BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented

Subject: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 10:27 AM

Did al-Qaida recruit warn FBI before 9/11?

"LONDON - More than a year before 9/11, a Pakistani-British man told the FBI an incredible tale: that he had been trained by bin Laden's followers to hijack airplanes and was now in America to carry out an attack. The FBI questioned him for weeks, but then let him go home, and never followed up. Now, the former al-Qaida insider is talking."

"Congress' 9/11 report confirms that in April, 2000, an unnamed 'walk-in' told the FBI he 'was to meet five or six persons' — some of them pilots — who would take over a plane and fly to Afghanistan, or blow the plane up. The report adds that the 'walk-in' passed a lie-detector test."

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 10:51 AM

If Khan's report is correct, the whole catastrophe could have been prevented except for one thing: an order from FBI HQ that he should be sent back to London and forgotten about.

Whose order was that, anyway?


A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:31 AM

Sounds like a Bush administration story to push the whole events of September 11 back onto Clinton's watch. Just in time for the election.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:52 AM

You're saying it never happened, SRS?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 04:44 PM

I'm saying some more information on the source and the author of the aritcle and a few citations that corroborate this story would be extremely useful in determining the authenticity and veracity of this man's story. Someone who tells this sort of story about himself is already suspect as an opportunist (lots of publicity, attention, money possible). Who can back up what he says, who in these agencies will admit (under promise of anonymity, probably) that this in fact did happen?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 06:19 PM

How about something from the Senate Intelligence Committee as quoted in here the Village Voice? This would corroborate the story don't you think?   Any reason to doubt the Senate Intelligence Committee?

"In April 2000, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee report of September 2002, a 'walk-in' source appeared at the FBI's Newark office and told agents he had been to a training camp in Pakistan and there learned hijacking techniques and received arms training. The man said he was to rendezvous with five or six other people in the U.S. to participate in a plot that involved hijacking a plane and flying it to Afghanistan. There were to be pilots among the group. If the mission aborted, then the plane would be blown up. The walk-in passed an FBI polygraph, but the agency was never able to verify the story. So said the Senate report. That apparently was the end of it."

Who Knew?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 08:09 PM

Hijacking a plane to Afghanistan is a very different story. One of the reasons that the passengers on 9-11 were as complaisant as they were is because they thought they were being hijacked in the traditional sense (!!) -- a scenario in which cooperation is good for you because it increases your chance of getting out alive, even if in a very different place than you had planned. Had they known where the hijackers were heading they would have behaved quite differently, I believe.

A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Irish sergeant
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 08:35 PM

There were a myriad of things this nation could havce done to prevent what happened Sept. 11, not the least of which was to treat the Arab nations as the rquals of Isreal. I do not condone terrorism in any of its forms but among the other things that could have been done was to maintain the strict neutrality that preached instead of swapping guns for money to support anti communist death squads in Central America. We love to preach morality but not practice it. By the by, lest anyone think I am a flaming liberal, I spent my time in the service from Vietnam to the Gulf war.
And how about having the government agencies that were supposed to be on watch do their jobs instead of creating yet anoth method to intrude on our personal liberties. Where were the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS etc? Irish sergeant

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 09:18 PM

The hijacking idea was a cover that every one else was told - only 'the pilots' knew what was the real plan.

Now we have space for the 'conspiracy theorists' - compare with 'Pearl Harbour' - as to whether there was a deliberate plan to allow the US to be 'drawn into' a plan of action that suited some people. In the Pearl Harbour case, it was the 'industrialists' who would profit from war production: in 9/11, it was those who wanted to institute a 'Big Brother' form of government.

Sigh!

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:11 PM

Strick, I'm not saying this isn't plausible or possible. What I'm saying is that the timing is extremely fishy, and without some credible backup, I see it as purely politically motivated by someone like Rove who never let the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Some bits from the article linked above:

However, on May 9 of this year, the London Sunday Times carried a report that amplified the original story. The paper said that in 2000 a waiter at a Manchester curry restaurant had been approached by an Al Qaeda recruiter at an Oldham mosque and was offered money to do "a job." According to the paper, . . .

Is the London Sunday Times a credible paper? Did their reporter track down the waiter or did someone come forward with the story?

But on the flight over, the man began having fond thoughts of his wife and baby and decided he didn't want to die. Upon landing, he slipped his contact, took a bus to Atlantic City, gambled away his money, and then turned himself over to the FBI.

Gambling away his money versus what? He could have bought a lot of diapers and babyclothes with that money, most likely. If he's so fond of his wife, what's he doing gambling away all of that cash? This is just such a non-sequitur.

The story, reported at the time by the New York Post, was as follows: The Federal Protective Service, which guards federal property, spotted a man with Middle Eastern features taking photos of a federal building in Lower Manhattan. Federal agents confiscated his film . . .

The New York Post! That paper is so yellow I don't think anything they print can be taken at face value. Have they improved greatly in recent days?

Another version of what may or may not have been the same incident appeared last week in The Washington Post, which said three different people were involved—two Yemenis, including one longtime resident of Brooklyn, were taking photos for another Yemeni, living in Indianapolis. The FBI checked out the two Yemenis, according to the Post, and concluded that they had nothing to do with terrorism, but the Indianapolis man disappeared and agents have never have been able to find him.

I do consider the Washington Post credible, and if the two stories are evidently from the same source, I'd be inclined to believe this version. The fact that this appeared in the Village Voice gives it some credibility, but they reached out across some mucky waters for at least some of their sources.

And these days, I think "Senate Intelligence Committee" is largely an oxymoron in the Republican controlled senate. Too many Bush Toadies.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:26 PM

"LONDON - More than a year before 9/11, a Pakistani-British man told the FBI an incredible tale: that he had been trained by bin Laden's followers to hijack airplanes and was now in America to carry out an attack. The FBI questioned him for weeks, but then let him go home, and never followed up. Now, the former al-Qaida insider is talking."

"Congress' 9/11 report confirms that in April, 2000, an unnamed 'walk-in' told the FBI he 'was to meet five or six persons' — some of them pilots — who would take over a plane and fly to Afghanistan, or blow the plane up. The report adds that the 'walk-in' passed a lie-detector test."

That's fine; but how was the U.S supposed to know which date the attack was going to happen, or which flights would be used.

There are thousands of flights EVERYDAY. Without accurate Intelegence; it is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:40 PM

And how about having the government agencies that were supposed to be on watch do their jobs instead of creating yet anoth method to intrude on our personal liberties. Where were the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS etc? Irish sergeant

May I remind you that the real cuts in the size of the government came from the military whil Bill Clinton was president.

May I remind you that Senator Toricelli worked to pass laws which made it illegal for the CIA to hire alleged or known criminals (sorry but the sunday school teachers do not know who the bad guys are.

May I remind you that Senator John Kerry wrote a bill that had intended to cut the CIA budget by $6.5 Billion. When the Bill got to the floor; the CIA's budget was gutted by $1.5 Billion

May I remind you that the attack on the WTC in 1993, the attack on the embassys, the attacks on the U.S.S. Cole, etc were treated as law enforcement actions by the Clinton whitehouse.

Instead of understanding the terrorists WANT TO KILL US, and they don't care who they have to kill to accomplish that goal.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: LadyJean
Date: 07 Jun 04 - 11:43 PM

Sixty some years ago a group of German saboteurs landed on the Jersey shore. Their leader had lived in the U.S. for several years, and had no love for Hitler. Shortly after he landed, he called FBI headquarters and tried to convince them that they were in the U.S. and planning sabotage.
As I remember he practically had to lead his buddies into the Bureau offices. Sounds like the FBI hasn't changed much.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:10 AM

LadyJean,
I heard an interview with one of those fellows recently. I think it was on the NPR program Fresh Air. As I recall at least one of the sabboteurs was executed. It was a poorly handled affair.


Instead of understanding the terrorists WANT TO KILL US, and they don't care who they have to kill to accomplish that goal.


Instead figuring out what has made those terrorists so angry (and they speak for a lot of other people) U.S. politicians have been asses on the world stage. Instead of figuring out how to live in the world and let others live, the U.S. has been particularly obnoxious lately about trying to tell everyone else how to live. They've been far too supportive of Israel and blind to their bullying tactics with their Arab neighbors, just making a bad situation worse. And they haven't the balls to put the pressure on Saudi Arabia to reign in their angry young men. And they say Syria harbors terrorists--I beg to differ!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:39 AM

Yes, SRS,

A part of the world fears that the biggest most arrogant terrorist state is the USA...

... and even some us 'US friendly' have our own doubts at times...

Robin

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 02:29 AM

Imagine how it feels to be on the inside of this juggernaut as it rolls through the World's streets crushing populations in its path. Oh--wait--a lot of Americans feel they're entitled to act this way. They're "Enlightened" and (self-)righteous and just waiting for everyone else to catch up.

As I say, it's pretty depressing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:41 AM

"And these days, I think "Senate Intelligence Committee" is largely an oxymoron in the Republican controlled senate. Too many Bush Toadies"

OK, so the Democratic half of that committee has been silenced? They many not control the committee's agenda, but surely they can reach for a microphone in public, right? Why don't they? I understand this guy isn't the most credible witness in the world, but wouldn't this information combined with Richard Clarke's theory of airplanes used as bombs and reports that suspected terrorists were trying to learn to fly planes (but not land) warrant investigating? Wasn't that why Clarke was so intent on "shaking the trees" in late 2000, to be able to put these kinds of facts together to get a clear intelligence picture? So his best efforts didn't work? Would "shaking the trees" in July 2001 have had any better result or would it have been another waste of time?

"Sounds like a Bush administration story to push the whole events of September 11 back onto Clinton's watch. Just in time for the election."

Who said this was Clinton's fault? Not even I think that.

"That's fine; but how was the U.S supposed to know which date the attack was going to happen, or which flights would be used."

Maybe, but this was much more specific than the vaunted Aug. 6th PDB which by and large merely rehashed known facts (and misinformation).

"In the Pearl Harbour case, it was the 'industrialists' who would profit from war production: in 9/11, it was those who wanted to institute a 'Big Brother' form of government."

No, no, no, it was Rooseveldt and the liberals who wanted to enter the war to save England and or the Soviet Union. Conservatives were intensely isolationist and industrialists were happiest when they were supplying arms to both sides without actually having to put up with government industrial controls that came with the war. 70% of the US population was against entering WWII (prior to Dec. 7th) and almost all conservatives were dead set against it. That's why something like Pearl Harbor was necessary to change public perception.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:08 AM

"And these days, I think "Senate Intelligence Committee" is largely an oxymoron in the Republican controlled senate. Too many Bush Toadies"

Just looked up the composition of the committee. Dianne Feinstein and John Edwards are "Bush Toadies? :D

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:29 AM

The information provided by this "walk-in" waiter from Manchester adds exactly what to the scaps of information that was available from other sources? Little or nothing - he is still talking about hijacking - not using the aircraft themselves as weapons.

SRS, you do spout some complete and utter crap at times:

"07 Jun 04 - 11:31 AM

Sounds like a Bush administration story to push the whole events of September 11 back onto Clinton's watch. Just in time for the election."

Pure matter of time-line, SRS, the instigation, implementation, preparation, planning and training for the 9/11 attacks DID all take place during Clinton's watch - FACT.

"08 Jun 04 - 01:10 AM

Instead figuring out what has made those terrorists so angry (and they speak for a lot of other people) U.S. politicians have been asses on the world stage."

Do they speak for a lot of other people SRS? What is your premise for making that statement? So far I can see no evidence to support it. Again go back to the time-line and the various threats that have been issued by Al-Qaeda - all go back way before the present US administration came into office. So which US Politicians are you talking about? The ones who struck rather ineffectively against Al-Qaeda, or the ones who actually did rob them of the only secure base they had and put them firmly on the defensive?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:56 AM

Ooooo! Big Bad Terribus is in fine form... Look out Liberals! Your heads on a platter please. The right to insult and demean is part of the first ammendment too, right?

Media tricks are Bush resolve
Corroboration scanties
With artful blame they still revolve
Around those Clinton panties

But efforts then behind the scenes
To smear an able leader
Entrance the public it demeans
But not the able reader

Clinton's troubles came to roost
Behind republications
The Coup was started, Bill was juiced
For 'Christian right' invasions

Lies and more confound the scene
As insults fill the air waves
But facts remain, our left between
Quite covered by the Bush slaves
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:09 PM

Ah, Teribus, I know I'm on the right track if you crawl out of the woodwork with your garbled logic. It's a litmus test of sorts here at the Mudcat.

No one said all of the senate committee were Bush toadies, the but republican majority certainly seems to be. As long as they can outvote and override the democratic voices, that's what counts, isn't it?

Strick, even if you don't think it was Clinton's fault, Rove is relying on Americans to have short memories and knee-jerk patriotic reactions to whatever leaks and news he can get into the headlines running up to the election. It doesn't matter what is really true, it just matters how many gullible Americans can be convinced to vote for Bush based on the innuendo Rove can create. Teribus will be in the front of the line with his straight republican ticket. That's a given.

You suggested that despite being outvoted, Democrats can still reach for the mic in public--until recently there was such a paralyzing fear of being branded unpatriotic by the Bush folks and right-wing groups that many democrats, I am ashamed to say, kept their opinions to themselves. This is beginning to change.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 01:23 PM

"You suggested that despite being outvoted, Democrats can still reach for the mic in public--until recently there was such a paralyzing fear of being branded unpatriotic by the Bush folks and right-wing groups that many democrats, I am ashamed to say, kept their opinions to themselves. This is beginning to change."

