That is the entire point of this thread. The Bush Administration (and remember the Executive is the head of law enforcement) defines "terrorist" on racial lines in their little "war" on terror.
No the point of the thread was if there was a cover-up or racial favoritism in the Texas case.
But really what I was referring to NOT being the point of the thread was whether or not I thought that they needed to bring charges up on Padilla or not. Thats more of an aside.
It's too bad a thread on an important topic like domestic terrorism got derailed by an insane post about a government coverup. Especially when the information seems like it was always freely available in the court system.
If the accusation is that the two sets of terrorist groups are being treated differently, then I'd say they are. But wouldn't they have to be?
After the Oklahoma City Bombing, I'd imagine the FBI has a separate task force dealing with domestic nutbar groups. The CIA and others are pursuing leads related to Al Queda-related threats. The public and media are constantly focused on Iraq and Al Queda.
Unless somebody points out the point when white supremacist groups decided to fight alongside Bin Laden's brownies, a multi-track solution to counter-terrorism seems fine to me.
It just goes to show that it's silly to call this a "war on terrorism." It's not a war on terrorism. It's a war against a violent, fundamentalist, radical, theocratic, hegemonic, fascistic group of Muslims.
It just goes to show that it's silly to call this a "war on terrorism." It's not a war on terrorism. It's a war against a violent, fundamentalist, radical, theocratic, hegemonic, fascistic group of Muslims.
When the Soviet threat, for what it was, fell apart in 1991; something had to replace it. 9-11 was the perfect trigger, too perfect in fact, and with the public and the rest of the world still recoiling in horror, the 'war on terror' was launched. We will probably find out that this new style of nation-less, boundary-less, fluid conflict can never be ended. The one-way ratchet has been wound up a few more clicks, and now we can wage wars pre-emptively without question or congressional input: the precedence has now been set. (I wonder when India or Pakistan may follow our example in Iraq?).
When the administration can manhandle the unquestioning public by telling us, authoritatvely, via a complicit media, that there's (al qaeda) agents about to kill us (or whatever terror-group, real or otherwise, is the bete noir du jour), logic and sense evaporates to be replaced by irrational fear and paranoia. I recall a frantic run on duct tape brought on by administration-sanctioned phoney reports all over primetime TV and radio that Saddam Hussein was about to launch biological and chemical weapons drones that could reach American soil. (!) If so many people are that gullible, then we are in deep trouble as a valid democracy.
The only winners in this "war-on-terror" are weapons and defense contractors, mercenaries, security companies, prison corporations and the terrorists themselves....which as I said, can be either real or imaginary.
This Mylroie character puts alot of this in perspective . .
She paints a long and twisted picture of a conspiracy that puts Iraq at the head of nearly every anti-US bombing since the Kuwaiti war . . .
and it is all founded on a simple and idiotic fundamental ERROR
and YET . . . her books get GLOWING blurbs on the back by, guess who folks, Wolfowits and Perle . . . the architects of the war
and Straussians who philosophically believe in Lying for a nobler truth . . . its all so pathetheic and sad . . .
Quote:
Wolfowitz gushingly blurbed Study of Revenge: "[Her] provocative and disturbing book argues that?Ramzi Yousef, was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence. If so, what would that tell us about the extent of Saddam Hussein's ambitions? How would it change our view of Iraq's continuing efforts to retain weapons of mass destruction and to acquire new ones? How would it affect our judgments about the collapse of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the need for a fundamentally new policy?" (How, indeed?)
That article is a good read . . .
There are several good quotes, the first one I find good because it sort of puts into scale the vast amount of effort behind finding links, and the size of 'links' that exist:
Quote:
According to Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, immediately after 9/11 Wolfowitz told the cabinet: "There was a 10 to 50 per cent chance Saddam was involved." A few days later, President Bush told his top aides: "I believe that Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now." However, the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history--involving chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people--has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement, while the occupation of Iraq by a substantial American army has also uncovered no such link. Moreover, the U.S. State Department's counterterrorism office, which every year releases an authoritative survey of global terrorism, stated in its 2000 report: "[Iraq] has not attempted an anti-western attack since its failed attempt to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." In other words, by 9/11, Saddam's regime had not engaged in anti-American terrorism for almost a decade.
and the second because it is Cheney being a cuteypie
Quote:
Vice President Dick Cheney continued to echo Mylroie's utterances when he told NBC's Tim Russert that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11," a demonstrably false theory that Mylroie has been vigorously touting since this past summer.
