :)

[Nader enters scene]

a10t2

07-13-2004, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by kozchris
Maybe some wackos figure out a way to take out all the canidates. Who the hell knows. Does a disaster need to happen before people can prepare. If you'd call losing all the canidates a disaster ;)

Well, there's a clear precedent for that. If the candidates were dead we'd vote for their spouses. ;-)

PBG4 Dude

07-13-2004, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by a10t2
Well, there's a clear precedent for that. If the candidates were dead we'd vote for their spouses. ;-)

Hey, if Ashcroft can lose an election to a dead guy, why can't anyone else? :err:

tonton

07-13-2004, 11:42 AM

Do you think Bush might be getting any new ideas? (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/detail.asp?ID=50242&GRP=B)

rageous

07-13-2004, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Aurora
Yeah its not happening now that they know 90% of Americans say no! America is ran by its people not rich corporations who only interest is their next buck! sorry George, no amount of scheming will get you out of the fact you led us to war under false pretense. and your domestic policies rot for lack of a better term. I would work a little more on that golf swing of yours because everything else wont matter come Nov.

Originally posted by Scott
Link? Proof? You're going to have solid proof that someone else's false claims are wrong around here.

</sarcasm>

SDW2001

07-13-2004, 03:58 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
You're one to talk about a well documented history.....

You make alot of noise with little to back it up.

Where as Bush hasn't exactly run things above board. And please before you start we've already gone over why. ;)

No I don't think Bush should be given any more time to find a way to wriggle out of this. Which could be what this is all about. He's going down.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

It's like talking to goddamned wall. It has nothing to do with history, it has to do with prudence. Jesus Christ, it's not even a partisan issue. Get over it.

Oh, and since you've kindly explained "why Bush hasn't run things above board", I guess I should accept your bullshit and move on.

Your last comment is just hilarious. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW.

SDW2001

07-13-2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Examples, please. I imagine this request will be met with a roaring silence.

No. There have been numerous stories in the media, in isolation. Did you not read any of those facts about 9-11 I posted? All of those anomalies (and many more) have been published in the mainstream US media ....you know, the ones seen, heard and read by you, and I, and Joe and Jane Public. Are you accusing the mainstream media of publishing a series of stories about 9-11 that are all false, perhaps because they don't gel with the Bush administration's interpretation?

And, it is you who is being not only irrational, but misquoting, and second guessing me. Go ahead and point ou the place where I "said that bin Laden is not a terrorist or financed terrorist attacks". And, nowhere did I say that "al qaeda doesn't exist." What I did say, at the start of this thread, but you obviously can't have read it, was that bin Laden/al qaeda was responsible for the African Embassy and USS Cole attacks...they even admitted culpability. And as for 9-11, the culprits remain largely unknown. Get over it. And as for al qaeda...see the link to the original article written by people who have studied terrorism, and know more about them than you, or I, or any member of this board...that al qaeda is a different kind of entity than what has been so heavily promoted since 9-11.

In the original thread, I asserted that the chance from dying from an international terrorist act in America is extremely rare, because it is just that...the number of International terrorist acts on American soil since I have been alive.....extremely rare. And the administration has been busy putting fear into the US people for its own agenda, using the images of 9-11 as a tool. Assertion coming...look out...this fortunate lack of international terrorism in the US would have more chance of staying that way if Bush and his blundering Laurel and Hardy team hadn't created the almighty and ongoing mess in Iraq.

This statement is ambiguous. It could mean delaying the election because of an actual attack "on or about that day"...or delaying the election because of the threat of an event of a terrorist attack on or about that day. What is to stop Homeland Security from postponing the election indefinitely, citing national security reasons and threats of terrorism, or until such times that the administration deems it the "best time" to hold the election?

1. I have not misquoted you. Your statements and implications have been clear to all.

2. The culprits of 9/11 ARE known.

3. Your notion of international terror being rare is absurd. 3,000 people died, sammi jo. Say it with me: 3,000 people. It doesn't matter if domestic terror is more frequent. We have a wide ranging organization currently planning the mass murder of thousands or millions of our citizens. "Rare" or not, the threat must be dealt with.

4. The adminsitration has not exploited 9/11 images, because the media refuses to keep showing the images. God forbid we remember what happened. You know what...I think it would be best if just forgot 9/11, treated it like a law enforcement operation and assumed it won't happen again. :err:

5. The LAW and how it is written would stop such a scenario of a long delay. I of course would not support a long delay or language that is too vague.

SDW2001

07-13-2004, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by bunge
I just did and, as usual, was able to expose the fallacy of your words. The Constitution states when we have an election. You can't change that. If you think it's OK to change the Constitution because of a terrorist attack, how much are you willing to change?

Answer the question or admit you were wrong. Hell, even if you answer the question you're still wrong.

Slippery Slope tactic..or should I say "slimey slope".

It depends on the situation and how the law/amendment would be worded. It's all academic anyway because it's not going to happen.

kozchris:

All they were trying to do was make sure that they have answers for any potential situations that may arise. They have the answer and the election day isn't going to change. Good we can move on.

The way sammy can change a simple topic into a Bush conspiracy is quite comical I must say.

She's quite the magician.

bunge

07-13-2004, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
It depends on the situation and how the law/amendment would be worded. It's all academic anyway because it's not going to happen.

I just asked YOU to word it, not someone else. How much are YOU willing to give up in the face of a terrorist attack?

The only acceptable answer is none, but you've already overstepped that answer.

jimmac

07-13-2004, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
It's like talking to goddamned wall. It has nothing to do with history, it has to do with prudence. Jesus Christ, it's not even a partisan issue. Get over it.

Oh, and since you've kindly explained "why Bush hasn't run things above board", I guess I should accept your bullshit and move on.

Your last comment is just hilarious. This has NOTHING TO DO WITH WHO IS PRESIDENT RIGHT NOW.

You need to read the thread before you post things out of context.

My history comment posted right after your reply to sammi jo

" You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse. "

That's what history I was talking about.

sammi jo

07-14-2004, 01:24 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001

And oh, I forgot: Now you're implying that the administration knew about the anthrax attacks in advance too? [/B]

Well, if Cheney said that all White House staff started taking CIPRO on September 12, 2001, you tell me who appears to have been informed of anthrax attacks in advance? Taking a course of CIPRO is no small deal...that stuff is one heavy duty antibiotic. Doctors do not precribe that material on a whim. And...it is the one universally prescribed for anthrax infection..

So SDW...oh knowledgeable one, pray tell the world: how come the people who work in the White House started taking a very powerful and specific antibiotic treatment for anthrax infection 6 days before the word "anthrax" became a household word? To repeat, slightly with a different emphasis: Do you have another explanation of why White House staffers started taking CIPRO one day after 9-11, and 6 days before the first anthrax mailing. I would love to hear it. Does your explanation pass the "duck test"? Do you even have an explanation ior theory? Is it a common occurence for White House staffers to take courses of CIPRO? Maybe you know something about this that nobody else does? By the way, the simplest explanation is often the reality, and a journey into black helicopter-land is redundant. The repetition, ad nauseam, of "conspiracy" accusations is your stock-in -trade accusation. This is what happens when you have no alternative facts to back up your own arguments.

And....btw...what an horrible, sick scandal that the fate of those postal (and other) workers was ignored, even weeks after (exceptionally pure and potent) anthrax had started polluting facilities in the east coast US Mail system. I guess the Bush Administration, (or whoever else was responsible), felt that those public servants weren't significant enough on the pecking order to warn, help and in some cases, have their lives saved.