My suggestion is even more simple. Despite the nominal majority Republicans have over the Senate, the Democrats have been perfectly comfortable using the rules to control or at least constrain the agenda there. And I didn't notice Democratic members of the 9/11 Commission and members of either House of Congress acting in the least shy about pointing fingers or at least implying blame during the 9/11 hearings. Nothing's really changed. Both sides do the political calculation before they say anything. There's no reason not to deny this event, and deny it most publically if it's not true.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: DougR
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 04:50 PM

No, SRS, what's depressing is reading the negative crap you constantly write about your own country. The U.S. is NEVER right, right? We have identified the enemy and it is the U. S., right? You can be damn glad you live in a country where you are not locked up and the key tossed for constantly criticizing the country of your birth.

I suppose your solution to the terrorist threat is to invite them all to tea, and politely ask them what it would take for them to quit killing innocent people. Right? Those poor underpriviledged, misunderstood terrorists. Boo Hoo.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:32 PM

There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president.

And it ain't like I'm some kinda Gore guy but Al Quida had the right guy in the White House for maximine sympathy and recruiting opportunties... I'm sure that there were a few high-fives aorund the bin Laden camp when Bush said "Bring it on."

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:36 PM

DougR, you have no sense of proportion. And you have no sense of boundaries, either. If the U.S. would stop meddling in other people's business, and on the occasions they do act, do it for altruistic reasons and not because of the price of oil, I would have fewer grounds for complaint. The actions of the Bush crowd are so transparent as to be laughable.

You need to get out more. Read a few online papers originating in other countries. See what the rest of the world thinks about the bullying tactics and the self-serving policies of the Bush administration. Then do a little math. Think of the number of countries that could decide to get together to give the U.S. the come-uppance it has earned. Oh, wait, that's what they're doing. Think about all of the people who died on September 11, and realize that the actions of those terrorists were not the acts of cowards, as Bill Mahr boldly stated before his sponsors and his network cowardly cancelled his program. They were the acts of people who spent a lot of time developing a clever and efficient plan to make the world and the U.S. aware of just how angry they were.

Now stick with me for a moment Dougie, and I'll put this on a much smaller scale. Last weekend I stepped out my back door and was stung by a wasp. I got out the hose and washed four separate wasp nests off of the back of the house, but I also gave some thought as to why I might have so many wasps back there, and concluded that it was my own fault--I'd hung the hummingbird feeder too close to the house. It now sits out in the middle of the yard and is far enough that I should avoid opportunistic wasp nest building. I'm not about to go and slaughter every wasp I see and in the process kill a bunch of other insects and such.

Get it? We did something to attract the terrorist wasps (I recognize the ironic use of this iconic insect!) and instead of figuring out what in the world we're doing wrong to make so very many people angry and going about being better citizens of the world, we go blast apart Afghanistan and Iraq. Well, buddy, that too-close-hummingbird feeder is called Israel. That's the biggest part of the anger against the U.S. And if Israel isn't dealt with as the attractive nuisance that it is, and the government there (that owes its very existence to the U.S.) pursuaded into being better citizens of the world, their citizens will continue to live through the same murderous suicide bombings that have marked their lives for the last several years. Have you noticed, a lot of Israeli citizens are also protesting against their government and the war in Iraq? My remarks are not anti-semitic, my remarks highlight that the U.S. has supported a powderkeg in the Middle East for over 50 years, and now that little trail of gunpowder that leads back here has been ignited. We're not doing ourselves or the Israeli citizens any good by continuing the support the percarious limb that the Israeli government has built it's platform upon.

I'm really sorry for you, that you just don't get it. And you still probably won't get it after reading this analysis and those that will no doubt follow.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 07:47 PM

Bill Maher stuff. A comedian you either love or hate. When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us To Help Fight the War on Terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 08:45 PM

Bobert:
There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would not have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:06 PM

"And these days, I think "Senate Intelligence Committee" is largely an oxymoron in the Republican controlled senate. Too many Bush Toadies"

Strick; tould you PM or E-Mail me and tell me where I can buy some of whatever you have been smoking?

If there are so many toadies in the Senate; then can you explain why the Democrat senators have been able to block so many judge appointments?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:13 PM

No, SRS, what's depressing is reading the negative crap you constantly write about your own country. The U.S. is NEVER right, right? We have identified the enemy and it is the U. S., right? You can be damn glad you live in a country where you are not locked up and the key tossed for constantly criticizing the country of your birth.

I suppose your solution to the terrorist threat is to invite them all to tea, and politely ask them what it would take for them to quit killing innocent people. Right? Those poor underpriviledged, misunderstood terrorists. Boo Hoo

Thank you so much for posting the truth about the terrorists who's single intent is to KILL anyone that has a different point of view about religion, or the way women appear in movies, have the right to drive, have the right to go to school, have the right to go in public without being covered head to foot in a Burka, etc.

Standing and cheering Doug.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:24 PM

There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president.

And it ain't like I'm some kinda Gore guy but Al Quida had the right guy in the White House for maximine sympathy and recruiting opportunties... I'm sure that there were a few high-fives aorund the bin Laden camp when Bush said "Bring it on."

Well; then let's look at the Clinton presidency.

ALL of the following Terrorist activity happened DURING the 8 years of President Bill Clinton, and he was not interested in stopping the bloodshed. On THREE stinking times; the Sudan offerered to turn Osama bin Laden over to the U.S. and Clinton wanted no part of it.

Gore would have been as much if not more of a disaster than Clinton was.

1992 - Ethnic civil war in city of Kabul, Afghanistan resulted in 50,000 people killed. The Soviet-installed leader Mohammed Najibullah fled. Kajik troops of Mujihadeen Prime Minister Burhanuddin Rabbini and Mujihadeen military commander Ahmed Shah Masood battled with Pashtun troops of warlord Gilbuddin Hekmatyar. (Rabbani and Hekmatyar finally joined forces 6/96 because both were under seige by the Taliban, Hekmatyar endorsing Rabbini as Prime Minister, nevertheless, the Taliban took control of the country 9/96.)

1992 - Osama bin Laden made a proposal to his rivals in the pro-Iran Shiite terrorist organization Hizballah that they set aside their differences, so that they can cooperate in a common objective of killing United States troops stationed in Asia and Africa.

1992 - Bin Laden established legal businesses in Sudan, farms, a tannery, and a construction firm, to increase his available funds, and as fronts for al Qaeda camps he was organizing there.

1992 - Imad Mugniyah allegedly bombed a Christian center in Argentina.

1992 - Hizballah agents bombed the Israeli embassy in Argentina.

1/92 - The Soviet Union dissolved; end of its support for Mohammed Najibullah, the Soviet-installed leader of Afghanistan, however, he remained in power until 9/27/96 when the Taliban overthrew his administration.

12/29/92 - A bomb exploded in a hotel in Aden, Yemen. The hotel had recently been used by US troops preparing to go to Somalia, but all the US troops had already departed. Two Austrian tourists were killed.

2/26/93 Car bomb exploded at 5:12 PM on the second level of parking basement in the World Trade Center, killed 7 and injured hundreds. The bombers also left behind a device designed to release cyanide gas to kill emergency response crews and area residents, but the fire destroyed the cyanide. Bin Laden denied involvement. Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who had been trained in Afghanistan, was named as an FBI suspect and added to the Ten Most Wanted list, with a $2 million reward. In 1995, Yousef was recognized in Pakistan, arrested, and extradited to the US. Yousef was convicted of planning the 2/26/93 attack and sentenced to life in prison.

8/93 Unsuccessful attampt by the Al-Jihad organization to assassinate Interior Minister Hassan al Alfi of Egypt.

10/93 - 18 U.S. troops involved in the U.S. "humanitarian mission" were killed in Mogadishu, Somalia, when two US helicopters were shot down. The victims were among of 28,000 US troops in Somalia. US news media covered a mob celebrating the killings by dragging the bodies through the streets. (In 1996, the US indicted Osama bin Laden for allegedly training the killers. In 1997, bin Laden admitted involvement in interview with CNN. In 2000, court testimony of al Qaeda defector Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl implicated both Osama bin Laden and Mohammed Atef in planning the killings.)

11/93 - Unsuccessful attampt by the Al-Jihad organization to assassinate Prime Minister Atef Sedky of Egypt.

1994 - Saudi Arabia revoked bin Laden's citizenship.

1994 - Bin Laden's family and relatives publicly "disowned" him due to his crimes.

1994 - Hizballah agents bombed an Israeli cultural center Buenos Aires, Argentina.

8/14/94 Ilich Ramirez-Sanchez, alias, Carlos the Jackal arrested by French Secret Service [DST]. Sentenced to life in prison.

10/12/94 - The Taliban militia conquered the city of Kandahar, Afghanistan.

1995 - The Islamic Jihad organization bombed the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan

1995 - Foiled plot to bomb 12 U.S. airliners. FBI named Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as suspect.

3/20/95 Japanese terrorists of the Aum (or Aum Shinrikyo) cult, which believes that the end of the world is imminent, released Sarin nerve gas into Tokyo subway trains. 12 killed and approximately 5,000 to 6,000 injured. 10/95 Japanese government revoked Aum's classification as a religious organization, but decided not to invoke a law that would have outlawed the organization. Suspect Shoko Asahara, who founded the cult in 1987, imprisoned by the Japanese government.

4/19/95 Timothy McVeigh, of the US anti-government militia American Christian Patriots, caused truck bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 and injuring hundreds. Many US news commentators accused Islamic militants, who were not involved.

6/95 - Unsuccessful attempt by the Islamic Group organization to assassinate President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt while he was in Ethiopia.

11/13/95 - Truck bombing of US National Guard training center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 7 people killed, including 5 US military personnel. (Later, four suspects were convicted by Saudi court and executed by decapitation.)

6/25/96 - Truck bombing of Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a residence of US military personnel. 19 US military personnel were killed. FBI suspects Ahmed Ibrahim al-Mughassil, Ibrahim al-Yacoub and Abdel Karim al-Nasser were indicted.

8/23/96 - Date on bin Laden's written "declaration" of attack against the US. The document was written and published about two months after the bombing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. Demands included the removal of US troops from Saudi Arabia, and the overthrow of the government of Saudi Arabia.

9/11/96 - The Taliban militia conquered the city of Jalalabad, Afghanistan

9/26/96 Mujihadeen military commander Ahmed Shah Masood fled from the Afghan city of Kabul, due to the imminant invasion by the Taliban.

9/27/96 - The Taliban militia conquered the capital city of Kabul, Afghanistan. The Taliban acquired power in Afghanistan by overthrowing the government of Mohammed Najibullah, the political leader who had acquired power after the departure of the Soviet invaders, was executed by hanging on a public street.

1996 - Taliban closed Kabul University; male students permitted only high school education. Female students over the age of 12 banned from all schools, and ordered to stay at home most of the time to perform housework. Many other repressive laws enacted.

1996 - After the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Islam political party in Pakistan assisted organization of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

1996 - Responding to a request from the US government, Sudan expelled bin Laden. He returned to Afghanistan, setting up a training facility near the city of Jalalabad, and further organizing al Qaeda as an international network.

5/23/97 - Taliban militia conquered the city of Mazar-i-Sharif, Afghanistan. Eleven diplomats from Iran were executed.

5/24/97 - Pakistan formally recognized the Taliban government.

1997 - CNN interviewed bin Laden. He said, in part, "We declared a jihad against the United States because it is unjust, criminal, and tyrannical." Without directly taking credit for the actions, he mentioned the 1995 killing of 7 US troops in Riyadh and the 1996 killing of 19 US troops in Dharan as examples of the jihad.

February 1998 - Bin Laden published declaration which included the objective: "To kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it, in any country in which it is possible to do it."

8/7/98 - A car bomb exploded outside US embassy in Nairobi, Kenya. A few hours later, explosion at US embassy in Dar es Salaam, capital of tanzania. In both attacks, 224 people were killed and almost 5,000 were injured. (Later, a suspect was arrested and he said he was a member of al Qaeda. The US Justice Department indicted 17 member of al Qaeda, including bin Laden, for the two embassy bombings. 4 of the 17 were later arrested and convicted; 13 remained at large.)

8/20/98 - 13 days after the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, U.S. bombarded several locations in Khost, Afghanistan, and one location in Sudan, with Tomahawk missiles. The attacks were announced on the same day by President Clinton during televised press briefing. The President identified Osama bin Laden and his terrorist training camp as a target in Khost. Bin Laden survived by leaving the destroyed camp in Afghanistan shortly before the attack. One of the missiles launched into Sudan destroyed the country's major pharmaceutical factory warehouse, which the US government asserted to be in use as a terrorist weapons warehouse.

9/11/98 The United Nations announced that it had confirmed an accusation by Amnesty International that the Taliban government of Afghanistan had massacred thousands of people near Mazar-i-Sharif in 8/98. The killings were committed because the victims were of the Hazara ethnic group and of the Shiite denomination of Islam. The UN determined that the number of victims, between 4,000 and 6,000 people, was about three times more than AI had alleged.

11/98 - US Justice Dept indicted Osama bin Laden for the 8/7/98 bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

12/98 - The Aden Abyan Islamic Army (AAIA) in Yemen took 17 hostages. In a raid by the Yemen police, 4 of the hostages were freed and 13 of the hostages were killed. AAIA leader Zein al-Abideen al-Mehdar was arrested and executed.

1998 - Reporter John Miller of ABC News interviewed bin Laden, who said, in part, "Our battle against the Americans is far greater than our battle was against the Russians. We anticipate a black future for America. Instead of remaining United States, it shall end up separated states and shall have to carry the bodies of its sons back to America."

1/12/99 - In Peshawar, Pakistan, intruders entered the house of Afghan political moderate Abdul Haq, who was not at home. The intruders killed his wife and 11-year-old son.

3/27/99 - In Peshawar, Pakistan, Mohammed Jehanzeb, the secretary of anti-Taliban organizer Haji Qadir, the brother of Adbul Haq, was assassinated.

4/23/99 The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations issued condemnation of persistent human rights abuses by the Taliban government of Afghanistan.

9/99 - On two separate days, Chechen terrorists bombed apartment buildings in Moscow, Russia. 212 were killed.