That is the entire point of this thread. The Bush Administration (and remember the Executive is the head of law enforcement) defines "terrorist" on racial lines in their little "war" on terror.
Yeah, remember when Bush commuted Timothy McVeigh's death sentence? Oh wait. That didn't happen.
According to her, wolfowitz and the rest of that wackjob group, the oklahoma bombing was all saddam.
A little off-topic here. I attended a number of anti-war marches in the buildup to the Iraq invasion and at a rally in LA I purchased a video on selected incidents of international and domestic terrorism over the last couple of decades (9-11 wasn't featured as the tape was made in 1998 as I recall). One of the items that sticks in my mind was some grainy black'n'white footage of the OK city bombing itself from about a half mile away. You can see a number of puffs of smoke shoot from the side of the Murrah building, and a couple seconds later the image jumps around a little. A few seconds later there's a blinding flash followed by the camera shaking violently as if in an earthquake. Thick black smoke pours up and outward and within seconds the whole building is obscured of view. Then the clip cuts. The Ryder truck itself wasn't visible because there was a portion of a building blocking the view. I remember reading that the judge in the McVeigh hearings (Matsch) refused to let this (or other) recordings of the attack be played in his courtroom. Which is strange. Whatever. And like you, I recall the instant blame on middle eastern sources for this attack. This attack prompted the Clinton admin. to tighten the one-way ratchet by passing "anti-terror" laws one year after this attack, in contrast with the 343 page "Patriot Act", which was largely compiled and written pre-9-11, and was passed a few short weeks, after the attacks in NY and DC, without even being read by members of Congress. (!!??!?!)
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
That is the entire point of this thread. The Bush Administration (and remember the Executive is the head of law enforcement) defines "terrorist" on racial lines in their little "war" on terror.
No the point of the thread was if there was a cover-up or racial favoritism in the Texas case.
But really what I was referring to NOT being the point of the thread was whether or not I thought that they needed to bring charges up on Padilla or not. Thats more of an aside.
If the accusation is that the two sets of terrorist groups are being treated differently, then I'd say they are. But wouldn't they have to be?
After the Oklahoma City Bombing, I'd imagine the FBI has a separate task force dealing with domestic nutbar groups. The CIA and others are pursuing leads related to Al Queda-related threats. The public and media are constantly focused on Iraq and Al Queda.
Unless somebody points out the point when white supremacist groups decided to fight alongside Bin Laden's brownies, a multi-track solution to counter-terrorism seems fine to me.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Please explain! I am not sure what you mean by "work" in that context......
He's clearly attracted to you.
Originally posted by Frank777
After the Oklahoma City Bombing, I'd imagine the FBI has a separate task force dealing with domestic nutbar groups.
Apparently you mylorie didn't cc you with the memo.
Originally posted by BRussell
It just goes to show that it's silly to call this a "war on terrorism." It's not a war on terrorism. It's a war against a violent, fundamentalist, radical, theocratic, hegemonic, fascistic group of Muslims.
When the Soviet threat, for what it was, fell apart in 1991; something had to replace it. 9-11 was the perfect trigger, too perfect in fact, and with the public and the rest of the world still recoiling in horror, the 'war on terror' was launched. We will probably find out that this new style of nation-less, boundary-less, fluid conflict can never be ended. The one-way ratchet has been wound up a few more clicks, and now we can wage wars pre-emptively without question or congressional input: the precedence has now been set. (I wonder when India or Pakistan may follow our example in Iraq?).
When the administration can manhandle the unquestioning public by telling us, authoritatvely, via a complicit media, that there's (al qaeda) agents about to kill us (or whatever terror-group, real or otherwise, is the bete noir du jour), logic and sense evaporates to be replaced by irrational fear and paranoia. I recall a frantic run on duct tape brought on by administration-sanctioned phoney reports all over primetime TV and radio that Saddam Hussein was about to launch biological and chemical weapons drones that could reach American soil. (!) If so many people are that gullible, then we are in deep trouble as a valid democracy.
The only winners in this "war-on-terror" are weapons and defense contractors, mercenaries, security companies, prison corporations and the terrorists themselves....which as I said, can be either real or imaginary.
Originally posted by giant
Apparently you mylorie didn't cc you with the memo.
Huh?
Originally posted by Frank777
Huh?
Frank, Giant *may* be talking about Laurie Mylroie, a hardline rightwing author.