Frank777

07-14-2004, 02:48 AM

Sammi, it's how you jump to conclusions that makes it funny.

If what you say is true, the White House had some advance notice that an anthrax attack was imminent. I imagine the WH would be getting hourly briefings of every kind of threat the day after 9-11. And taking them much more seriously. Given that political leaders had been targeted the day before, the assumption seems to have been made that those that escaped (aka The White House) might be the primary target of the attack.

Did you really expect Bush to shut down the entire postal system for a possible biological attack when the country wanted to know how safe the aviation system was? How do you know he was warned that the attack would target " the east coast US Mail system" alone? Was he supposed to order the shutdown of all tabloids in Florida too?

You've identified Bush as the enemy, and you're throwing mud to see what sticks. From up here, it's kinda sad to watch people throw vitriol at personalities instead of debating the real issues. It's even worse that your spinmeisters are now being employed by our political parties too.

segovius

07-14-2004, 04:27 AM

Originally posted by SDW2001
2. The culprits of 9/11 ARE known.

I question that.

Work with me here - let's assume I have just arrived from another planet or am a complete incompetent idiot (not difficult I know) - who are they ?

Please explain it to me without spin, assumptions or anything else. Just tell it like you would if I had somehow never heard who they were. Just who they were and why they did it.

Please.

Randycat99

07-14-2004, 05:51 AM

Scott Peterson and Alex Krychec

Sondjata

07-14-2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, if Cheney said that all White House staff started taking CIPRO on September 12, 2001, you tell me who appears to have been informed of anthrax attacks in advance? Taking a course of CIPRO is no small deal...that stuff is one heavy duty antibiotic. Doctors do not precribe that material on a whim. And...it is the one universally prescribed for anthrax infection..

So SDW...oh knowledgeable one, pray tell the world: how come the people who work in the White House started taking a very powerful and specific antibiotic treatment for anthrax infection 6 days before the word "anthrax" became a household word? To repeat, slightly with a different emphasis: Do you have another explanation of why White House staffers started taking CIPRO one day after 9-11, and 6 days before the first anthrax mailing. I would love to hear it. Does your explanation pass the "duck test"? Do you even have an explanation ior theory? Is it a common occurence for White House staffers to take courses of CIPRO? Maybe you know something about this that nobody else does? By the way, the simplest explanation is often the reality, and a journey into black helicopter-land is redundant. The repetition, ad nauseam, of "conspiracy" accusations is your stock-in -trade accusation. This is what happens when you have no alternative facts to back up your own arguments.

And....btw...what an horrible, sick scandal that the fate of those postal (and other) workers was ignored, even weeks after (exceptionally pure and potent) anthrax had started polluting facilities in the east coast US Mail system. I guess the Bush Administration, (or whoever else was responsible), felt that those public servants weren't significant enough on the pecking order to warn, help and in some cases, have their lives saved.

it really doesn't matter if Cheney et.al. had Cipro prior to the Anthrax mailings. What is more significant is the fact that it was sourced in the US and traced back to a US military installation where the story holed up and died. Either the networks are on the dole or someone put extreme pressure on them to cease reporting on this. And what happened to the fellow who was threatening to talk about that Anthrax? Where is he? Why did he feel it neccessary to "threaten" to talk and never carry through? Could it be that Anthrax could be linked to any Anthrax that Saddam had? If it could be then it would put the US government in a serious legal bind. Perhaps the lack of WMD is not accidental for similar reasons. But we'll never know because no one is talking.

Hassan i Sabbah

07-14-2004, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by segovius
I question that.

Work with me here - let's assume I have just arrived from another planet or am a complete incompetent idiot (not difficult I know) - who are they ?

Please explain it to me without spin, assumptions or anything else. Just tell it like you would if I had somehow never heard who they were. Just who they were and why they did it.

Please.

Islamic fundamentalists with known associates in Islamic fundamentalist groups, who shared flats with other Islamic fundamentalists, who made phone calls to Islamic terrorrists responsible for the Madrid bombs, who went off for training in camps run for trainee terrorists in Afghanistan, whose families have written articles published in Britain's Sunday newspapers about how they changed beyong recognition when they fell in with fundamentalist Islamic groups.

I haven't seen any serious evidence that any of these people are alive.

There may be a conspiracy here somewhere, but it was members of an Islamic terror cell who hijacked those planes and killed all those people. It seems to me like you have to go round the houses to find evidence to the contrary.

Hassan i Sabbah

07-14-2004, 09:30 AM

Oh: and why did they do it? Because they are trying to change the world 'for the better'. They're trying to bring it all down and make a change. They're 'freedom fighters'. They're sociopaths, they're religious fundamentalists; they're not sane.

segovius

07-14-2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Islamic fundamentalists with known associates in Islamic fundamentalist groups, who shared flats with other Islamic fundamentalists, who made phone calls to Islamic terrorrists responsible for the Madrid bombs, who went off for training in camps run for trainee terrorists in Afghanistan, whose families have written articles published in Britain's Sunday newspapers about how they changed beyong recognition when they fell in with fundamentalist Islamic groups.

Ok - looks like SDW's deserted and gone awol so I'll accept you as a stand in Hasan - unfeasible though it seems :D

I don't want to be boring but as all those claims are tenuous and I have seen no such actual evidence (as opposed to journalistic/political statements)
then I've got to ask for some proof. Tedious as that is.

I haven't seen any serious evidence that any of these people are alive.

What is serious evidence ?

Let's assume that it is of the same qualitative degree of the evidence that suggests they actually did it - please share it as I have seen far more evidence that they are alive than that they were on those planes. In fact I have seen no actual evidence (beyond official statements) that they were and plenty of suggestions (if not actual evidence) that they weren't.

I don't want any 'conspiracy' bs from anyone on this either - it might well be that Islamic fundamentalists did do 911 but they stole the identities of people who are actually still alive. Any number of rational possibilities spring to mind - my point is not about fundamentalists or the perps, it is that we are not being told the truth whatever that truth is.

burningwheel

07-14-2004, 11:21 AM

Sammi Jo, no ofense but maybe you should put your energies somewhere else rather this website. join an origanization to help uncover these so-called conspiracies or get into politics and try and make a difference. i don't just a though

AQ does exist, they are responisble for 9-11, the current adim does cry about terrorism a lot but you just wait until they strike America again, i suspect it will make 9-11 look like a drive by shooting

pfflam

07-14-2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by sammi jo
Well, if Cheney said that all White House staff started taking CIPRO on September 12, 2001, you tell me who appears to have been informed of anthrax attacks in advance? Taking a course of CIPRO is no small deal...that stuff is one heavy duty antibiotic. Doctors do not precribe that material on a whim. And...it is the one universally prescribed for anthrax infection..

So SDW...oh knowledgeable one, pray tell the world: how come the people who work in the White House started taking a very powerful and specific antibiotic treatment for anthrax infection 6 days before the word "anthrax" became a household word? To repeat, slightly with a different emphasis: Do you have another explanation of why White House staffers started taking CIPRO one day after 9-11, and 6 days before the first anthrax mailing. I would love to hear it. Does your explanation pass the "duck test"? Do you even have an explanation ior theory? Is it a common occurence for White House staffers to take courses of CIPRO? Maybe you know something about this that nobody else does? By the way, the simplest explanation is often the reality, and a journey into black helicopter-land is redundant. The repetition, ad nauseam, of "conspiracy" accusations is your stock-in -trade accusation. This is what happens when you have no alternative facts to back up your own arguments.