1/16/99 US Justice Department indicted bin Laden and 11 other members of al Qaeda for killing and conspiring to kill US citizens internatiionally. FBI placed bin Laden in its Most Wanted list, with a reward of $5 million for information leading to his arrest and conviction. (In 2001, the reward was increased to $25 million.)

10/15/99 United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution imposing sanctions on the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The UNSC said that the Taliban must turn over Osama bin Laden "without further delay to appropriate authorities in a country where he has been indicted, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be returned to such a country, or to appropriate authorities in a country where he will be arrested and effectively brought to justice."

2/00 -- An al Qaeda defector, Jamal Ahmed al-Fadl testified in the trial of four men accused in the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He revealed many details about the al Qaeda network. The four defendants were convicted. ("Jamal al Fadl, an al Qaeda defector who testified in the trial of four men convicted in the 1998 embassy bombings, illuminated an organization structured with bin Laden and his consultative council at the top, surrounded by committees to handle business enterprises, military training, religious policy and even publicity." -- Washington Post, 9/15/01) Al-Fadl testified that he was born and raised in Sudan, moved to the US, then moved back to Sudan in 1991 to work for an al Qaeda office in Khartoum. He decided to defect after he realized he was in trouble for having embezzled $100,000 from bin Laden's fund. He also testified that bin Laden had tried to buy uranium from black market sources for $1.5 million, presumably in an attempt to develop nuclear weapons.

7/2/2000 - United States National Park Service released a commissioned report concluding that national monuments which attract tourists, such as the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument, are likely targets terrorist attacks.

9/28/00 - Start of the New Intifiada, a Palestinian rebellion against Israeli occupation

10/12/00 - Suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. The ship was refueling at the port city of Aden in Yemen when attacked. A boat filled with explosives got near the Cole and exploded, producing a large hole in the ship. 17 US sailors were killed and 37 were injured. Bin Laden released a videotape, claiming responsibility for attack.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:26 PM

DougR, you have no sense of proportion. And you have no sense of boundaries, either. If the U.S. would stop meddling in other people's business, and on the occasions they do act, do it for altruistic reasons and not because of the price of oil, I would have fewer grounds for complaint. The actions of the Bush crowd are so transparent as to be laughable

No Stilly. You and others like you are living in a dream world that is NOT real.

There ARE evil people, and they DO want to destroy us and our way of life.

I am glad honorable soldiers are protecting your right to be an arse.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:36 PM

See, that's exactly what I'd expect from a couple of knotheaded, died in the wool Bushites... A lot of hot air, spin and blame Clinton...

Neither of you two talk about Bush's Middleeast policy, or lack there of. Neither of you look at the distrust of the Bush family by the Arab world...

You try to keep your focus in this tiny little magnifying glass that doesn't allow you to see the big picture..

Okay, quiz time...

Other than yer guy, Bush, under whoes watch did the largest terrorist operation agaisnt the United States and or its citizens occur since Pearl Harbor?

A. Gerald Ford
B. Bill Clinton
C. Jimmy Carter
D. Ronald Reagan

Hmmmmmm?

See what I mean?

Now I want both of you all to get tested fir tunnel vision, tomorrow. Don't wait and don't hesitate....

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 09:50 PM

See, that's exactly what I'd expect from a couple of knotheaded, died in the wool Bushites... A lot of hot air, spin and blame Clinton...

I did not vote for G. W. Bush the first time, and I will not vote for him this time because he is determined to take more of our freedoms away.

Of the 9 Democratic nominees running for the Democratic nomination; the ONLY person I could have voted for is Joseph Lieberman because he was the ONLY Democrat that understands that we are in a war for our lives.

I would vote for Condaleeza Rice, Collin powell, Jean Kirkpatric. and about 1000 other people before I would vote for Bush.

Unfortunately with the two major parties; the choice is tweedle dum and tweedle dumber. I will be voting a third party.

I guess facts do not matter to you.

I supplied a list of terrorist activities around the world when Clinton was president. Now Clinton talked tough on terrorism; but what did he do? Send a few $million of missles into empty Al Qaeda training bases, empty tents, and an aspirin factory.

Clinton REPEATEDLY demonstrated weakness before a determined agressor.

What is your explaination?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:04 PM

Two bears:

You miss the point- if one does not blame Bush for everything, then one might actually have to acknowledge that there is a real threat. This is a very frightening thing. Most people, when confronted with something that is such a threat look for some way to minimize it, make it go away, or become someone else's problem.

Bobert:

"Other than yer guy, Bush, under whoes watch did the largest terrorist operation agaisnt the United States and or its citizens occur since Pearl Harbor?"

So you class George W. Bush on a par with FDR?????? I would not be quite that generous, but if that is what you think...

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:30 PM

Check the batteries in yer thinkerator, bearded-one. I ain't puttin' Bush in FDR class, In the word of Larry Holmes, I wouldn't let Bush carry FDR's jock strap...

Yo, Bears. Okay, swo you you ain't a Bushite. Certainly sound like one but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... BTW, got an anawer to the quiz?

Nevermind...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 10:43 PM

Funny thing Bobaer, it seemed like you were.

What is this about Pearl Harbor? If Bush is at fault for 9/11, then FDR gets Pearl Harbor. or is that too complicated for you?

Check YOUR batteries.

Or are you saying that since you do not put Bush in the same class, Bush has no responsibility for 9/11? Try and make up your mind here: Your "under whoes watch did the largest terrorist operation agaisnt the United States and or its citizens occur since Pearl Harbor" tells me that you consider 9/11 to be at the level of Pearl Harbor: ANd you seem to be looking for the answer that the president in office is at fault. SO, what do you mean??????????????????????

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:05 PM

Well, yeah, bb... There's at least some evidence that FDR could have prevented 12/6 but I don't compare 12/6 with 9/11. The only reason I brought up 12/6 was to cover from someone saying, "Hey, Bobert, how 'bout 12/6? Gotta start somewhere when giving these quizes 'er else someone would be bringing up the First Battle of Manassas...

And, BTW, *'s in front of and behind things you'd like to emphasize are preferred to the caps...

As fir faults, hey, some stuff that happens under one president or another falls on him or doesn't. I think more cause 'n effect. Does Bill Clinton get a lot of credit for the strong economy in the 90's? Well, no. All he did was not screw it up. Does Reagan deserve credit for ending a cycle of high interest and unemployment? No, but like Clinton, he didn't screw it up. Both screwed up lots of other stuff tho...

But as for Bush? Yeah, I think he did send an unmistaken message to the MiddleEsat that he wasn't interested in anything that Clinton had done and in doing so has to be looked at at least as an accomplice in creating an atmosphere where a bin Laden could say, "Do it now"...

Cause and effect...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM

"Yeah, I think he did send an unmistaken message to the MiddleEsat that he wasn't interested in anything that Clinton had done and in doing so has to be looked at at least as an accomplice in creating an atmosphere where a bin Laden could say, "Do it now"..."


You may choose to think so, but I see no evidence of it. The planning, training and such were done before the election, as far as we can tell. I do not see a "cause and effect" here.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:52 PM

You miss the point- if one does not blame Bush for everything, then one might actually have to acknowledge that there is a real threat. This is a very frightening thing. Most people, when confronted with something that is such a threat look for some way to minimize it, make it go away, or become someone else's problem.

Bruce; this threat is worse than the wacky Austrian with a bad mustache and haircut ever thought of being.

He just hated black, Jews, homosexuals, and others.

These Muslim extremists (less than 2% of the Muslim population) are willing to kill ANYONE (including their Muslim brothers and sisters) to destroy the Jews and the rest of the civilized world.

Excuse me; but I am NOT interested in reverting to the 7th century CE where a child's hand is cut off for stealing, having the tongue cut out or forced to swallow lye for lying, etc, forcibly having little girl's clitoris' surgicaly removed, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:56 PM

Geez, you guys are dense tonight. Beardedbruce, did you read the quiz? It was only one question.

Other than yer guy, Bush, under whoes watch did the largest terrorist operation agaisnt the United States and or its citizens occur since Pearl Harbor?

A. Gerald Ford
B. Bill Clinton
C. Jimmy Carter
D. Ronald Reagan

The question is written in such a way to exclude Pearl Harbor.

The answer is Reagan. It happened in the Middle East. It was the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. That's in Lebanon. Here are the dates so you don't have to take off your shoes to count backward to the Reagan administration.

There ARE evil people, and they DO want to destroy us and our way of life.

Two Bears, when one lives in a glass house, as the saying goes, one shouldn't throw stones. When you live it up in that glass house, and tell everyone around you how to behave yet you're clearly not living up to the standards you want everyone else to meet, you have problems.

Why was the prisoner abuse so appalling to so many people in the last few weeks? Because those in America who realize that Bush's "Do as I say not as I do" policy of "liberating" Iraq from a tyrant while in fact tyrannizing many of its people, including prisoners of war, who were supposedly liberated, is to seal the fates of many of our troups not just in Iraq but in other sensitive areas around the world. The double standard that comes with that glass house is in effect--we don't have to pay attention to the Geneva Conventions because ours is a higher mission (bullshit!).

And when much of the world is standing with its face pressed against the glass walls of our house looking in as we consume the best of everything and become the most obese nation on earth because we eat and consume so much, often obtained by multi-national corporations who don't pay living wages to workers in third world countries, you can bet we're not going to get a helluva lot of sympathy when we mess up. And thanks to Bush and his pals, and the lineage that comes through his father directly from Reagan, the U.S. is indeed the land of The Ugly American.

So take off your blinders. Those "evil" people in your little binary of good versus evil are VERY ANGRY PEOPLE who've had it up to here with the behavior of this colonial power in particular and others in general. Some of those angry people used to be our friends, and we sponsored them in their (usually warlike) endeavors when it was convenient to do so. Some of them got used to an elevated standard of living, only to be dumped later, some of them already had earned it themselves. Many of them were victimized by the western world when the United Nations and Britain took Palestine and shoved all sorts of artificial boundaries and royal leaders down their throats. Others have been pissed off ever since World War I when the British and other European nations carved up the lands that are now Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc. When you play those kinds of favoritism games and ignore cultures and political preferences, you create one big mess. Now we're paying for it.

I happen to think that if we behaved in a civil manner around the rest of the world we could solve a few problems. But not the way Dubya deals with them.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:57 PM

Yo, Bears. Okay, swo you you ain't a Bushite. Certainly sound like one but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... BTW, got an anawer to the quiz?

Appology accepted.

No I am NOT a Bushite.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt.

That quiz is irrelevant; because the civilized world has a very big threat named Muslim Extremist terrorists.

If we are still here after the extremists have been brought forward to the 1500s (after the know the world is not flat) I will consider your exam.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jun 04 - 11:59 PM

Bobert:

"There's at least some evidence that FDR could have prevented 12/6"

As opposed to Bush, where there is no evidence?


Two bears:

I agree, but you are frightening the children. They do not like this story, it is too scary, so they want a nice fairy tale about kittens and butterflies.

Far better than facing facts and doing something about it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:40 AM

Two Bears, when one lives in a glass house, as the saying goes, one shouldn't throw stones. When you live it up in that glass house, and tell everyone around you how to behave yet you're clearly not living up to the standards you want everyone else to meet, you have problems.

None are as blind as those that refuse to see. The U.S. was attached by Al Qaeda at least 10 times BEFORE 9/11 amd you dismiss it as the U.S.'s fault. You have my pity.

Why was the prisoner abuse so appalling to so many people in the last few weeks? Because those in America who realize that Bush's "Do as I say not as I do" policy of "liberating" Iraq from a tyrant while

There is not one SCINTILLA of proof that the Iraqi abuse in Abu Grahib was Bush's fault. How about the failure of Brigadere General Karpenske (SP) Are you aware that she was relieved of command because of her incompetence when she was a Captain? She should have been demoted to private and given a court martial.


we don't have to pay attention to the Geneva Conventions because ours is a higher mission (bullshit!).

Excuse me; but is anyone home; or did you just leave the lights on?

Every person in Abu Grahib was accused of crimes.

They were attacking the troups, and they could not be considered as civilians. They were not Iraqi army. They were enemy combatants; so the Geneva convention did not apply to them. The fact that you lack understanding amazes me.

It IS true that some Iraqi detainees were abused, and the guilty parties SHOULD be punished.

But PLEASE cool the emotional jets, and allow logic and gasp REASON to fing and punish the guilty. If there is proof that Bush is guilty or directed the abuse; then so be it. He can be punished with the rest.

the glass walls of our house looking in as we consume the best of everything and become the most obese nation on earth because we eat and consume so much, often obtained by multi-national corporations

That is NOT america's fault. The Terrorists could work to improve their land and help get rid of the corrupt Mullahs that keep their people is abject poverty. Can't you understand this simple idea either?

who don't pay living wages to workers in third world countries, you can bet we're not going to get a helluva lot of sympathy when we mess up. And thanks to Bush and his pals, and the lineage that comes

Well let's see. what is a living wage to a person that has nothing, has no hope of gaining anything, and if he does gain anything he is immediately a threat from every villan that wants what he has, and will kill to take it.

The answer is for the terrorists to assist in removing the corrupt leaders like Saddam Hussein that use $BILLIONS to build palaces the size of Washington DC.

The problem is the average Muslims in Iraq, Iran, etc have no concept of freedom, and modern society. Unfortunately; I do not see many Patrick Henry, or Thomas Payne, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, etc working to improve their standing in life.

So take off your blinders. Those "evil" people in your little binary of good versus evil are VERY ANGRY PEOPLE who've had it up to

I suggest that you look in the mirror and check for your own blinders before trying to help me.

If you want to think I am wearing blinders; then so be it; but I have received the title master eight times, and work to make the world a better place as an energy healer.