An article about her here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...12.bergen.html
Giant...is this a correct guess?
Originally posted by sammi jo
Giant...is this a correct guess?
Yup.
According to her, wolfowitz and the rest of that wackjob group, the oklahoma bombing was all saddam.
Originally posted by Messiahtosh
You are all equally worthless.
Your fear is encouraging.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Frank, Giant *may* be talking about Laurie Mylroie, a hardline rightwing author.
An article about her here:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/fea...12.bergen.html
Giant...is this a correct guess?
This Mylroie character puts alot of this in perspective . .
She paints a long and twisted picture of a conspiracy that puts Iraq at the head of nearly every anti-US bombing since the Kuwaiti war . . .
and it is all founded on a simple and idiotic fundamental ERROR
and YET . . . her books get GLOWING blurbs on the back by, guess who folks, Wolfowits and Perle . . . the architects of the war
and Straussians who philosophically believe in Lying for a nobler truth . . . its all so pathetheic and sad . . .
Wolfowitz gushingly blurbed Study of Revenge: "[Her] provocative and disturbing book argues that?Ramzi Yousef, was in fact an agent of Iraqi intelligence. If so, what would that tell us about the extent of Saddam Hussein's ambitions? How would it change our view of Iraq's continuing efforts to retain weapons of mass destruction and to acquire new ones? How would it affect our judgments about the collapse of U.S. policy toward Iraq and the need for a fundamentally new policy?" (How, indeed?)
That article is a good read . . .
There are several good quotes, the first one I find good because it sort of puts into scale the vast amount of effort behind finding links, and the size of 'links' that exist:
According to Bob Woodward's book Bush at War, immediately after 9/11 Wolfowitz told the cabinet: "There was a 10 to 50 per cent chance Saddam was involved." A few days later, President Bush told his top aides: "I believe that Iraq was involved, but I'm not going to strike them now." However, the most comprehensive criminal investigation in history--involving chasing down 500,000 leads and interviewing 175,000 people--has turned up no evidence of Iraq's involvement, while the occupation of Iraq by a substantial American army has also uncovered no such link. Moreover, the U.S. State Department's counterterrorism office, which every year releases an authoritative survey of global terrorism, stated in its 2000 report: "[Iraq] has not attempted an anti-western attack since its failed attempt to assassinate former President Bush in 1993 in Kuwait." In other words, by 9/11, Saddam's regime had not engaged in anti-American terrorism for almost a decade.
and the second because it is Cheney being a cuteypie
Vice President Dick Cheney continued to echo Mylroie's utterances when he told NBC's Tim Russert that Iraq was "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11," a demonstrably false theory that Mylroie has been vigorously touting since this past summer.
Originally posted by groverat
That is the entire point of this thread. The Bush Administration (and remember the Executive is the head of law enforcement) defines "terrorist" on racial lines in their little "war" on terror.
Yeah, remember when Bush commuted Timothy McVeigh's death sentence? Oh wait. That didn't happen.
Originally posted by giant
Yup.
According to her, wolfowitz and the rest of that wackjob group, the oklahoma bombing was all saddam.
A little off-topic here. I attended a number of anti-war marches in the buildup to the Iraq invasion and at a rally in LA I purchased a video on selected incidents of international and domestic terrorism over the last couple of decades (9-11 wasn't featured as the tape was made in 1998 as I recall). One of the items that sticks in my mind was some grainy black'n'white footage of the OK city bombing itself from about a half mile away. You can see a number of puffs of smoke shoot from the side of the Murrah building, and a couple seconds later the image jumps around a little. A few seconds later there's a blinding flash followed by the camera shaking violently as if in an earthquake. Thick black smoke pours up and outward and within seconds the whole building is obscured of view. Then the clip cuts. The Ryder truck itself wasn't visible because there was a portion of a building blocking the view. I remember reading that the judge in the McVeigh hearings (Matsch) refused to let this (or other) recordings of the attack be played in his courtroom. Which is strange. Whatever. And like you, I recall the instant blame on middle eastern sources for this attack. This attack prompted the Clinton admin. to tighten the one-way ratchet by passing "anti-terror" laws one year after this attack, in contrast with the 343 page "Patriot Act", which was largely compiled and written pre-9-11, and was passed a few short weeks, after the attacks in NY and DC, without even being read by members of Congress. (!!??!?!)
http://www.cnn.com/US/9604/18/anti.terror.bill/
Anyway, carry on