And....btw...what an horrible, sick scandal that the fate of those postal (and other) workers was ignored, even weeks after (exceptionally pure and potent) anthrax had started polluting facilities in the east coast US Mail system. I guess the Bush Administration, (or whoever else was responsible), felt that those public servants weren't significant enough on the pecking order to warn, help and in some cases, have their lives saved. I agree that there is something strange about the speed with which the Anthrax story died.

However . . . Cheney 'said' that people started taking CIPRO, which would mean that many of the people who had started to take CIPRO would clearly have discerned a problem with the timing . . . why is it that only 'Cheney said' it and none of these people have said anything?

I also have to admit that some of those so called 'facts' in your first list of suspicious facts are really without any credibility . . . this '2.3 richter scale' thing reminds me of the radio phone0in caller that repeatedly described an offshore EMP pulse explosion that was 'well known' prior to the great Blackout . . .he was rambling and had to be cut off . . .

and what are the sources for these 'facts' . . . the most credible source that you list is the MSNBC site with reference to the Israeli spies . .

What abot other sources? . .

For instance, you say that the videos have been proven to be fakes . . . the only place that I have encountered that 'proved' they were fakes was a site that 'conclusively' placed images side by side and said 'voila!' . . . so much for scientific method!
And, the repeated claim of 'they are still alive"? I know that there was an incident with a 'Most Wanted' man that turned up a teacher in Packistan . . . or somethng like that, but I have read nothing about the hijackers . . . . give us some citations or clam-it!

sammi jo

07-14-2004, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
I agree that there is something strange about the speed with which the Anthrax story died.

Too damned right there is.

However . . . Cheney 'said' that people started taking CIPRO, which would mean that many of the people who had started to take CIPRO would clearly have discerned a problem with the timing . . . why is it that only 'Cheney said' it and none of these people have said anything?

Maybe they have? I don't know. But I do know that Cheney said that.

This report (from a rightwing site):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27888

I also have to admit that some of those so called 'facts' in your first list of suspicious facts are really without any credibility . . . this '2.3 richter scale' thing reminds me of the radio phone0in caller that repeatedly described an offshore EMP pulse explosion that was 'well known' prior to the great Blackout . . .he was rambling and had to be cut off . . .

From this article:
http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html

SEISMIC ‘SPIKES’

Seismographs at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained.

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse.

The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 8-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

However, the Palisades seismic record shows that—as the collapses began—a huge seismic “spike” marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the Earth.

These unexplained “spikes” in the seismic data lend credence to the theory that massive explosions at the base of the towers caused the collapses.

A “sharp spike of short duration” is how seismologist Thorne Lay of University of California at Santa Cruz told AFP an underground nuclear explosion appears on a seismograph.

The two unexplained spikes are more than 20 times the amplitude of the other seismic waves associated with the collapses and occurred in the East-West seismic recording as the buildings began to fall.

Experts cannot explain why the seismic waves peaked before the towers actually hit the ground.

Asked about these spikes, seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam, director of Columbia University’s Center for Hazards and Risk Research told AFP, “This is an element of current research and discussion. It is still being investigated.”

Lerner-Lam told AFP that a 10-fold increase in wave amplitude indicates a 100-fold increase in energy released. These “short-period surface waves,” reflect “the interaction between the ground and the building foundation,” according to a report from Columbia Earth Institute.

“The seismic effects of the collapses are comparable to the explosions at a gasoline tank farm near Newark on Jan. 7, 1983,” the Palisades Seismology Group reported on Sept. 14, 2001.

One of the seismologists, Won-Young Kim, told AFP that the Palisades seismographs register daily underground explosions from a quarry 20 miles away.

These blasts are caused by 80,000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and cause local earthquakes between Magnitude 1 and 2. Kim said the 1993 truck-bomb at the WTC did not register on the seismographs because it was “not coupled” to the ground.

“Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion,” Lerner-Lam said. “The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.”

Last November, Lerner-Lam said: “During the collapse, most of the energy of the falling debris was absorbed by the towers and the neighboring structures, converting them into rubble and dust or causing other damage—but not causing significant ground shaking.”

Evidently, the energy source that shook the ground beneath the towers was many times more powerful than the total potential energy released by the falling mass of the towers. The question is: What was that energy source?

While steel is often tested for evidence of explosions, despite numerous eyewitness reports of explosions in the towers, the engineers involved in the FEMA-sponsored building assessment did no such tests.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, who investigated for the government the cause of the fire at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco and the Oklahoma City bombing, headed the FEMA-sponsored engineering assessment of the WTC collapse.

Corley told AFP that while some tests had been done on the 80 pieces of steel saved from the site, he said he did not know about tests that show if an explosion had affected the steel.

“I am not a metallurgist,” Corley said.

Much of the structural steel from the WTC was sold to Alan D. Ratner of Metal Management of Newark, N.J., and the New York-based company Hugo Neu Schnitzer East.

Ratner, who heads the New Jersey branch of the Chi ca go-based company, sold the WTC steel to overseas companies, reportedly selling more than 50,000 tons of steel to a Shanghai steel company known as Baosteel for $120 per ton. Ratner paid about $70 per ton for the steel.

Other shipments of steel from the WTC went to India and other Asian ports.

Ratner came to Metal Management after spending years with a metal trading firm known as SimsMetal based out of Sydney, Australia.

Calling any geologists in the house??? Lets have some scientific explanations for those seismic spikes that happened just a few seconds before EACH building's collapse, that are some TWENTY times the magnitude of those recorded when the buildings actually came down.

and what are the sources for these 'facts' . . . the most credible source that you list is the MSNBC site with reference to the Israeli spies . .

Good overview of the story here:
http://ww1.sundayherald.com/37707
I am amazed that people don't know this stuff...it has been all over the news. Do some googling, and there's hundreds of links to stories in the regular media. As I keep maintaining....you don't even need to get into the land of the "paranoid" for most of this stuff.

MSNBC the most credible....O.M.G.

:wow:

What abot other sources? . .

For instance, you say that the videos have been proven to be fakes . . . the only place that I have encountered that 'proved' they were fakes was a site that 'conclusively' placed images side by side and said 'voila!' . . . so much for scientific method!

Go look at the video! It's all over the net.... The "Osama" in the video wears a gold ring...something absolutely verboten for a fundamentalist Islamic. The "Osama" in the video is is credited with subtitles for things he is "saying" when his lips are not moving, and on another occasion he is eating something and doesn't say anything for 3 minutes (!). The "Osama" in the video is writing notes with his right hand, but the FBI's description of Osama says that he is left handed. The "Osama" in the video has a face of a different shape...more square than Osama's long skinny face, and the eyes are set far further apart. And...the "translation" of what "Osama" was (or not!) saying appears to be "mistranslated, manipulative, inaccurate and misleading".

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801

About the only similarity between these two men is that Osama and "Osama" both have big long beards and wear middle eastern attire. Unfortunately for everyone, that seems good enough for 99.5% of the US population. Sad.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,619188,00.html

But wait...there's more:

And, the repeated claim of 'they are still alive"? I know that there was an incident with a 'Most Wanted' man that turned up a teacher in Packistan . . . or somethng like that, but I have read nothing about the hijackers . . . . give us some citations or clam-it! [/B]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=94438
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/20/wterr120.xml
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/21/inv.id.theft/

And PLEASE READ this comment by FBI chief Mueller: I know someone posted it earlier, but it seems that too many people want to yell CONSPIRACYTHEORIST!!!! rather than look at contrary evidence and then face up to some disquieting possibilities:

http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html

Now look at this webpage:
http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/pressrel01/092701hjpic.htm

Now we have the situation that the FBI chief reckons that the IDs of the hijcakers is in doubt, and at the same time, on his own FBI website, are pictures and names of those 19 men, a number of whom are very much alive. Why haven't they edited this to tell us what the identities of those 19 (?) people really were? Two possibilities: Either (1) they have no idea, or (2) they do and do not want to admit to a mistake after all this time.