What have you done other that take the opinion of someone with an agenda (such as hatred for the President) as gospel just because you emotionaly believe it?

others in general. Some of those angry people used to be our friends, and we sponsored them in their (usually warlike) endeavors

I am well aware of that. The Shia muslims were suggested to work to improve their standing. then when Saddam masacred many of them; America did NOT keep it's word because of weak leadership.


when the British and other European nations carved up the lands that are now Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc. When you play those kinds of favoritism games and ignore cultures and political preferences, you

I will admit that the UK had no business doing that. Just as Richard the Lionhearted. and others during the Crusades had no business doing that either.

What is in the past; can not be changed; so all 6 billion people on earth have to start where they are now, and work to improve their part of the world.

I happen to think that if we behaved in a civil manner around the rest of the world we could solve a few problems. But not the way Dubya deals with them.

That won't help. The extremists want to reclaim the Ottoman empire, and go back to the 7th century CE, and they do not care who they have to kill to accomplish that.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 12:43 AM

I agree, but you are frightening the children. They do not like this story, it is too scary, so they want a nice fairy tale about kittens and butterflies.

Bruce; I would be happy to tell them a fairy tale; but not when there are extremists that are intent on killing us.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:05 AM

I get it! Karl Rove has taken over Two Bears' house and is logging on with his Mudcat cookie.

Another dirty trick revealed.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:11 AM

Two Bears,

It will take something drastic, like a nuclear bomb in Seattle or Baltimore for them to wake up- then they will scream "You should have done something!"

I ( try to ) believe that most of them are actually well-meaning. Sometimes it is hard. I think it might have to hit close to them for them to wake up- and I fear that they will demand an excessive reaction, just as they now demand an insufficient one. I can envision a democratic administration using H-bombs on Mecca, for example.

I find the Patriot act to be truely frightning: now that the precedent has been set, how long until those powers are used against, say, those people who are not raising their children in the "approved" manner? A great threat to the welfare of the state! Or those who insist on plitically incorrect attitudes? can see the uses President Hilary might make of it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:19 AM

I get it! Karl Rove has taken over Two Bears' house and is logging on with his Mudcat cookie

Apparently; not only are you ignorant (or choosing to be ignorant).

You are also unable to read too. I have stated in at least four different threads; there are at least 1,000 people I would vote for; before I would vote for G.W. Bush.

I do not like the way G.W. Bush is weakening the freedom of U.S. citizens, and unwilling to do the basics to protect America from the terrorists that want to kill us.

Bush is right in trying to bring terrorists to justice; but he is unwilling to protect America by securing the borders with Mexico where more than 50,000 undocumented aliens stream across the border EVERY MONTH.

If you want to continue to demonstrate your ignorance; don't let me stop you.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:38 AM

It will take something drastic, like a nuclear bomb in Seattle or Baltimore for them to wake up- then they will scream "You should have done something!"

That is like closing the barn door AFTER the horse runs away.

I fear there are going to be three Nuclear bombs. New York, Chicago, and L.A.

I ( try to ) believe that most of them are actually well-meaning. Sometimes it is hard. I think it might have to hit close to them for them to wake up- and I fear that they will demand an excessive

That is why it is frightening. They believe propoganda to be truth.

reaction, just as they now demand an insufficient one. I can envision a democratic administration using H-bombs on Mecca, for example.

I know. After 9/11 I heard callers to talk shows recommend Nuking three sites.

Afghanistan/Pakistan border to wipe out Osama bin Laden, Mecca, and Medina.

The terrorists intent on killing us; make up less than 2% of the Muslim population. Killing 1/2 a billion people indiscriminately is a declaration of war and NOT the answer. Anyone that recomments something so stupid would kill flies with a shotgun.

The Answer is infiltration then arrest (if possible) the terrorists. If arrest is not possible; then eliminate them.

I find the Patriot act to be truely frightning: now that the precedent has been set, how long until those powers are used against, say, those people who are not raising their children in

Could not agree more. It would seem as if George Orwell was off by 20 years (2004 instead of 1984)

That is only ONE of the many reasons I can not vote for Bush, and would be happy to vote for more than 1000 people before I could vote for Bush or Kerry (tweedle dum, and tweedle dumber in that order.

The ONLY thing I can agree on with Bush is "There are extremists that want to kill us!"

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:40 AM

I will say two things for G.W. Bush.

"even a blind pig will find an acorn once in a while."
"Even a stopped clock has the right time twice a day."

I can not say either one of those in favor of Kerry.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:42 AM

It is not that I like Bush, but the Dems are not running anyone FOR president- just against Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:17 AM

It is not that I like Bush, but the Dems are not running anyone FOR president- just against Bush.

The problem is that NEITHER party is offering a viable candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:18 AM

No doubt about it... Kerry is awesome! C'mon Twa Bears, give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 07:12 AM

SRS,

I noticed that you ducked the questions I asked you - not surprised at that in the least.

Bobert,

Let's take a look at the logic behind your statement:

"There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president."

Now, how about OBL's declaration: "February 1998 - Bin Laden published declaration which included the objective: "To kill Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it, in any country in which it is possible to do it."

Issued mid-way through Clinton's second term, I see nothing there about this declaration being rescinded should Al Gore suceed Clinton to the White House in the wake of the 2000 election. Does anyone else see that? The 9/11 plot was hatched in January 2001? Evidence exists to prove that planning for the attack was already well underway long before the 2000 election took place.

Naw, delude yourselves if you wish, I'd go along with beardedbruce's statement in response to Bobert's:

"There is not one piece of evidence that proves that the the US would not have been hit on 9/11 had Al Gore been president."

Now back to SRS - the USA did not create the State of Israel - the Israeli's did and that State plus it's right to exist was recognised by a majority in the United Nations - FACT, you may not like it but there it stands, on record in the UN.

On the subject of blinders, from SRS we got:
"So take off your blinders. Those "evil" people in your little binary of good versus evil are VERY ANGRY PEOPLE who've had it up to here with the behavior of this colonial power in particular and others in general."

Hmmmmmmm that so? What very angry people are you talking about SRS? OBL's followers? Members of the various Palestinian terrorist groups? True enough they might be angry, they are after all only on the make for themselves and have a right to feel slightly miffed - they can't all be as successful as Yasser Arafat, but then again not everyone in the west is a millionaire. Taking the majority of the governments and populations of the countries you are talking about, history does not support your contention.


"Some of those angry people used to be our friends, and we sponsored them in their (usually warlike) endeavors when it was convenient to do so."

Extremely selective reading of past history if you are referring to the "Arabic" nations, you really should read up on the subject.

"Many of them were victimized by the western world when the United Nations and Britain took Palestine and shoved all sorts of artificial boundaries and royal leaders down their throats."

Really? When was all this happening SRS? Again your total ignorance of the history, geography and the ethnic and cultural make up of the area you are talking about is astonishing. By the bye, there has never been a country called Palestine, that is the term that was used to describe an area, likewise there has never been, until recent times, by invention, a nation of people known as Palestinians, like describing people who live in London and New York as "Londoners" or "New Yorkers" it is a very loose collective describing the area in which people live, taking no account of national heritage, identity or ethnic grouping.

"Others have been pissed off ever since World War I when the British and other European nations carved up the lands that are now Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc. When you play those kinds of favoritism games and ignore cultures and political preferences, you create one big mess. Now we're paying for it."

You will find that the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire was overseen by the League of Nations, and although not a member of that body, the United States of America did have some input. Oh, and by the way Iran was never part of the Ottoman Empire, it existed long before and quite seperately as Persia. At the end of the First World War the peoples making up the area you are trying to fit to your model were largely nomadic tribesmen, there were quite a large number of tribes, each with a leader and very loose ties to certain areas. Now Woodrow Wilson espoused the belief that all such groups should be "nations" - Utterly ridiculous concept as at some point in the equation a nation has to be economically viable in order to support it's people and system of government. Now having just delivered independence, who do you talk to about such government and nationhood? The people? Who for centuries had been little more than the chattels of their tribal leaders. Who were illiterate and trusted on their tribal leaders to provide all that they needed, whether by trade, or by war - No I don't think so, not in those days, and that is what you are dealing with in terms of history. So you end up talking to the tribal leaders, after all, they represent the only leadership in existance for all those people who have just become independent and are about to take on the responsibility of running their own affairs for the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 07:31 AM

SRS,

"I'm really sorry for you, that you just don't get it. And you still probably won't get it after reading this analysis and those that will no doubt follow. "

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 08:58 AM

Teribus, your snide responses don't reveal a knowledge of history and your justification for colonization is absurd. You wouldn't know history if it bit you in the ass. You lump nations I listed but didn't directly associate--have you thought about applying to the White House to work with Karl in this campaign season? We have a true Reagan acolyte here, right on spot with mis-information.

Beardedbruce, you go with him. You can be his bard and spout bad poetry and maybe hit on a few choice slogans for the campaign trail.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 09:30 AM

SRS,

Just go to a dictionary and look up the word colonisation means.

I'll give you a couple of examples:

America - was colonised by the British, and others;

India - was not.

Within the bounds of the middle-east and all the way along the North African coast there does not exist one single country that could ever have been described as a British Colony at any point throughout their entire histories - FACT.

It's a common mistake made mainly by Americans with regard to the British Empire, but a few facts:

1. It was established through and by trade not by conquest.

2. The British Army today is about as large as the British Army was at height of the reign of Queen Victoria. So if you are trying to tell me, or others, that two-thirds of the earth's land mass was conquered and held by only 120,000 men for the best part of two hundred years. Then I would venture to suggest that you want your head examined.

3. The British Empire, at its height consisted of Dominions, Colonies, Crown Territories; Crown Dependencies; Protectorates. The others outnumbered the number colonies quite significantly.

Now if you wish to enter into a debate, it might help your cause if you actually bothered to accrue some factual knowledge about that of which you speak. Factual knowledge SRS, not just "hyped-up" rhetoric that happens to fall in with whatever the trendy left currently regard as being "cool" and "correct".

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 09:48 AM

Excuse me, Teribus, but do you understand that the term "colonization" applies to more nations than the United Kingdom? And that there was more than military action involved in "successfully" colonizing other nations? No, apparently you don't.

I would need my head examined if I felt it was a worthwhile endeavor to argue with you, but I consider dueling with unarmed rivals unethical. Your limited understanding of history and the sophisticated concepts we've been discussing restrict your partcipation in a meaninful dialog. Go back to reading conservative revisionist editorials about Saint Ronnie.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 11:21 AM

SRS,

If memory serves me correctly, you introduced the term colonisation into the proceedings

"Teribus, your snide responses don't reveal a knowledge of history and your justification for colonization is absurd. You wouldn't know history if it bit you in the ass."

It certainly would appear that with regard to history, and plain english, I have a damn sight better understanding of both than you appear to display:

1. The State of Israel was created and set up by the United States of America - historical fact according to SRS

2. The State of Iran was created in the aftermath of World War I by Britain and other european nations - historical fact according to SRS

I could go on but no doubt people with any real knowledge will get the picture. By the bye, I was not aware of the fact that I had "justified" colonisation.

"Excuse me, Teribus, but do you understand that the term "colonization" applies to more nations than the United Kingdom? And that there was more than military action involved in "successfully" colonizing other nations? No, apparently you don't."

In my response I specifically mentioned the fact that - as you put it above - "that there was more than military action involved in "successfully" colonizing other nations". So please forgive me for not being able to follow the logic of the point you are attempting to make - as it (logic) appears to be non-existent.

So far in this thread you have come out with some totally outrageous statements, delivered in such a manner as to be accepted as fact, and you have been pulled up on them in detail, by myself, and others, who have specifically challenged your assertions. Not once have you actually come back with any counter arguement or facts to back up your contentions - not once. What do we get in its stead:

"I get it! Karl Rove has taken over Two Bears' house and is logging on with his Mudcat cookie."

"Ah, Teribus, I know I'm on the right track if you crawl out of the woodwork with your garbled logic. It's a litmus test of sorts here at the Mudcat."

Oh, of course, you consider dueling with unarmed rivals unethical. Och, well chum, your limited understanding of history, you have more than adequately demonstrated yourself. As for your ability to understand "sophisticated concepts" and to discuss them in any form of meaninful dialogue. The two examples I have quoted above IMO clearly mark your ticket. Like I said before - just keep trotting out that "hyped-up" rhetoric that happens to fall in with whatever the trendy left currently regard as being "cool" and "correct", then at least amongst those who agree with you, you can demonstrate your deep understanding of history and be able to grasp all those sophisticated concepts while you are engaged in all that meaningful dialogue. But whatever you do, don't get into a proper discussion, or debate - You'll lose hands down.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 11:30 AM

I would suggest to you, Teribus, that you are really splitting hairs. India not colonized by the British? Subjugated, yes; culturally overwhelmed, sure; forced into organizational forms exported from the Home Office, check; educationally made into surrogates of the Victorian School System, roger that. But not colonized.

Give me a break here. We are talking about the oppressive exportation of a dominating world-view, including methodologies and beliefs and language. It doesn't matter a rat's tailbone whether we are talking about Dominions, Colonies, Crown Territories, Crown Dependencies or Protectorates, you are still looking at the overwhelm and domination of other nations and tribes and peoples, and the forced export of economic and cultural beliefs and practices.

Not that all of that was bad -- for one thing it provided a planetary commercial language. Could be a lot worse. But don't get into any of those tiresome Anglo quibbles, okay?

A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:05 PM

Amos,

Definitely not splitting hairs. You further reinforce my beliefs regarding all those popular misconceptions so dearly held by our American cousins.

India subjugated? Hardly, the rulers of the independent Indian states were left in place, their system of laws and their religions were left intact. We did introduce railroads and cricket. We did establish a means by which the entire country (a loose confederation of different states) could be administered and in doing so we increased trade and prosperity and mitigated the effects of drought and famine. Did we profit from it, damn right that after all was why we were there. Oh, yes, we taught them to play cricket - oh yes, subjugation, I see what you mean - but they in turn taught us to play polo.

India culturally overwhelmed? - You have got to be joking right? - Have you ever been to India Amos? Walk down any street, in any city, or town, in India - what music do you hear Amos? Same city or town Amos, see many corner pubs called the Rose & Crown, the Royal Oak, the Red Lion, or fish and chip shops in India Amos? On the other hand, in the UK, Amos, do you see many Indian Resturaunts?. Let's keep walking down this typically "culturally overwhelmed" Indian street Amos, what are the people wearing? "Culturally overwhelmed" you say Amos, what are their LANGUAGES Amos, how diverse?

Dominion Status - granted to India fairly early on - self governing, ask your Canadian neighbours.

Colony - direct rule and administration from the UK, involved the deliberate and permanent settling of British subjects in that territory.

Crown Territories - Land or a settlement ceded to the British Crown by Treaty.

Crown Dependencies - Land or settlement that relied on the British Government either economically or for protection

Protectorates - Independent States that voluntarily put themselves under the protection of the British.

No Amos, it does matter a rat's tailbone whether we are talking about Dominions, Colonies, Crown Territories, Crown Dependencies or Protectorates.

If you do want to take a look at the difference, have a look at the differences that exist in the comparison between two sets of Pacific Islands Hawaii compared to Fiji. The first appropriated and colonised by America, the other ceded to Britain. How much of the native culture survived in Hawaii? - They've had to fight like hell, first to preserve it, then to re-introduce it. In Fiji, the British "colonial" power prohibited the sale of land held by native Fijians and even given the activities of the church missionaries, which eradicated cannabalism and inter tribal warfare, a massive amount of their native language, culture and customs survived from 1876 to independence in 1970.

When you describe the overwhelm and domination of other nations and tribes and peoples, and the forced export of economic and cultural beliefs and practices. You describe Hawaii a damn sight more so than Fiji.

Was it all sweetness and light - hell no, but nothing ever is, is it?

Were mistakes, miscalculations, errors and total fuck-ups made - Of course they were, they happen all the time irrespective of who rules or governs, history's littered with examples. But don't for one bloody minute try and tell me it was all unremitting oppression, misery and subjugation. The second largest international organisation after the United Nations, is the Commonwealth. Must have been real hell in order that that particular organisation exists from the time of Cromwell to this day. Tiresome Anglo quibbles, my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 01:46 PM

India subjugated? Hardly, the rulers of the independent Indian states were left in place, their system of laws and their religions were left intact.

I've demonstrated before, T., that I am open to being informed of things about which I have been ignorant. But I suspect on this issue, you should see what Mahatma Gandhi and his associates have to say on the question. I seem to recall Kipling having a few odd remarks to make about subjugation, also. If I had time I would immediate embark on a detailed study of English politics during the Raj, but I do not, so I am limited in what I can contribute to the dialogue.


A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jun 04 - 02:23 PM

There were a few tiny little principality-type duchys left in place around India prior to 1947. I think it suited to British Raj to have a few pseudo "equals" in Indian society to mingle with. This was demonstrated in the masterfully researched and written novels referred to as "The Raj Quartet" (The Jewel in the Crown) by Paul Scott. It was dramatized many years ago. But don't mistake those little blips on the chart for some kind of legitimate home rule. They stayed in place solely at the pleasure of the British.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:38 AM

SRS,

Why do you insist on tying my political opinions to the quality of my poetry?

Do you really have no way to refute my comments by reason or fact?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 05:25 AM

I noticed that you ducked the questions I asked you - not surprised at that in the least.

Not surprising Teribus.

SRS reminds me of a lawyer.

Attack the facts. If the facts are not in dispute; attack the law. If the facts and law can not be disputed; attack the witness.

SRS is using the premise "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up."

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 05:28 AM

"I'm really sorry for you, that you just don't get it. And you still probably won't get it after reading this analysis and those that will no doubt follow. "

Some people will not admite facts are facts if they are hit over the jead with them.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 05:37 AM

Teribus, your snide responses don't reveal a knowledge of history and your justification for colonization is absurd. You wouldn't know history if it bit you in the ass. You lump nations I listed but didn't directly associate--have you thought about applying to the White House to work with Karl in this campaign season? We have a true Reagan acolyte here, right on spot with mis-information.

So what? You blindly ignored my 8 years of history that documenyed terrorist history from 1992/2000.

Maybe you should contact Al Franken and work as a researcher on the next edition of "Lies, And The Lying Liars That Tell Them" because you have the same perverted illusion of reality that he does.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 05:44 AM

Why do you insist on tying my political opinions to the quality of my poetry?

I explained it in the message about lawyers.

SRS can not attack the facts so she insists on attacking us any way she can in an attempt to influence the readers to disregard our comments.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 10:37 AM

I don't need to do anything to convince readers to disregard your comments, Two Bears. You do that all by yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 12:15 PM

I don't need to do anything to convince readers to disregard your comments, Two Bears. You do that all by yourself.

Uh huh. If you say so.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 05:23 PM

Previously on another thread our gentle friend two bears said

"Then there is the black bear that you don't know or want to know. It is not a good career move to wake up the black bear because when he loses control; people tend to get hurt. The black bear (the dark side of my nature) left three schoolteachersm and aboout 70 classmates lying in the floor"

So what makes it so important we listen to someone who sounds and appears to act like a (borderline) psychopath by his own admission. Looks like given the chance he would Mr terrorist 2004, or was it just the wrong flavor of jello in the school canteen that day?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 10 Jun 04 - 06:54 PM

"Then there is the black bear that you don't know or want to know. It is not a good career move to wake up the black bear because when he loses control; people tend to get hurt. The black bear (the dark side of my nature) left three schoolteachersm and aboout 70 classmates lying in the floor"

So what makes it so important we listen to someone who sounds and appears to act like a (borderline) psychopath by his own admission. Looks like given the chance he would Mr terrorist 2004, or was it just the wrong flavor of jello in the school canteen that day?

So what. ALL of us have things in our past that we are ashamed of.

If you open your mind and eyes; you will see that I did those things when I was going to school; more than 30 years ago.

At that time I was being beaten with broom handles, an iron poker, being burned with lit cigarettes by my guardians as punishment. At that time of my life; I was a walking/tealking nightmare; who did not care whether he lived or died, and did not give a rat's rear end what I did to anyone or anything else.

That person does not exist any more except in my memory. Now you understand why I became a healer in order to balance the scales for the things I did early in life.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 11 Jun 04 - 12:36 AM

You've been a heel, not a healer on this thread and others, Two Bears. Sounds like you didn't leave that anger behind at all.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jun 04 - 02:16 AM

Just like the guards at Bergen-Belsen are a little ashamed of what they did.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:03 PM

SRS:


waiting for your apologies

Or isn't the UN a reputable enough source for you?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:32 PM

Amos:

"that I am open to being informed of things about which I have been ignorant. "

Unless of course you have already made up your mind.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Strick
Date: 11 Jun 04 - 06:33 PM

"There's at least some evidence that FDR could have prevented 12/6"

So true, Bobert. And considerable evidence he intentionally provoked it, though the smart money says FDR wasn't expecting Pearl Harbor per se, he just underestimated the Japanese and got much more than the much less damaging attack further west he expected.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:08 AM

I've felt for ages that 9 /11 was an inside job.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 03:08 AM

Beardedbruce, you owe us all an apology for trying to insult our intelligence. You post a link to a mouthpiece for the most conservative membership of the republican party and expect us to accept that as news? The guys who are behind Bush and his obscene attack on various nations around the world?

The apple doesn't fall very far from the tree.

A little information about World Tribune.com, the place where you found this bit of "news":

World Tribune.com

Board of Advisors

Arnold Beichman, International Security
Timothy Brown, Latin America
Bill Gertz, U.S. National Security
Thomas Henriksen, Military Affairs
Assad Homayoun, The Persian Gulf
Christopher Holton, U.S. National Security and Economics
Herbert London, Future Studies
Scott McCollum, Technology

Do a smallish search and you find that these guys are all part of the Hoover Institute, a conservative think tank at Stanford U. In case it's too much trouble to go there to look for it, bruce, I'll put the mission statement of the group here for you:

Now more than four decades old, Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution continues to guide and define its mission in the twenty-first century:


"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves.... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."


The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.

Their way of being a "voice of experience against making of war" is a little shakey right now. Their approach seems akin to using dynamite to blow out forest fires, judging from Afghanistan and Iraq.

Hoover Institute Executive Committee:

Executive Committee
W. Kurt Hauser, Chairman
Peter B. Bedford, Vice Chairman
Martin Anderson
Wendy Borcherdt
Paul Lewis Davies III
William C. Edwards
Everett Hauck
Heather Higgins
Herbert Hoover III
Peyton M. Lake
Bowen H. McCoy
Robert J. Rishwain
Richard M. Scaife
Tad Taube
Thomas J. Tierney
David T. Traitel
Walter E. Williams

And surprise, surprise, take a look at the overview of their fellows and who turns up but Dr. Condoleezza Rice (on Leave), along with the late Ronald Reagan. George Schultz and Margaret Thatcher are on the list, along with Pete Wilson and Newt Gingrich to name a few.

Bruce, just because you can find something on the Internet doesn't make it TRUE. One must always evaluate the source.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 07:19 AM

I've felt for ages that 9 /11 was an inside job.

So you implying the building moved in front of those jets?

There are cell phone call recordings of the hijacking of the plane that crashed in Pensylvania.

I am speechless at your display of ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 07:26 AM

Beardedbruce, you owe us all an apology for trying to insult our intelligence. You post a link to a mouthpiece for the most conservative membership of the republican party and expect us to accept that as news? The guys who are behind Bush and his obscene attack on various nations around the world?

What intelegence? You have yet to demonstrate any.

Everytime someone points out something to you; you duck the issue, then you label the source a fool and not credible.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 02:38 PM

If the shoe fits. . .

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 04:34 PM

Your all pissing into the wind.
Its too late to apportion blame, or dig up the rights and wrongs from history.
Im afraid Teribus , Two Bears, B Bruce, ect are correct and all you so called lefties are wrong.
The Moslem fundamentalists now see Western capitalist materialism as a threat to their religion, and are prepared to killas many as it takes ,to put a stop to Western "cultural" expansion. This expansion would of course carry within it all the problems of Western "culture",crime, financial fraud,drug addiction, alienation of youth,the use of women and children as sex objects in ponography and advertising,the loss of real status by women ,political cynicism ....the list goes on and on....and before long the historic Islamic culture be no more.
However, at the moment it is the extremists who provide the impetous for action against the West,but if we are not much more cautious in our dealings with the Middle East, the masses will fallin behind their leaders,and by leaders I mean anyone who stands against America.
I dont much care what happens next, but if you are one of those who think this system is worth preserving, you should be scared...VERY SCARED......Ake

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM

SRS.


Why don't you show me that the quotes in the article are not true, instead of the fact that the article comes from a source you do not agree with. I didlike Al-Jazeera- but I do not say that because they say something, it is false- I try to look at WHAT they are saying.

They are from the UN, supposedly- Show me that they were not said, the people quoted deny it, or that there are no such people.

Am I supposed to go through each of the quotes here online, and determine if the publishing source is "pure " enough in its idealogy for you to believe? I would rather try to determine facts, than politcal intent.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:17 PM

Beardedbruce, you don't get it so I won't waste my breath. You go fritter away your time arguing here and there. I made my case. Go do some reading. You're the one who insists on looking at the form, not the content. Well I looked at the content within a deceptive form and you can't recognize what I took pains to point out.

Go write another sonnet.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 04 - 11:59 PM

SRS, you don't get it, but I will try to make it clear to you. Go do some reading. Just because something is in a narrowminded, slanted site does not make it true - OR FALSE.

I can recognize the pains you took to explain that the source did not meet your requirement for ideological purity.

It seems to me that they are almost as bigoted, opinionated, narrowminded, and prejudiced as you have been in your posts here.

And I shall write sonnets whether you give me permission or not.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 02:57 AM

Bruce, I don't give a rat's ass if you write maudlin poetry until the cows come home. Learn some critical thinking skills. Learn some rhetorical concepts that help debates follow a logical path and yet accomodate divergent arguments. If you want to play with the big kids then learn how to play the game. Name calling and dragging the dialog back down to your lowest common denominator intellect restricts the conversation, because you never get the big concepts that are offered in response to the questions you ask. It's as if you have a language translation dictionary--you can ask the question but aren't conversant enough to understand the answers. Now whose fault is that?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:46 AM

SRS:

"Beardedbruce, you owe us all an apology for trying to insult our intelligence. You post a link to a mouthpiece for the most conservative membership of the republican party and expect us to accept that as news? "

I find it difficult to insult your intelligence. You ( collectively) have posted many links to what a reasonable person would consider to be liberal websites, and expect us to accept that as news.


"Bruce, I don't give a rat's ass if you write maudlin poetry until the cows come home"

Sounds like you didn't leave that anger behind at all.


"Name calling and dragging the dialog back down to your lowest common denominator intellect restricts the conversation"

If the shoe fits. . .

You do not seem capable of understanding even the simple terms of the UN resolutions. The items being found were prohibited- that means he should not have had ANY.

You do not accept any information except from sources that agree with your preconcieved notions. In the opinion of any reasonable person, this means you are prejudiced ( you have prejudged the situation).

" because you never get the big concepts that are offered in response to the questions you ask"

No, I think I can safely state that it is YOU that has not gotten the big concepts. EVEN ONE WMD is unacceptable. PERIOD. What 12 cities would you be willing to write off, since you say that 12 missiles are not important?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:54 AM

Bruce, I don't give a rat's ass if you write maudlin poetry until the cows come home. Learn some critical thinking skills. Learn some rhetorical concepts that help debates follow a logical path and yet accomodate divergent arguments. If you want to play

Why should you ask Bearded Bruce to do something that you will not do yourself.