Even if just one of the hijackers' real identities is in doubt, this would put a severe strain on the credibility of the official story that everyone has been told time after time. But when as many as seven may still be alive....well...you tell me.

And one more thing: Why have these issues not been dealt with by the so-called "Independent Commission on 9-11"??? It would have saved so many people and researchers so much time and so much trouble if the Commission could have laid out its findings to the public on these anomalies...and put our minds at rest, by squashing the so-called "conspiracy theories" with sound science and evidence. Not only that but such findings would have vindicated the Bush administration against the growing army of skeptics, both here in America and all around the world. The commission failed to address so much material. Even the vital evidence of firefighters who climbed up to the floors in the towers which had been impacted was PROHIBITED from being presented to the commission.

Why, why, why?????

segovius

07-14-2004, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by pfflam
For instance, you say that the videos have been proven to be fakes . . . the only place that I have encountered that 'proved' they were fakes was a site that 'conclusively' placed images side by side and said 'voila!' . . . so much for scientific method!
And, the repeated claim of 'they are still alive"? I know that there was an incident with a 'Most Wanted' man that turned up a teacher in Packistan . . . or somethng like that, but I have read nothing about the hijackers . . . . give us some citations or clam-it!

I'll have a stab if I may:

Re the fake videos (I take it you refer to the OBL tapes):

German TV is currently investigating some blatant White House mistranslations of the tapes. Link to IndyMedia article (http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/16801) with further links to the broadcasts (in German).

It is interesting, not so much as any proof or otherwise of OBL's involvement but as proof that the US authorities lied about OBL's involvement on this occasion.

Why would they need to do this (and there are many other occasions) if they had any real proof ?

More importantly, the 'dead' hijackers:

BBC article: 23rd September 2001 (://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)

That's 12 days after 911. From the article - I'll bold the interesting bits:

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.....

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.

Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.

Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.

And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.

FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.

So, the Feds acknowledge there is doubt 12 days later but there is no action taken and the 'gospel' is still gospel three years later to the extent that it has to be argued as a point here.

Why ? Are they not interested in the truth ? And if so, why not ?

But there's more.

Guardian article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,784541,00.html) reporting Atta's father's claim to have spoken to him 2 days after 911.

BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/world/2001/war_on_terror/investigation_on_terror/people_2.stm) which mentions that Atta reported his passport lost or stolen in 1999.

Daily Telegraph (http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml) report adds more details to the mix and brings total of alive hijackers to at least 7.

Passenger lists: these are in the public domain so you would think that it could shed some light on this issue. You'd be wrong.

This is the list of AA Flight 11 passengers (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA11.victims.html)

Flight 77 - Pentagon (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/AA77.victims.html)

UA 175 (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua175.victims.html)

UA 93 (CNN) (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/ua93.victims.html)

No Arab names, a fact that can be verified by a quick Google. The explanation is usually that they used aliases but then you have other problems that it's probably best not to get into here, not least of which is Atta's miraculous passport which survived the fireball, escaped from the plane and emerged intact on the ground to be found by the Feds.

That's frankly unbelievable and again raises the question: if they lied then why did they need to ? There is no need to lie about something you have proof of - but if you have no proof.......

sammi jo

07-14-2004, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by burningwheel

Sammi Jo, no ofense but maybe you should put your energies somewhere else rather this website.[ join an origanization to help uncover these so-called conspiracies or get into politics and try and make a difference.

Why single me out?

AQ does exist,
that's undisputed...I never ever claimed that is doesn't. I only linked to an article by terrorism reseachers that talks about how the term "al qaida" was less the product of those who supposedly belong to "it" than a way of lumping various separate middle eastern groups...etc. etc.

[quote]they are responisble for 9-11,
So we have been told a bazillion times, by a thousand people. If you can show me the undisputable evidence of your claim, then lets have it.So far, it is a theory, and nothing more. So far, all we have is people who have been accused of being members of al qaida, the identities of whom are even in doubt as expressed by even the FBI chief...(see link in previous post). What else do we have? Some circumstantial, and highly disputed stuff which would never stand up in a US court.

the current adim does cry about terrorism a lot but you just wait until they strike America again, i suspect it will make 9-11 look like a drive by shooting [/B]

read that sentence again...I think you said something that you didn't mean!

segovius

07-14-2004, 02:18 PM

Note: wrote all above whilst Sammi Jo was posting hers and thus covered more or less the same ground - apologies.

Oh and this was meant to be an edit....:embarrass

bunge

07-14-2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Frank777
I know it's wrong to generalize, but Americans can be so funny sometimes. :lol:

Bunge, you do realize that most of the countries in the civilized, democratic world don't have fixed election dates. Most elections are generally called whenever the Government decides to go to the people within its five year term.

If a catastrophic attack led to a bipartisan call to delay the election for a month, I really can't see how American democracy is diminished.

Constitutions are changed on a daily basis, which is why Congress or Parliament exists in the first place. I really can't understand the alarmist tone that's being taken here.

Of course I understand this. I lived in Italy for a better part of two years and their government collapsed several times while I was there. We're not in Italy here though.

SDW2001

07-14-2004, 08:32 PM

Sammi,

It is clear that you believe the American Government is responsible for 9/11. There is no other way to take your statements. Just come out and say it.

jimmac

07-14-2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi,

It is clear that you believe the American Government is responsible for 9/11. There is no other way to take your statements. Just come out and say it.

A baited question if I ever heard one.:lol:

I think the chances of that being the case are small. I don't think Bush is that smart.

However on the other hand....

I think many of us don't dismiss the possibility as easily as you do. The way it happened is awfully odd.

Also the american government is not always above wrong doing ( even at the highest levels ) as we've seen previously with Watergate.

Sorry and feel free to answer in your own way sammi. I just had to comment.

rageous

07-15-2004, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by jimmac
Also the american government is not always above wrong doing ( even at the highest levels ) as we've seen previously with Watergate.

Indeed. Though I think it may be a Hail Mary to suggest that because one administration was willing to break into an office and steal files another is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens.

a10t2

07-15-2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by rageous
Indeed. Though I think it may be a Hail Mary to suggest that because one administration was willing to break into an office and steal files another is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens.

Although the administration would have to admit to killing 1000+ of its own citizens by sending them to Iraq. Say you have some international terrorists. You know they hate your country. You know they're trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction to use on your country. You know they've attacked your country before. They're a clear threat. How do you justify eliminating them? Dropping bombs on a sovereign nation is not something you can (should?) do without provocation...

Under those circumstances, sacrificing 3000 lives is justified by simple algebra, even if the American public would never swallow it.

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by a10t2
Although the administration would have to admit to killing 1000+ of its own citizens by sending them to Iraq.

That's a big number for friendly fire. Are you sure about that figure? :no: How about the enemy killed them?

a10t2

07-15-2004, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
That's a big number for friendly fire. Are you sure about that figure? :no: How about the enemy killed them?

Don't trust a politician to tell you who your enemies are.

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 11:54 AM

...or a spotty filmmaker.

jimmac

07-15-2004, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
...or a spotty filmmaker.