You make comments that prove you are in error, then you use a pejorative to ridicule the source, then when someone asks you a direct question; you duck it.

You are intelectually dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 03:57 AM

The previous post was edited after 2 AM. Sorry. This is what I meant to say,

Bruce, I don't give a rat's ass if you write maudlin poetry until the cows come home. Learn some critical thinking skills. Learn some rhetorical concepts that help debates follow a logical path and yet accomodate divergent arguments. If you want to play

Why should you ask Bearded Bruce to do something that you will not do yourself.

When people make comments that prove you are in error, then you use a pejorative to ridicule the source, then when someone asks you a direct question; you duck it.

You are intelectually dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 04:04 AM

No, I think I can safely state that it is YOU that has not gotten the big concepts. EVEN ONE WMD is unacceptable. PERIOD. What 12 cities would you be willing to write off, since you say that 12 missiles are not important?

Hear Hear. I agree completely.

At one time Iraq has tons of VX gas, and Anthrax (both are WMDS)

They found a shell WITH Sarin (another WMD), and they found hundreds of other similar shells that could be loaded with liquid weapons.

How many missles were found and destroyed because they had a larger range than accepted by the U.N. resolutions.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 08:22 AM

One leftover shell containing Sarin is not the picture that was established concerning the Iraq WMD threat. Come on, now. Surely you can see the difference. 12 cities in the US endangered by one shell containing Sarin? I don't think so. There's no sense posturing and pounding chests, fellas.

A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 10:50 AM

One leftover shell containing Sarin is not the picture that was established concerning the Iraq WMD threat. Come on, now. Surely you can see the difference. 12 cities in the US endangered by one shell containing Sarin? I don't think so. There's no sense posturing and pounding chests, fellas.

Excuer me Amos. The shells are not filled UNTIL they are ready to be used because if they fill the shells, and these shells are broken by a bomb or missle; the sarin could kill their own troups. The army found HUNDREDS of expty shells, and for people like you that was not a threat, they found one that has been filled, and that is still not enough to be a threat.

Saddam Hussein was not supposed to have ANY sarin.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:46 AM

Those shells wouldn't reach much beyond Iraq's borders. Two Bears, you're grasping at straws. Get over the idea that Bush had a legitimate reason for invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. troops and civilian contractors in the process. Twelve does not an arsenal make.

When one doesn't have any substance with which to support one's argument, remarks like you and Bruce have been posting lately are the result. You two are making ad hominem attacks instead of positing actual useful theories about which to debate. You're so busy attacking the messenger that you don't understand the message. If I express exasperation at reading one more of bruce's maundering whining complaints, you can take it as that, not as a global form of anger.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 09:35 PM

Those shells wouldn't reach much beyond Iraq's borders. Two Bears, you're grasping at straws. Get over the idea that Bush had a legitimate reason for invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. troops and civilian contractors in the process. Twelve does not an arsenal make.

Why can't you understand that Iraq was NOT supposed to have ANY WMDs?

You are hopeless. You don't even know the definition of arsenal



An arsenal is NOT the weapons. An arsenal is where the weapons are kept.

When one doesn't have any substance with which to support one's argument, remarks like you and Bruce have been posting lately are the result. You two are making ad hominem attacks instead of positing

You are the only one that is attacking people's integrity, and reducing yourself to namecalling others. If the show fits. Wear it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:03 PM

SRS:

I could not have said it better: "You're so busy attacking the messenger that you don't understand the message."

"Get over the idea that Bush had a legitimate reason for invading Iraq and killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of U.S. troops and civilian contractors in the process"

THAT is the point under discussion. What you just said was to assume that you are always right, regardless of facts. I fail to see any supporting evidence for your "maundering whining complaints"

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:41 PM

Bruce, I admit to shooting a few fish in the barrel. But you and Two Bares are just too easy as targets and it gets boring in a hurry. The difference between our contributions is that I've made contributions to the substance of the discussion while you two are busy with your one-upmanship in the name-calling department.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 Jun 04 - 11:52 PM

SRS:

"The difference between our contributions is that I've made contributions to the substance of the discussion "

Your contributions have in general been ones of unsubstantiated allagations, and "one-upmanship in the name-calling department."

You never answered my question:

Why do you insist on tying my political opinions to the quality of my poetry?

Do you really have no way to refute my comments by reason or fact?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:21 AM

Beardedbruce, there is simply no answer for the gibberish you post in the form of "argument." You dredge up old unsubstantiated stories, mix and match your weapons of mass distruction and the wars in which they played roles, then you jab your finger in people's faces and whine, nay, harangue us to "argue with me like I know what I'm talking about."

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone willing to dance around with your men of straw any more. Why do I associate your poetry with your misunderstanding of basic principles of rhetoric? I'll give you another old article to look up by way of illustration.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 01:39 AM

SRS,

I have to assume that from your last post you concede that you have no facts to back up any of your assertions, and that you admit that my comments reflect reality far more than your illusions.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:06 AM

Where's el ted when needed - 100 up

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 03:20 PM

You can "assume" anything you want to, Beardedbruce, and usually do. Invariably you're wrong. But what you SHOULD be noticing is the extreme exasperation you generate among others. When people are having a legitimate discussion, partisan or not, and you come along with your ill-researched inflamatory remarks and wedge yourself into the conversation, you take it down to a different level. You can't take a hint. People have tried to suggest strategies for checking your sources and you go staggering off through some Google backwater and come up with old discredited news and wave it triumphantly as "proof" and validation of your righteous position.

Most Mudcatters who have much history here (with only a few notable exceptions) have talked their way through issues and along the way have asked questions, apologized, offered mea culpas, explained their reasoning and even explained what it was that caused them to change their mind. Or they've had the patience to explain their position when challenged on it. They thank people, they examine the nuances involved in the given topic, they offer citations (those are the authoritative sources we link to where one can read more about a subject). There are plenty of people here who "agree to disagree." They can state their positions lucidly and have the agility of mind to stay up to date with what their particular position is.

I don't know why you suddenly started the huge volume of Mudcat posts a few weeks ago after coasting along for more than a year, but maybe something in your non-Mudcat life needs to be addressed--perhaps you're sublimating here at Mudcat. I read the increasingly angry and strident posts from you as a cry for help, but I doubt that Mudcat has the answer you need.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:27 PM

SRS...I disagree strongly with B Bruce on most threads he has posted to,but I would suggest the it is you who is becoming increasingly strident and angry on this one.
Although I disagree with BB ,I have never found his remarks offensive, and I think that inferring he suffers psychological problems,is despicable.
Personal attacks do nothing fo good debate ...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 05:59 PM

I've got an idea.

Why don't you folks get your heads out of your asses and go do something useful? If you want to change the conditions of the world you live in, you're not going to do it sitting on your behind griping and pointing fingers at each other in an Internet forum. Exercise your right to write to your elected officials instead. Talk to people who can actually DO something. Don't just sit here and let off steam so you can pretend you're making a difference.

If you truly want to make a difference, then go out and MAKE one. Stop wasting time.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: akenaton
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 06:12 PM

Casual O.....Do you really think writing to the politicians can change anything?
The people who write here do it for many reasons,but changing the world is not one of them.
Most of us do it for the comfort of touching other human beings,or to feel the warmth of others approval. Were a sad lot ,but we could have worse ways of filling our time.
However ,I feel we needs to avoid personal attacks ,if this forum has to have any value...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jun 04 - 10:07 PM

Akenatan, you rarely read my posts in the tone in which I intended them. That wasn't a personal attack, that was an observation. I didn't suggest the nature of the trouble leading to the intensity being poured into posts. There was nothing aetiological about what I said. If you read it in a snotty tone then that is your business and says more about you than about me. This one isn't written that way either, but your reading is your business.

I decided not to write backchannel but to simply suggest here, where the folks who read this thread will eventually end up, that the tone is so nasty as to be destructive and the the origins may have a pathology that extends beyond Mudcat. And it has been so prevalent as to be unhealthy. I'm leaving this out in the open, where hopefully calmer heads will eventually prevail. Frankly, I don't wish to start a private dialog with some of the argumentative individuals who have visited here recently. On most other threads I have been avoiding Beardedbruces posts, and intend to do so everywhere from now on. Reciprocity would be appreciated.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,Casual Observer
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 09:50 AM

Ake - some elected officials really do care about their offices, and will listen to people. Unfortunately they don't usually stay in office very long.

If people don't want to change the world, or at least the conditions in which they live, then why waste time complaining about it?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: akenaton
Date: 15 Jun 04 - 04:26 PM

Casual Observer...All my life I have fretted about inequality,and have tried in my own small way to make a difference,but I have long ago come to the conclusion that a better life for all involves the complete destruction of the Capitalist system. I know this sounds cliched nowadays,and socialists feel they can change the system from within, but they are fooling themselves,and are in fact helping to keep Capitalism rolling along.
To my mind we need a clean slate,and a new spiritual view of nature.
At the moment humans use and abuse nature for their own selfish ends,it should be exactly the reverse,with humans serving and nurturing nature as a precious gift.
Hense any tinkering with forms of govt or econonomic systems will be ineffectual.
As I said earlier this forum is a comfortable place to exchange views,and maybe alter a couple of opinions,were all too old to change the world....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:08 AM

Bruce, I admit to shooting a few fish in the barrel. But you and Two Bares are just too easy as targets and it gets boring in a hurry. The difference between our contributions is that I've made contributions to the substance of the discussion while you two are busy with your one-upmanship in the name-calling department.

SRS:

If you honestly believe that BE MY GUEST. Unlike you; most of us really have to work for a living.

Furthermore; "There are only two opinions that matter to me; and NEITHER of them is YOURS!"

SRS; your side of the issue is so weak it can not withstand debate. If it were; you would stop ducking the issue so often.

SRS: are you aware that Teresa Heinz-Kerry is partially funding a website that praises Hezbollah terrorists (terrorists that blow themself up in attempt to kill inocent Israeli and American civilians).

This story has been reported in Women's enews.org, opinion journal.com and newsmax.com.

I know; I know. ALL OF THOSE SOURSES HAVE RADICAL RIGHT WING AGENDAS, AND NOT WORTHY OF LISTENING TO.

SRS you have my pity.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:16 AM

Bruce, I admit to shooting a few fish in the barrel. But you and Two Bares are just too easy as targets and it gets boring in a

SRS:

Maybe you are right. I do miss things some times. In fact; I did not notice your insult toward me the first time.

If you want to continue to insult me by intentionaly misspelling my name. I don't care; because the insult says nothing about me; but it speaks volumes about your integrity or lack thereof.

Have a GRRRRRREAT day!

Two Bears

T-W-O---B-E-A-R-S

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:21 AM

Beardedbruce, there is simply no answer for the gibberish you post in the form of "argument." You dredge up old unsubstantiated stories, mix and match your weapons of mass distruction and the wars in which they played roles, then you

SRS If you consider the material gibberish; then post facts that refute the gibberish. But no; you just duck the issue and run away.

Do you honestly think that activity makes your side of the debate appear stronger?

Two Bears

T-W-O---B-E-A-R-S

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:37 AM

Why don't you folks get your heads out of your asses and go do something useful? If you want to change the conditions of the world you live in, you're not going to do it sitting on your behind griping and pointing fingers at each other in an Internet forum. Exercise your right to write to your elected officials instead. Talk to people who can actually DO something. Don't just sit here and let off steam so you can pretend you're making a difference

Observer:

You may believe anything you like; but I DO make a difference.

I am a productive member of society.

I have a job.

I have received the title "Master" eight times. 5 forms of Reiki, two forms of Seichim, and Zhan Zhuang Qigong.

I am an energy healer, and have witnessed MANY miracles happen under my hands.

    The miracles happened under my hands; but I am not responsible
    for them. The higher powers ('Aumakua, Po'e 'Aumakua. Akua. and
    Creator.) are responsible for the healings.

I have taught more than 1,250 people to become energy healers themself.

I worked for 6 years in the field of Computer Anti-Virus research. My security program CHK-SAFE is still abailable on the Simtel mirrors CS-251.ZIP.

You may find the preliminary analysis reports I wrote about viruses I discovered in the wild, and selected a scan string so users could protect their systems.

In Volume 6 issue 100 of the virus-L digest; I released a technology to detect undetectable viruses by detecting the change the viruses made when they infected other boot sectors, Master Boot Records, and computer programs.

What have you done to improve the condition of the world around you?

Two Bears.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:44 AM

Akenatan, you rarely read my posts in the tone in which I intended them. That wasn't a personal attack, that was an observation. I didn't suggest the nature of the trouble leading to the intensity being poured into posts. There was nothing

It make no difference how you intended thise remarks; there is NO EXCUSE for that level of disapproval.

In my opinion; you are not in pono.

pono: goodness, morality, moral qualities, correct or proper procedure, excellence, well being, etc.

Two Bears

T-W-O---B-E-A-R-S

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 10:52 AM

SRS:

"asked questions, apologized, offered mea culpas, explained their reasoning and even explained what it was that caused them to change their mind. Or they've had the patience to explain their position when challenged on it. They thank people, they examine the nuances involved in the given topic, they offer citations (those are the authoritative sources we link to where one can read more about a subject). "


If you bothered reading my posts instead of attacking me personaly, you might find that I have done the above- Just because you do not like the position I am taking, and feel that any source that I find must be wrong, without any examination of the facts, does not mean that I have not explained my reasoning. When you bother to present facts to back up your assertions, or to negate mine, I listen: This has rarely occurred, as you insist that YOU have some god-given line to the truth, and everyone else must be wrong.