I don't need Moore to tell me who my enemies are. I already knew and just agree with him.;)

jimmac

07-15-2004, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by rageous
Indeed. Though I think it may be a Hail Mary to suggest that because one administration was willing to break into an office and steal files another is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens.

Probably true and yet crime in general has grown much more bold since the 1970's. Lots of works of fiction have been written about that kind of possibility. Maybe it was time for some extemely stupid president to try something no sane person would.

Before the conservatives jump on me for wearing a tin foil hat it was just entertaining an idea.

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 01:16 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
I don't need Moore to tell me who my enemies are. I already knew and just agree with him.;)

The same logic applies for the assertion that a politician was soley responsible for one's concept of who the enemy is. Hence, the assertion made by a10t2 is utter bunk 2x over at this point.

jimmac

07-15-2004, 01:27 PM

Anders

07-15-2004, 02:18 PM

Brilliant (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?reposid=/multimedia/tds/cord/cord_9005.html)

bunge

07-15-2004, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by rageous
Indeed. Though I think it may be a Hail Mary to suggest that because one administration was willing to break into an office and steal files another is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens.

Let's be clear though, willing to allow an unknown terrorist attack to happen isn't the same as being willing to kill 3000 of your own citizens.

a10t2

07-15-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
The same logic applies for the assertion that a politician was soley responsible for one's concept of who the enemy is. Hence, the assertion made by a10t2 is utter bunk 2x over at this point.

The way I see it the politicians WERE the sole source of statements that Iraq was an enemy. I certainly don't recall anyone else calling for an invasion prior to the Bush/Powell song and dance.

And hindsight may be 20/20 but it seems pretty clear to me that Iraq simply wasn't a credible threat to the US, or anyone else for that matter.

My whole point with that statement is that were I a soldier killed in a "war" of dubious necessity, I know I would consider the politicians who sent me off to die more of an enemy than the Iraqi civilian who killed me.

sammi jo

07-15-2004, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by SDW2001
Sammi,

It is clear that you believe the American Government is responsible for 9/11. There is no other way to take your statements. Just come out and say it.

SDW, all I have done is ask questions, trying to understand why the story we have all been told umpteen million times is so lacking. I have listed a number of things which don't gel with the official story. There are many more of these anomalies, covered in the press which haven't even been mentioned in this thread. In isolation, they are very peculiar, but when taken into context in the larger picture, nothing seems to make any sense. And by the way, there is some far strange stuff about 9-11 which hasn't made its way into the regular media, and is covered by many alternative sites. This material ranges from non-factual hysteria and nonsense, to yet more disquieting strangeness.

What is so wrong, about asking questions? Or in this age of Bush and conformity, are we Americans all required to put up, shut up, don't ask questions and if you think there's something wrong, then find another country to live in? That is the attitude of many folk who support Bush, which in my mind, is so notAmerica.

And as for blaming the US government for responsibility in 9-11:
I haven't apportioned blame towards any party, because I have seen no proof which is strong enough and indisputable enough to land a conviction in a US court, (assuming that the hearing wasn't laced from head to foot with gag orders . All the evidence presented by the administration is circumstantial at best, and downright shaky or even untrue at worst.

*Why did the Bush administration take 411 days to allow an independent inquiry into the greatest security failure an attack on US soil, ever, while balking all the way. It was only the bad PR generated by all those angry bereaved family members that got that ball rolling, for what its worth.

*Even if one cannot apportion blame to any party in 9-11, it is apparent that there was an incredible amount of gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the security apparatuses and individuals within. And I am not so much talkiing about the lead up to 9-11, and the failed intel we have heard so much about. I mean what happened on the day of 9-11. So far, not a single solitary person has been fired. Nobody. Why?

*Furthermore, we have the world's most powerful military, with a nearly $0.5 Trillion annual budget, which undertakes huge logistic operations costing hundreds of $billions overseas. On the other hand, on 9-11, it couldn't, or didn't, even defend its own headquarters against a single rogue (plane) which had been roaming US airspace unopposed for nearly an hour and a half (!), until it hit the military's principle nerve center. Just suspend all preconceptions and think about it for a minute, and how and why it could have come about. It is all too bizarre.

Aurora

07-15-2004, 04:15 PM

Bush = Police State. was this the idea our country was founded? Hell no it wasnt. Thats why the checks and balances but with republicans running the whole show we dont have any. meanwhile he pretends no terrorist can come across the mexican border with those 5 million illegal mexicans every year, yet he wants to take away rights liberty and freedoms of every American through the disgraceful patriot act and the bullcrap at every airport like taking off you shoes because of one F......... Idiot? How about keeping these bastards out in the first place George? The American people will boot him out for his cascade of lies & failures and ineptness. Never thought i would vote democrat. oh well. Im pulling the whole Democratic ticket after seeing how bad the Republicans are for the common man. 200 billion to get rid of Saddam while Osama is running loose? this administration are a bunch of crazy old republican zealots helping the likes of Haliburton and Enron. enough said rant over.

FormerLurker

07-15-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally posted by rageous
Indeed. Though I think it may be a Hail Mary to suggest that because one administration was willing to break into an office and steal files another is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens. FBI-CIA-JFK
You gotta admit there is at least a possibility that was a case of "regime change begins at home".

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by a10t2
The way I see it the politicians WERE the sole source of statements that Iraq was an enemy. I certainly don't recall anyone else calling for an invasion prior to the Bush/Powell song and dance.

You forget that a new perspective to ME matters was in play after 9/11. In all honesty, you must give credit that Iraq has been kept under watchful eye ever since the early 90's (and even before then). This didn't just fall out of the blue as you imply with the "Bush/Powell song and dance".

And hindsight may be 20/20 but it seems pretty clear to me that Iraq simply wasn't a credible threat to the US, or anyone else for that matter.

The jury is not entirely in on that matter, except for those who wish to forward a political agenda that there was absolutely nothing to be concerned with here.

My whole point with that statement is that were I a soldier killed in a "war" of dubious necessity, I know I would consider the politicians who sent me off to die more of an enemy than the Iraqi civilian who killed me.

They did not send you off to die. They sent you to do a job. The people who would kill you are not simply "civilians", either. They are combatants. People don't just "happen" to pick up a gun and start firing at armed soldiers. People don't just "happen" to drive around with a trunk full of explosives. Clearly, someone who does these things is operating under a different motive than your average "civilian".

...and don't bring up some crap about them being "freedom fighters". This particular group is certainly fighting, but they are definitely not for the "freedom" of Iraqi people at large. They are fighting to setup a local criminal regime to replace the very one that was eliminated- Saddam's regime. If that is the fate you would wish upon the Iraqi people, then by all means, the more humane alternative would have been to wipe them all out with a bombing campaign. I'm thinking you spend one week living under these supposed "freedom fighters" with the notion that that is how the rest of your life will be, I think you might be begging for death.

bunge

07-15-2004, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
They did not send you off to die. They sent you to do a job.

But rageous will simplify the argument down to the idea that out government "is willing to kill 3000 of it's own citizens." If rageous is going to do this, a10t2 should be able to do it as well.

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 09:13 PM

My guess is that one is being facetious and the other is just being a talking-points parrot.

It's also possible that one explanation does not fit all, and anyone does things for reasons entirely different from the next guy.

Think about it- if your wife sends you out to pick up a gallon of milk in town and you get hit by a drunk driver on the way, did she send you off to die? F*cking ridiculous! After a while, you just got to realize that, though a clever supposition of logic, it is rhetoric like this that only succeeds in obscuring the real issues.

jimmac

07-15-2004, 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
My guess is that one is being facetious and the other is just being a talking-points parrot.