I had thought that free speech meant that even those you disagrre with had the right to present their views. Pardon me if I am wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:03 AM

Two Bares and Baredbruce, you two guys need to get a life. Learn to read, get real jobs, stop badgering everyone you disagree with. Learn what ad hominem means (and for your flavor of attack, "Ad hominem tu quoque," drop to the bottom of the page linked) and then stop doing it. I'm not posting here any more, you're wasting everyone's time with the nonsense you're generating. I didn't bother to read your posts, just dropped to the bottom of the thread to add this. So if you keep it up and send more insults you're doing it just to hear your own lips flapping in the wind.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:08 AM

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man"), is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

A makes claim B;
there is something objectionable about A,
therefore claim B is false.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:23 AM

Two Bares and Baredbruce, you two guys need to get a life. Learn to read, get real jobs, stop badgering everyone you disagree with. Learn

Thank you for your concern.

it. I'm not posting here any more, you're wasting everyone's time

That is your choice.

So if you keep it up and send more insults

I am neither insulting or attacking. Just demonstrating your lack of understanding.

Unlike you I AM in pono. If I were out of pono; my healings would be completely ineffectual;wasting everyone's time.

Everyone at the HUNA workshop in Atlanta last November witnessed four miracles happen in one day!

I will give you just one miracle that happened that day.

Joy H. She appeared to be about 75 years old when I explained this spiritual technology. During the the first break; she asked me to do a healing for her foot. so I willingly complied. At first nothing happened because her subconscious mind (Unihipili) believed she deserved to be in poor health; so I asked her what the injury was preventing her from doing. She reluctantly admitted that she enjoyed dancing; so I changed the prayer picture from her walking pain free to dancing. About 30 seconds later; she smiled, and said "Two Bears; I don't know what happened; but something shidted back in place. Then she walked around for the rest of the day free of pain. After the complete healing session; she appeared 20 years younger.

How many miracles have you observed in your life?

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:40 AM

Two bears, I heard recreational drugs were getting stronger these days but I never realised how strong until I read your posts here.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Amos
Date: 16 Jun 04 - 11:59 AM

Guest, your remarks are both unkind and inaccurate. I am sure that Two Bears did exactly the healing he described.

I think everyone should do some deep breathing and time-outs, and recall their basic affinity for thier fellow humans.

A

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 05:00 PM

Two bears, I heard recreational drugs were getting stronger these days but I never realised how strong until I read your posts here.

Guest: If you knew ANYTHING about me; you would not saw something so stupid.

I have published the URL for my Website MANY times. On said website http://www.geocities.com/huna101; average users like you have went on the record to state their personal experiences in my HUNA 101, AND other things they have stated in my guestbook.

So you are saying that I, and ALL of those people are victims of recreational drug use?

-----

For you information; I have NEVER used ANY recreational drugs, and in about 25 reviews of Shamanic books; I have stated that it is NOT necessary to use ANY drug (such as Peyote, Datura, Hayascua, etc).

I go further to state if a shaman has to be under the influence to do the job of a Shaman; then that person is not much of a shaman. When one is under the influence; the Shaman loses all control of the experience. Sometimes the Shaman has to be the 800 pount gorilla and tell the spirits where to get off when they are pety and cruel.

ALL of that material is public record. Go to Amazon.com and read my 200+ reviews (I am a top 500 reviewer) My Amazon.com ID is Two_Bears.

Two Bears

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 17 Jun 04 - 05:11 PM

Guest, your remarks are both unkind and inaccurate. I am sure that Two Bears did exactly the healing he described.

Thank you for the kind words Amos; my brother

I think everyone should do some deep breathing and time-outs, and recall their basic affinity for thier fellow humans.

Quite right. Deep breathing is a good first step because this builds an energy surcharge in the body. Chinese people called this energy ch'i or Qi. Hawai'ian people called this energy mana, Pueblo Indians called this energy Itaki, Osage indians called this energy Manitou, Japanese people called this energy Ki, People from India and Tibet called this energy prana.

I have been doing energy work since 1973 when I learned Qigong, then I studied Kiatsu, five forms of Reiki, two forms of Seichim, Hawai'ian mysticism, Therapeutic Touch, a bit of accupuncture, and others.

I never witnessed real miracles happen until I began studying Hawai'ian mysticism five years ago.

I will borrow a quote from the author Dannion Brinkley. "You are mighty spiritual beings."

Even the young carpenter called the pharisees "gods" in John 10:34-39.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 05:14 AM

The news available to us in the UK does make the Bush administration sound rather bad in light of the first wave on conclusions from the 9/11 committee. Then to have the President comming back with yes there are connections basicly because I say so seemed to be a bit of grasping at straws.
The TV pundits keep going on about the damage this will do to his chances of re-election, Do those over the pond agree or is it being glossed over?

Cheers

Sledge

ps maybe those with an interest in the disciplines that two bears advocates could kick off a new spirituality thread. Sorry about the use of the football related wording, its that time of the year :-)

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 07:50 AM

Sledge:

There WERE links between Iraq and terrorism.

Sadam Hussein sent $25,000 to every family of Palestinian homicide bombers that blew themself up in attempts to kill Jews in Israel.

Terrorist Abu Abbas was found living it up in Iraq.

Terrorist Abu Nidal (Of the Achille Lauro fame) died in Iraq.

The troups found a Hammas terrorist training camp with literature AND suicide belts INSIDE Iraq.

There were links between Iraq AND Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda hijacker Mohammed Atta met with an Iraqi politician a few months before 9/11

There was an Al Qaeda terrorist training base in Salmon Pak WITH the fuselage of a Boeing 727 jet where Al Qaeda trained hijackers.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 08:27 AM

OK, I guess with the news being quite voluable on the subject I should have thought my point was quite easy to pick up on, for those who need it a bit simpler, here we go.

The 9/11 committee is stating there was no credible link between Iraq and the events of 9/11, how does this look like affecting GWB in the eyes if US residents, after all you folks are the only ones who get to vote him in or out of office.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 09:36 AM

Well, 2-B's... I am concerned that you, as well as the BUsh folks, seem to have a much different view of the 9/11 Comminssion. Where they, according to members own words on the radio over the last 24 hours say there is no link between Iraq and 9/11, you continue twist words to makes folks think there was. Well, as far as I can see, it's no more helpful than arguing over how many angels can dance on the endof a pin and, truth be klnown, very harmful.

Why?

Well, I'll tell you why. Here the US is trying to figure out ways to not have another 9/11. There are a set of consatnt truths and a set of un-truths. If the un-truths overtake the truths than the chances for success are diminished. By continuing to pump life into an untruths, while trying to put into motion a number of policy changes directed at making the US more secure, there can be nuthing but somewhat flawed policy.

The sad thing is that the longer that you, and the Bush folks continue to hold up lies as facts, the less safe we are...

I'm not sure how we got to such a rediculuos place in our evoultion but one thing is for sure, it's not healthy for the US. What we desperatly need is more dialogue and a willingness to accept facts. Instead, we have a system of rulers rather than governors who put their own interests in power ahead of of the good of the country..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 01:10 PM

no credible link between Iraq and the events of 9/11

There are no credible links that Iraq helped plan or carry out the specific attacks on 9/11.

But there ARE plenty of links between Iraq and terrorism in general, and with Al Qaeda in particular (They had Al Qaeda terrorists in country, they allowed them to train at Salman Pak, and Sadam Hussein funded terrorists of many different groups.

The problem is that you and the media ignore the plethora of evidence, then take one sentence of the report out of context to persuade the people that Iraq is blameless.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 01:15 PM

present report on radio is that Putin gave Russian intelligence showing that Iraq was planning terrorist activity against US interests both in the US and abroad, AFTER 9/11. Breaking news, so no documentation at this time ( have not had a chance to find it...)


ah, here it is...
CNN report...

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 01:16 PM

Well, 2-B's... I am concerned that you, as well as the BUsh folks, seem to have a much different view of the 9/11 Comminssion. Where they, according to members own words on the radio over the last 24 hours say there is no link between Iraq and 9/11, you continue twist words to makes folks think there was.

The newsmedia took one sentence from the report and using this quote out of context to shape public opinion.

I have put the data on the table. With a little research; you could learn the truth instead of continuing to swallow the lie distributed by the news media as propoganda.

If you refuse to educate yourself; that is not my fault.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 18 Jun 04 - 02:24 PM

I guess I must be speaking in tongues, I am trying to deal with 9/11, thats the title of this thread or am I wrong on that as well. The bit about 9/11 may only be one part of the report but is sure is one improtant part surely, they are the 9/11 commission after all or have the media misled me on that as well.

9/11 being the biggest terrorist event on record, I would rather deal with it first, make sure I understand it, then go on to other matters, if you wish to keep throwing up other information then please start another thread so that I don't have to trawl through your tirade to find something of relevence to the matter in hand.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 12:01 AM

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 12:55 AM

Sledge, others have tried before you.

I have put the data on the table. With a little research; you could learn the truth instead of continuing to swallow the lie distributed by the news media as propoganda.

Plenty of research and well-reasoned logic has been put before these two, but they don't want to be confused by the facts. Don't waste your breath, Sledge. Rest assured it's clear to everyone else that BUSH LIED. Simple as that.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 01:48 AM

Plenty of research and well-reasoned logic has been put before these two, but they don't want to be confused by the facts. Don't waste your breath, Sledge. Rest assured it's clear to everyone else that BUSH LIED. Simple as that.

I guess that is a difference between someone that illogicaly hates G.W. Bush, and another person that approaches the problem logically and rationally.

The liberals hate Bush. the Republicans LOVE Bush. I don't like Bush because he is spineless and will go along with the Democrats to get along.

GWB signed Campaign Finance Reform AFTER he promised to veto it. This is anti constitutional.

GWB signed Patrion Act 1 and 2. Both are anti-constitutional.

GWB calls himself a "compassionate conservative" but keeps signing bills giving the Democrats EVERYTHING they want.

About the ONLY reason I respect G.W. Bush is that he understands the nature of the evil the world faces today; the extremist muslim terrorists

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 19 Jun 04 - 07:26 AM

Two bears,

Is that because other terrorists don't affect the USA so much, surely all terrorism is evil.

I grew up in the Uk in the 70's and 80's as did many other mudcatters I think, it was a day to day fact of life that we were at risk of IRA car/nail bombs, those in Belfast even more so, shootings were a sickenly regular feature of the news. And where did the money come from to buy the bombs, bullets and guns, in the main from good old fashioned crime, but a significant amount came from US private citizens, citizens of a country that is now lecturing us all on the evils of terrorism, the real IRA is estimated to have collected around $500K in 2000 alone, thats a lot of potential pain and misery . Citizens of a country that had and still has allthough under a differnet name, the School of Americas. I was unaware that such a place existed until the day, but a school that advocates, murder, torture, kidnapping, blackmail, sounds like a terrorist training camp to me.

Then theres Noraid, sounds ok providing comfort and assistance to Northern Ireland, but that also sounds like indirectly supporting terrorists to me, making sure there is a cash reserve for their families so the terrorist can concentrate on the business of death and destruction.

Then there is the fact that the IRA had links with other groups around the globe, so any expertise or weapons that came as a result of US funds, was in fact exported terrorism, exported to Spain, the middle east via the plo and Farc in Colombia.

The extremist Muslim threat is a major one, but it is a long way from being the only one, some pretty unpleasent things have happened on your doorstep two bears, some of it (through the government) in your name.

If this offends anyone I am indeed sorry, but being lectured on the way to do things by a country that by our perception, only seems to have woken up to the terrorist threat since 2001 gets my goat.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 12:19 AM

The extremist Muslim threat is a major one, but it is a long way from being the only one, some pretty unpleasent things have happened on your doorstep two bears, some of it (through the government) in your name

Did I say that IRA terrorism was NOT evil?

Any terrorists that intentionaly kills inocent men,women, and children is evil.

Did I say the Muslim extremists were the ONLY threat?

The Muslim extremists are the biggest threat. There are 5 or more terrorist groups, and these groups are in Palestine, the U.S. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Maylaysia, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:10 AM

... But there ARE plenty of links between Iraq and terrorism in general, and with Al Qaeda in particular (They had Al Qaeda terrorists in country, they allowed them to train at Salman Pak, and Sadam Hussein funded terrorists of many different groups...

Twa bears... May I point out that this reasoning is problematic? If you carry this polemic to it's extreme, you may have to conclude the same of the US. Al Qiada terrorists were safely harbored in the United States, and were trained there in flight schools. Does this mean that we must necessarily link them to Bush? I hope not...
ttr

By the way, T.B.s... do you really need to be so rude?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,kiwi guest
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:19 AM

A lot written about terrorists. What's the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 02:59 AM

Kiwi guest, look at pictures of the Omagh bombing in Ireland and read the toll of the killed and maimed, that should answer your question. if it doesn't then you are an imbecile.

Two bears, maybe my comments came out because all we ever seem to hear is the same old "islamic terrorism" record with no consideration of how other peoples have been affected by other terrorism around the globe. Two bears see my comment above, Omagh bombing -Real IRA- serious US funding-US is I assume YOUR home.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 04 - 09:53 PM

I fail to see how the killing of women and kids is freedom fighting. That help you out, kiwi?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 12:33 AM

Twa bears... May I point out that this reasoning is problematic? If you carry this polemic to it's extreme, you may have to conclude the same of the US. Al Qiada terrorists were safely harbored in the United States, and were trained there in flight schools. Does this mean that we must necessarily link them to Bush? I hope not...

They WERE in the U.S. while they were in flight schools; but they were not being supported by the U.S. They WERE being supported by Saddam Hussein, and the government of Iraq.

By the way, T.B.s... do you really need to be so rude?

I am not being rude. You do not live it when I point out the facts, and assume I am being rude.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 12:44 AM

A lot written about terrorists. What's the difference between terrorists and freedom fighters?

That is a great question Kiwi.

When the Islamic extremists were attacking the U.S. Embassies, the pentagon, etc; then they COULD have been considered freedom fighters as long as they were attacking legitimate military targets.