It's also possible that one explanation does not fit all, and anyone does things for reasons entirely different from the next guy.

Think about it- if your wife sends you out to pick up a gallon of milk in town and you get hit by a drunk driver on the way, did she send you off to die? F*cking ridiculous! After a while, you just got to realize that, though a clever supposition of logic, it is rhetoric like this that only succeeds in obscuring the real issues.

She did if she made a deal with the driver.;)

And was the driver who was never found really drunk?

Randycat99

07-15-2004, 11:21 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
She did if she made a deal with the driver.;)

And was the driver who was never found really drunk?

You have your parties mixed up. What deal are you implying? The driver was most certainly drunk, just as the "freedom fighter" is most certainly discharging a firearm that kills the coalition soldier.

jimmac

07-15-2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
You have your parties mixed up. What deal are you implying? The driver was most certainly drunk, just as the "freedom fighter" is most certainly discharging a firearm that kills the coalition soldier.

Nothing that hasn't already been talked about in this thread.

The wife is Bush and the driver is Osama or Saddam. They seem to be interchangeable to Bush. I prefer Osama as he hasn't been found and this thread was talking about terrorism not Iraq ( two different things ).

I'm not saying I know this to be true of course but it's just as plausible as your overly simplistic analogy.

What were you implying?

bunge

07-16-2004, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
Think about it- if your wife sends you out to pick up a gallon of milk in town and you get hit by a drunk driver on the way, did she send you off to die?

You just compared a war to buying milk. I think we can all see how Bush could have made such a stupid mistake.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 12:10 AM

This is a faulty match-up. I seriously doubt Saddam was running around with a gun firing off at coalition soldiers. I seriously doubt he is still running around leaving car bombs near coalition outfits. Saddam is nowhere in this picture. Saddam's men are most assuredly in this picture, and it would be your own crackpot theory that Bush has personally made some special deal to take potshots at his own coalition forces, in order for your analogy to work. Bush is the wife, the American soldier is the husband, and the husband is run down by another militant or fundamentalist combatant. That's it- nothing more, nothing less. So forget about warping the analogy into something it is not.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by bunge
You just compared a war to buying milk. I think we can all see how Bush could have made such a stupid mistake.

It's a functional example to facilitate comprehension. It is your own faulty assertion that was to somehow point out that buying milk and going to war are on the same level of complexity. I would take it this is simply your way of avoiding the real point being made. The milk is simply a stand-in element, and in no way represents the full scale of war. It is simple there to represent that the soldiers are sent to do a specific duty. ...can't believe I have to explain this. :rolleyes:

Your decision to actually make an issue of this is akin to having a fit over a spelling error, except no spelling error has been made. You simply dislike the elements chosen to build the example. Trivial.

bunge

07-16-2004, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
It's a functional example to facilitate comprehension. It is your own faulty assertion that was to somehow point out that buying milk and going to war are on the same level of complexity. I would take it this is simply your way of avoiding the real point being made. The milk is simply a stand-in element, and in no way represents the full scale of war. It is simple there to represent that the soldiers are sent to do a specific duty. ...can't believe I have to explain this. :rolleyes:

Your decision to actually make an issue of this is akin to having a fit over a spelling error, except no spelling error has been made. You simply dislike the elements chosen to build the example. Trivial.

You're wrong. Either you believe going to buy milk and going to war are equivalent or your analogy is faulty.

When you make the decision to send someone to war, you're making a conscious decision to put someone in harm's way. When you make the decision to eat cornflakes, you don't.

And my original point was that rageous' statement was faulty, like your own. If a decision was made by someone to turn the other cheek they did not choose to kill 3000 of their own citizens. Just as sending someone to buy milk isn't making a decision to have them get hit by a car.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by bunge
You're wrong. Either you believe going to buy milk and going to war are equivalent or your analogy is faulty.

If you are unable to make this connection, then I can't help you. In either scenario, you are being sent to accomplish a task. That's it- nothing more.

jimmac

07-16-2004, 01:55 AM

That's why I said simplistic analogy.

The two really can't be compared because this was a very complex situation.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 03:18 AM

It compares. You just refuse to see it.

Now the analogies you frequently bring up...that's another story. It's all the typical "witty" logic superpositions we find from your pal Michael Moore that manage to only obscure things more than they clarify.

Anders

07-16-2004, 03:34 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
If you are unable to make this connection, then I can't help you. In either scenario, you are being sent to accomplish a task. That's it- nothing more.

So to be sent the roof of Chernobyl to shovel sand on the open core by the government and shovel snow in the drive way by your wife is somehow equiliant because they are both tasks?

Of course your both right and wrong. Yes the soliders was sent to do a task, to go buy milk in the supermarked is also doing a task. But there is a huge difference between the two. To sent combat troops into war in a hostile country WILL cause deaths and the government who sent the soliders have the responsibility of those lost lifes. They could have chosen NOT to sent the soldiers. The government have the responsibility to show that the loss of lifes have been worth it.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 04:01 AM

All of you seem to be focusing on the wrong part of the analogy. A task is a task. Some are dangerous, and some are not. That isn't the important thing in all of this. Sending them in to a dangerous task is quite different from explicitly sending them to their deaths (imagines Moore making some flippant remark that since the probability is low enough for the coalition at large, it isn't much more to worry about than getting hit by lightening- yeah, sure, sleaze-boy...). The President has sent them in to do a task. There may be casualties in the fulfillment of the task, but that is still a different scene than when someone uses deliberately disingenuous wording to suggest that the President is sending them in to explicitly die. They don't die as a result of the task. They die because there are armed combatants (enemies) killing them. All of this word play is simply to obscure the reality of the matter- that Iraqis are killing American soldiers. Naturally, this doesn't get the necessary political agenda effect. So we get all the "clever" logic games that instead say, "President Bush is killing our soldiers!" Yeah, it grabs more attention to say that, but does it really capture the essence of the matter? Hardly. The liberal mob mentality certainly eats it up, though.

segovius

07-16-2004, 04:21 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
All of you seem to be focusing on the wrong part of the analogy. A task is a task.

Or focusing on the right part but misunderstanding it completely.

A task is a task sure but all depends on the motivation and actual nature of the instigator of the task.

If the 'wife' is not really the wife at all but a cloned replicant hell-bent on destroying the husband for her own maleficent ends whilst successfully pretending to be the loving spouse....

If the husband has been drugged insensible so he can't tell real from illusory....

If the readers of the analogy have been drugged insensible.........

Hassan i Sabbah

07-16-2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
They die because there are armed combatants (enemies) killing them.
Well, who in their right mind could have foreseen that sending thousands of soldiers to invade another country might have resulted in people shooting at each other?

This argument is probably the lamest and crappest I've read on the internet for some weeks and I feel a little more stupid for even reading it.

Anders

07-16-2004, 05:12 AM

Though I agree that the argument is lame and crappy you clearly haven´t read all of the links people use to back up their claims here.

a10t2

07-16-2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Randycat99
You forget that a new perspective to ME matters was in play after 9/11. In all honesty, you must give credit that Iraq has been kept under watchful eye ever since the early 90's (and even before then). This didn't just fall out of the blue as you imply with the "Bush/Powell song and dance".

No argument there. I'm just saying that while the UN was certainly less than happy about the situation in Iraq, they weren't considering armed action.

The jury is not entirely in on that matter, except for those who wish to forward a political agenda that there was absolutely nothing to be concerned with here.

Believe it or not, I don't have a partisan agenda here. I'm not saying that there was no cause for concern, rather that somewhere between the people actually gathering the intelligence and the Bush administration's statements to the UN and to the American people someone decided to say something that they knew (or should have known) wasn't true. That's fucked up, and that's why I'm pissed that our soldiers are dying. Yeah, they were sent to do a job. But no matter who was at fault, they weren't told the real reasons why they were sent. In the military chain of command, there's an implicit agreement. You agree to do what your commanders order, and your commanders agree not to order you to waste your life.

I want to know whose fault it was, so until we punish those responsible, I'm going to blame Bush. The buck stops there.

They did not send you off to die. They sent you to do a job. The people who would kill you are not simply "civilians", either. They are combatants. People don't just "happen" to pick up a gun and start firing at armed soldiers. People don't just "happen" to drive around with a trunk full of explosives. Clearly, someone who does these things is operating under a different motive than your average "civilian".

...and don't bring up some crap about them being "freedom fighters". This particular group is certainly fighting, but they are definitely not for the "freedom" of Iraqi people at large. They are fighting to setup a local criminal regime to replace the very one that was eliminated- Saddam's regime. If that is the fate you would wish upon the Iraqi people, then by all means, the more humane alternative would have been to wipe them all out with a bombing campaign. I'm thinking you spend one week living under these supposed "freedom fighters" with the notion that that is how the rest of your life will be, I think you might be begging for death.

I would never claim that they're nice guys, but it's THEIR country. If I woke up tomorrow and found my town occupied by foreign troops, I'd do something about it too. What you're saying is that had the Iraqis just accepted an invasion no Americans would have lost their lives. That's almost true, but when you invade a country you generally expect them to shoot back.

The most humane and cheapest (both financially and in terms of loss of life and international prestige) alternative would have been to sit here in OUR country and let Iraqis (or the UN, which believe it or not was created to deal with things like this) handle THEIR country. It's no wonder people hate the US - we just assume that we have the right to dictate terms to the entire globe.

rageous

07-16-2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by FormerLurker
FBI-CIA-JFK
You gotta admit there is at least a possibility that was a case of "regime change begins at home".

From my response, it would appear eveyone has assumed I believe it to be impossible that the administration could have turned the other cheek. I am under no such assumption.

My point was that the one example given of governement corruption was Watergate, and it's a stretch to think that because Watergate took place that this administration could have looked past an imminent attack. There are far better examples of government corruption, and possible conspiracies, that would have better reinforced the argument that a government can be complicit, or at least neglegent. The Kennedy assassination being one.

My only point to my post was to point out that the one example given of governments misbehaving was a weak example. Nothing more.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by a10t2
I would never claim that they're nice guys, but it's THEIR country. If I woke up tomorrow and found my town occupied by foreign troops, I'd do something about it too. What you're saying is that had the Iraqis just accepted an invasion no Americans would have lost their lives. That's almost true, but when you invade a country you generally expect them to shoot back.

I say don't go and bring up the "freedom fighters" BS, and what do you do? :no: Well, we know where you are coming from now.

If you woke up tomorrow and found your town occupied by foreign troops, you would be thanking your lucky stars that the oppression by your dictator government is over. Did you think about that? Lemme guess, you liked living under Saddam. That then makes you complicit with the Baathist party. Do you still believe you represent the true will of the Iraqi people? Who cares, right? Life was good for you, screw the others!

giant

07-16-2004, 02:02 PM

Some day you might want to step out of that black and white view of the world. After all, what makes you think the current leadership doesn't use the old Baathist techniques (http://www.juancole.com/2004_07_01_juancole_archive.html#10899906201106892 6), and how can you say life is so much better on the ground or even that it won't get worse because of the volitile situation.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 02:09 PM

A lot of things have to get worse before they get better. That should not keep people from just sticking with the bad situation they have.

Keep your "black & white" assertion to yourself. It does not belong here.

I guess we now observe the desperate moves of the antiwar crowd as they practice their justifications as to how life under Saddam would have been more preferable over doing anything at all. If only there was a way for you to actually experience that...(I doubt you would keep that position)

07-16-2004, 02:53 PM

Just answer me this people...

What reason is there for Ridge to come out and hold a press conference to announce an unspecified threat on an unspecified location that should be taken seriously but not serious enough to raise the terrorist alert level?

"Hello, I'm Tom Ridge. The sky is falling. I don't know where. I don't know when. But it will be. I have nothing specific to tell you other than WOLF!!! WOLF WOLF WOLF WOLF!!!!! Thank you and go shopping or something."

Sorry but what he said does not warrant a press conference and it is clearly politically motivated.

giant

07-16-2004, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
A lot of things have to get worse before they get better. That should not keep people from just sticking with the bad situation they have.
But that's the whole problem. Media folks can get away with constructing everything in terms of bad, good, better, worse, but the real questions are far more complex. What is Iraq's economy, what will it look like in 10 years, what policies can get it to where it needs to be, who decides what it should be, what are the goals and actions of each group, what group wants what and who will succeed? What is the role of organized crime groups and what businesses are they in?

If there are summary executions being performed by even the president, what is really going on and what does that say about the future of Iraq? Is the country headed for (already under) an oppresive regime that uses execution and torture instead of rule of law? Are we witnessing the reemergence of desaparecidos?

What is the state of utilities and public services (universally reported to be in very bad shape)? What is everyday life like for the average Iraqi? What will it be like over the next 5 years?

You see, the problem with this whole war from the beginning is that no pro-war types recognize the importance of these issues. Powell's State Dept. did, but was cut out of any role. Now all of the Bushists still haven't figured out that they don't have to just blindly support the defense dept's fuck ups to still be Bushists.

But that would require thought beyond "better" and "worse" and "good" and "evil," so that would be asking too much.

rageous

07-16-2004, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by giant
What is the state of utilities and public services (universally reported to be in very bad shape)? What is everyday life like for the average Iraqi? What will it be like over the next 5 years?

You see, the problem with this whole war from the beginning is that no pro-war types recognize the importance of these issues. Powell's State Dept. did, but was cut out of any role. Now all of the Bushists still haven't figured out that they don't have to just blindly support the defense dept's fuck ups to still be Bushists.

But that would require thought beyond "better" and "worse" and "good" and "evil," so that would be asking too much.

Hm, that's all well and good until you also consider that the infrastructure for utilities and public services was woefully inadequate pre-war and said utilities and services are subject to ongoing sabotage by insurgents. Not to mention we all like to pretend that Iraqis all had running water and electricity in their homes 24/7 before the United States invaded, which is simply not the case. Is the US to blame for the current state of these systems? Partially, but not entirely. I find it odd that you would try to make the situation appear so black and white when you constantly criticize others for doing so.

As for what will their lives be in 5 or 10 years:
Who's to say? It is just as likely, if not more likely, they will be in a bad state over the near term. However, that remains to be seen. The important thing is that they will soon have the ability to shape their own future. Hope doesn't guarantee success, but nobody would deny hope is far better than hopelessness.

Were the Saddam regime still in power their future over a 5-10 year span is far more predictable. They would have been oppressed, exploited and terrorized by their givernment.

Randycat99

07-16-2004, 03:45 PM

to giant:

The catch is that America at least has a precedence for successful nation rebuilding. You don't. So excuse us if your criticisms of the way Iraq is being handled are taken as the rantings of the ultimate armchair world leader/military general/security specialist... It's easy to criticize every single thing that doesn't come off smoothly and hold it up as evidence that you knew they didn't know what they were doing. It's another thing to actually be doing it, doing something, and working towards a wide-sweeping outcome over the longterm. Certainly I have an opinion about what goes on, but by no means, do I regard that opinion as the end all, be all of the matter.

giant

07-16-2004, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
to giant:

The catch is that America at least has a precedence for successful nation rebuilding. You don't.
Actually, I'm parroting the statements of the people that not only have the experience in nation building, but actually worked on Iraq and were shut out by the DoD, who think they can just read Aristotle and, WHAM!, out comes a transformed Iraq. Like fast food, but with millions of people as the meat.

And by the way, I actually know in detail exactly what wolfowitz is talking about when he says the word "regime," so that puts me in more than enough of an adequate position to comment on it.

segovius

07-16-2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Randycat99
to giant:

The catch is that America at least has a precedence for successful nation rebuilding.

Linky-poo ?

rageous

07-16-2004, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Linky-poo ?

Do you really need a link to know where the US has been successful at nation rebuilding?

And before giant chimes in, I will be the first to acknowledge that the US has been unsuccessful more often than not.

jimmac

07-16-2004, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by rageous
Do you really need a link to know where the US has been successful at nation rebuilding?

And before giant chimes in, I will be the first to acknowledge that the US has been unsuccessful more often than not.

Yes a link is required!

From an unbiased source.

faust9

07-16-2004, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by segovius
Linky-poo ?

Phillippines possibly depends on how you judge the success of a government.

Germany maybe though it was a democracy prior to 1933 anyway, and a industrial/engineering giant.

Japan though we killed off 60% of the males age 16-50.

Haiti though the properly elected president was spirited away.

All in all the only successful nation building was Japan IMO. But, and here's the kicker, fatman and little boy played a big part in that rebuilding process as did the descimation of the Japanes male population. Given that kind of track record how could we not try our hand at nation building again?

Oh, almost forgot about Cuba and Afghanistan.

segovius

07-17-2004, 04:56 AM

Originally posted by faust9
Phillippines possibly depends on how you judge the success of a government.

Germany maybe though it was a democracy prior to 1933 anyway, and a industrial/engineering giant.

Japan though we killed off 60% of the males age 16-50.

Haiti though the properly elected president was spirited away.

All in all the only successful nation building was Japan IMO. But, and here's the kicker, fatman and little boy played a big part in that rebuilding process as did the descimation of the Japanes male population. Given that kind of track record how could we not try our hand at nation building again?

Oh, almost forgot about Cuba and Afghanistan.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

excuse me...no, I'm not ready....

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Ok - I got it together now (just). See this is why I love these forums - where else can you get these iconic postmodern iconoclastic masterpieces ?

Who says Americans don't do irony ? But this goes way beyond - this is a whole new comedy genre, and it was born here !

So what if people don't get it right now - in years to come every stand-up will be doing it and we'll get write-ups in the Washington Post.

We'll have a name (like the Pythons) and people will copy us (lamely) and be outsider-esque.

The hand of history is on our shoulder people.......

orange whip

07-19-2004, 11:43 AM

orange whip

07-19-2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by GreggWSmith
You ignorant prick. [/B]

wow!! constructive and mature (not)

jimmac

07-19-2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by orange whip
wow!! constructive and mature (not)

Did you ever notice it's the conservatives that are quick to reach for the insults and the four letter explitives?

To be fair there are some hot heads on the liberal side but nothing close to the childish statements I seem to be reading from the conservatives. It's a sign that they've run out of arguments and are backed into a corner.

I'm sorry if someone takes this as bait. It's not meant to be. It's just an observation.

orange whip

07-19-2004, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by jimmac
Did you ever notice it's the conservatives that are quick to reach for the insults and the four letter explitives?

To be fair there are some hot heads on the liberal side but nothing close to the childish statements I seem to be reading from the conservatives. It's a sign that they've run out of arguments and are backed into a corner.

I'm sorry if someone takes this as bait. It's not meant to be. It's just an observation.

I think there is a tendency in these situations for the side who is making the policy to dismiss debate as simply an attack on their position rather than a democratic right to question and scrutinise policy directions.

At least the debate has largely moved on from the simplistic allegation that you're a 'commie' or in bed with OBL or AQ if you do question why we are in Iraq. That kind of response is nonsense.

I am not from the US but from a so called 'Coalition of the Willing' country. I do not simply accept at face value what an elected representative tells me. And when I question the rationale or motives behind a policy direction it does not make me a 'commie' or someone who is a supporter of a fundamentalist group bent on the destruction of the West. Rather, if I question with rigour, the decisions my elected representatives make then it only serves to improve the quality of democracy to which the West purports to aspire.

There are so many inconsistencies in the argument of the 'Coalition of the Willing', that I simply cannot accept that the basis for the Invasion and occupation in Iraq is legitimate.

Basic arguments by the 'Coalition of the Willing' were found to be baseless: where are the WMD's, where is the link to AQ. Are we better of now that we have occupied a country in the Middle East??? Are the Iraqis liberated and free???

So who said the following? Was it Bush, Blair, Howard, Rumsfeld........

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men... The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you... We will end a brutal regime... so that Iraqis can live in security."

NO, none of them. It was General F.S. Maude, commander to the British forces in 1917.

Do the Iraqis aspire to be like 'us' when we humiliate them and torture them when they are detained? NO. And the argument that Saddam did worse things does not hold. The 'Coalition of the Willing' purports to aspire to the highest moral values and so on but cannot ensure basic human rights for Iraqi detainees.

So when there are questions over the conduct or direction of the 'Coalition of the Willing' I have every right to seek accountability from those who make that policy as I am told that I live in a democracy.

I welcome constructive dialogue from anyone no mater which side of the political spectrum you come from.

jimmac

07-20-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by orange whip
I think there is a tendency in these situations for the side who is making the policy to dismiss debate as simply an attack on their position rather than a democratic right to question and scrutinise policy directions.

At least the debate has largely moved on from the simplistic allegation that you're a 'commie' or in bed with OBL or AQ if you do question why we are in Iraq. That kind of response is nonsense.

I am not from the US but from a so called 'Coalition of the Willing' country. I do not simply accept at face value what an elected representative tells me. And when I question the rationale or motives behind a policy direction it does not make me a 'commie' or someone who is a supporter of a fundamentalist group bent on the destruction of the West. Rather, if I question with rigour, the decisions my elected representatives make then it only serves to improve the quality of democracy to which the West purports to aspire.

There are so many inconsistencies in the argument of the 'Coalition of the Willing', that I simply cannot accept that the basis for the Invasion and occupation in Iraq is legitimate.

Basic arguments by the 'Coalition of the Willing' were found to be baseless: where are the WMD's, where is the link to AQ. Are we better of now that we have occupied a country in the Middle East??? Are the Iraqis liberated and free???

So who said the following? Was it Bush, Blair, Howard, Rumsfeld........

"Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men... The government of Iraq, and the future of your country, will soon belong to you... We will end a brutal regime... so that Iraqis can live in security."

NO, none of them. It was General F.S. Maude, commander to the British forces in 1917.

Do the Iraqis aspire to be like 'us' when we humiliate them and torture them when they are detained? NO. And the argument that Saddam did worse things does not hold. The 'Coalition of the Willing' purports to aspire to the highest moral values and so on but cannot ensure basic human rights for Iraqi detainees.

So when there are questions over the conduct or direction of the 'Coalition of the Willing' I have every right to seek accountability from those who make that policy as I am told that I live in a democracy.

I welcome constructive dialogue from anyone no mater which side of the political spectrum you come from.

Well said!