When Al Qaeda began attacking the Bali night club, the Spain train station, the two attacks on the World Trade center, and OTHER attacks on inocent civilians; then Al Qaeda. Hammas, Hezbullah, Alaxa Martyrs Brigade, etc attacking inocent civilians in Israel, Al Qaeda beheading four Americans, etc; then they are not worthy of the label "Freedom Fighters". They become nothing but murdering terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 01:54 AM

Yeah, right T.B.s... like I can't tell the difference between facts and rudeness... Your facts are slanted (duh... no brainer) but I appreciate them as such. However... your "I'm one mean sob" approach is just plain arrogance, IMNSHO... and I don't appreciate that.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 03:17 AM

Yeah, right T.B.s... like I can't tell the difference between facts and rudeness... Your facts are slanted (duh... no brainer) but I appreciate them as such. However... your "I'm one mean sob" approach is just plain arrogance, IMNSHO... and I don't appreciate that.

If the facts I state are not true; then they are not facts. They can not be slanted one way or the other.

The way that I state facts that dispute your political agenda, and I am not appologetic for stating them; that is YOUR problem not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: TIA
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 06:47 AM

Two Bears, you said - "I have put the data on the table. With a little research; you could learn the truth instead of continuing to swallow the lie distributed by the news media as propoganda"

You make assertions that fly in the face of exhaustive research by those who actually have access to the data. Example:

"They (9/11 terrorists) WERE being supported by Saddam Hussein, and the government of Iraq."

This has been shown to be completely untrue. Your facts ain't facts.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 21 Jun 04 - 10:33 AM

Exchange of information and opinion is what I look for in political forums. But all too often, a blustering fact mincer like yourself, T.B., comes on to the scene with alot of posturing and bully tactics. The facts are cool, but that doesnt make you less of an ass. Like Clinton said, it's just one bogus phoney deal.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:06 AM

"They (9/11 terrorists) WERE being supported by Saddam Hussein, and the government of Iraq."

It is FACT that Hussein permitted terrorist groups Hammas and Al Qaeda to have terrorist training camps inside Iraq.

It is FACT that Hussein supported terrorists by sending $25,000 to the families of the Palestinian homicide bombers.

It is FACT that the Al Qaeda base in Salmon Pak had the fuselage of a jet where hijackers were trained to hijack jet planes

Fact since Al Qaeda had the training base INSIDE Iraq; they were being supported by Saddam Hussein.

There are MANY different kinds of support, financial, planning; we do not have proof that Hussein offered that support; but Hussein DID support the terrorists by allowing them to set up training camps inside the country of Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:09 AM

Exchange of information and opinion is what I look for in political forums. But all too often, a blustering fact mincer like yourself, T.B., comes on to the scene with alot of posturing and bully tactics. The facts are cool, but that doesnt make you less of an ass. Like Clinton said, it's just one bogus phoney deal

Thomas; it's interesting. You reduce yourself to name calling and personal attacks.

call me anything you want. I don't care

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 02:43 AM

But is there any evidence that "they (9/11 terrorists)" ever set foot in Iraq or were trained there? any chance of a yes or no on this one!

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 03:03 AM

Lifted from the Financial Times website.

The bi-partisan commission investigating the September 11 attacks has asked the White House to produce any evidence of a relationship between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, after Dick Cheney, US vice-president, criticised a report that concluded there were no substantive links.

The 9/11 commission last week said it had found no evidence that Iraq had collaborated with the terrorist network, undermining one administration argument justifying the invasion.

In March President George W. Bush was forced to concede publicly that the White House had no evidence that Mr Hussein played any role in the September 11 attacks. His remarks came just days after Mr Cheney had said that the administration did not know whether the Iraqi leader was involved.

But the administration has continued to insist that Mr Hussein had in the past collaborated with the extremist group.

The commission, which is expected to release its final report into the attacks next month, said that although Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda chief, appeared to have asked Iraq for help in obtaining weapons in 1994, Mr Hussein's regime never responded.

Separately on Sunday, John Lehman, another member of the 9/11 panel, said evidence had emerged that a "prominent" al-Qaeda member served in Mr Hussein's military. He said the evidence became available after the completion of the interim report.

Following the release of the interim report, Mr Cheney argued that Iraq had responded to some of the overtures from al-Qaeda. But Lee Hamilton, the Democrat vice-chairman of the commission, on Sunday said the panel had asked Mr Cheney to produce any evidence to support that claim.

"The vice-president said there was a response by Iraq to some of Osama bin Laden's requests," Mr Hamilton said on ABC. "We found no evidence of that response and so we asked the vice-president if he had information we did not have."

Last week Mr Cheney said he "probably" had evidence that the commission had not obtained, prompting calls from panel members to produce the evidence.

You think that such evidence of collusion between the two, Al Qaeda and Saddam would have been headline material, instead the best we have is that Cheney probably has evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 05:07 AM

sledge - 22 Jun 04 - 03:03 AM

Just an example of how things are reported. From your post the item you pasted from the Financial Times website states:

"In March President George W. Bush was forced to concede publicly that the White House had no evidence that Mr Hussein played any role in the September 11 attacks."

Now the above would tend to indicate that George W Bush was only "forced" to concede this point in March this year.

Colin Powell, on behalf of the current US administration, made a very clear statement within days of the attacks of 9/11, that Al-Qaeda were responsible for those attacks and that there was no evidence of involvement on the part of Iraq, or any othef foreign government.

My question to the author of that article from the Financial Times would be, "How can you be forced into making a statement something that you had clearly made two and a half years ago?"

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 06:46 AM

Terribus, I was using the article to refute some of things that two bears has been beating us over the head with as his posts have an often bullying air to them than is beginning to rankle.

The 9/11 commission has a lot more access to personal statements and documentary evidence that you, two bears or I and this lends more credibilty to their statements in my books than many others, their final conclusions which are meant to be presented soon should clear the air on quite a few things one way or the other. I look forward to it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 06:58 AM

This administration relentlessly repeats untruths in the face of all available evidence. They know that these untruths will be screamed by Limbaugh, Hannity, Scarborough, Fox News, etc. until they become so oft repeated that many poor suckers take them for fact. They know it works. Look above, and you will see that it works. Cheyney doesn't need evidence. He just needs to keep saying it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 22 Jun 04 - 01:13 PM

One thing that strikes me as odd is the Mohammed Atta meeting in Prague, that apparently has been dismissed as never having taken place. The 9/11 Commission's reasons for adopting that view being based on what appears to have been 'misinformation' at the time both Czech and US intelligence services believed that Atta and the Iraqi intelligence officer, he may, or may not have met, were involved in the planning of an attack on a US run radio station in Prague:

<< As the investigation was still in an early stage, the FBI had been asked to keep the identification of Atta secret, but within a week, the Prague connection was leaked to the press—from Washington. On Sept. 18, 2001, the Associated Press reported, "A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States has received information from a foreign intelligence service that Mohamed Atta, a hijacker aboard one of the planes that slammed into the World Trade Center, met earlier this year in Europe with an Iraqi intelligence agent." CBS then reported that Atta had been seen with al-Ani.

In Washington, the FBI moved to quiet the Prague connection by telling journalists that it had car rentals and records that put Atta in Virginia Beach, Va., and Florida close to, if not during, the period when he was supposed to be in Prague. The New York Times, citing information provided by "federal law enforcement officials," reported that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 2, 2001, and by April 11, "Atta was back in Florida, renting a car." Newsweek reported that, "the FBI pointed out Atta was traveling at the time [in early April 2001] between Florida and Virginia Beach, Va.," adding, "The bureau had his rental car and hotel receipts." And intelligence expert James Bamford, after quoting FBI Director Robert Mueller as saying that the FBI "ran down literally hundreds of thousands of leads and checked every record we could get our hands on," reported in USA Today, "The records revealed that Atta was in Virginia Beach during the time he supposedly met the Iraqi in Prague."

All these reports attributed to the FBI were, as it turns out, erroneous. There were no car rental records in Virginia, Florida, or anywhere else in April 2001 for Mohamed Atta, since he had not yet obtained his Florida license. His international license was at his father's home in Cairo, Egypt (where his roommate Marwan al-Shehhi picked it up in late April). Nor were there other records in the hands of the FBI that put Atta in the United States at the time. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in June 2002, "It is possible that Atta traveled under an unknown alias" to "meet with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague." Clearly, it was not beyond the capabilities of the 9/11 hijackers to use aliases.>>

CCTV pictures of Atta at a ATM cash dispenser on the 6th April and cell phone records showing Atta using his cell phone during the period between 6th April and 11th April have been taken, by the 9/11 Commission, as sufficient evidence to back up the statement that Atta was in the US at the time. Now would I be wrong in thinking that just because my mobile phone is in use, it can be proved positively that I am the one using it? Couldn't I have lent it someone with instructions to make calls on my behalf? Anyway seems strange.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 01:18 AM

Terribus, I was using the article to refute some of things that two bears has been beating us over the head with as his posts have an often bullying air to them than is beginning to rankle.

I am not beating anyone over the head with anything.

I am not being a bully. You are free to believe any nitwit thing you wish to believe.

When you and others post drivel; I have the right to post a message to refute your message. If you do not like freedom of speech; deal with it.

The 9/11 commission has a lot more access to personal statements and documentary evidence that you, two bears or I and this lends more credibilty to their statements in my books than many others, their final conclusions which are meant to be presented soon should clear the air on quite a few things one way or the other. I look forward to it.

The problem is that people want to believe the seven second sound byte by the news media rather that doing research to see if the news media is LYING. Well the newsmedia lies a lot of the time. This is why I read press from all over the world on the net, then I listen to news from all over the world via short wave radio.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 10:47 PM

No, my brother, you DO beat people over the head. You cannot stand to have anyone disagree with you. I don't see anyone else posting three or four times in a row in response to every rebuttal. But, as you say, that's free speech. And, as you say, deal with it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Jun 04 - 11:16 PM

What I find strange is that a few months back a poll was taken on how many folks believed in one or more of the *Big Three* (Mushroom clouds, WMD & Iraq/911 Involvement). Now I'm not really big on polls for the most part but the poll found that the majority of people in the US believed at least one of the Big Three, some two and other all three.

Well, where did these folks get these ideas. Three years agop they couldn't have even told you where Iraq was, let alone it's capitol city. But now all of a sudden you have a lot of folks with these opinions? Where did thses opions come from? Hmmmmmm? Dreams? Fortune cookies? Heck no! They came from the Bush PR machine, that's where they came from...

Now, these same folks who spread these falsehoods are draggin' out any loopholes they can find to distant themselves from the very distinct opinions that were created by their initial staements in their selling of the invasion of Iraq?????

Hey, I wouldn't mind the Bush folks if they would just stick to one story but they don't. In order to try to cover up one wrong story they come up with two more, and then two more to cover each of those falsehoods...

These folks are so deep in lies that they no longer are capable of knowing the truth when they see it....

They are making Slick Willie look like a Boy Scout... Now that's purdy bad, real bad come to think of it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 12:18 PM

Those who believe that Saddam was supporting alQuaeda inside the US seem never to mention the fact that Saudi Arabia *was* sending money to them. What's up with that? Being in sympathy with an effort is quite a lot different in degree from actively making it possible.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 10:48 PM

No, my brother, you DO beat people over the head. You cannot stand to have anyone disagree with you. I don't see anyone else posting three or four times in a row in response to every rebuttal. But, as you say, that's free speech. And, as you say, deal with it.

Don't you have the courage of your convictions to post with a real account?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Two_bears
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 11:06 PM

Well, where did these folks get these ideas. Three years agop they couldn't have even told you where Iraq was, let alone it's capitol city. But now all of a sudden you have a lot of folks with these opinions? Where did thses opions come from? Hmmmmmm? Dreams? Fortune cookies? Heck no! They came from the Bush PR machine, that's where they came from...

I have known where Iraq was since the 1960s when I was in grade school.

My opinion that Al Qaeda had a terrist training base in Salman Pak or is it Pac? because I SAW satellite photos of the training base and jet fuselage.

The military found LOTS of empty canisters, and people said "No that is not WMDs.

Someone set a canister to mix the chemicals to create Sarin, and it WAS confirmed to be Sarin; and people are still saying. no that is not WMDs.

Hey, I wouldn't mind the Bush folks if they would just stick to one story but they don't. In order to try to cover up one wrong story they come up with two more, and then two more to cover each of those falsehoods...

In this thread and one or two others; I have said that I do not like Bush because he signs bills he threatens to veto, and he is insistent on Patriot Act 1 and 2 that is weakening the freedoms of the citizens.

I also said that of the 10 people trying to get the presedential nomination of the Democrat party; the only one I could vote for was Joseph Lieberman. Of the choices I had to vote for Bush was tweedle dum, and Kerry Tweedle dumber.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 11:31 PM

Well, with all them fancy italics, 2-B's, it's hard to figure out what is you and what is other folks... but it don't matter.

Ahhhhh, don't you think if the Bush folks could pin Sarin on Saddam, they would? They are desperate for anything. The empty cannisters no more conotes proof of Sarin than a hole in the head conotes intellegence.... You can take it to the bank, given the lies that Bush has told, that they would certainly promote the Sarin findings if these findings had a shread of credibilty.

As for Joe Lieberman, my friend, this guy never met a virtually unarmed and oppressed people not worth killing... Yeah, big and tough guy.....

.....not. A pipsqueek of a bully, as far as I can see.

As for your (I'm guessing because of the italics...) opinion of Kerry and Bush. Yeah, I agree...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 04 - 11:46 PM

Bobert,

Can you please state WHAT you would accept as a WMD, if the hardware and the chemicals are not enought for you to admit that the chemical weapon is there?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,Kiwi guest
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 12:28 AM

Sorry about the delay but from many of you descriptions of terrorists as opposed to freedom fighters, I can only conclude that Bush and his mates are terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,Kiwi Guest
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 01:16 AM

Oh yes I nearly forgot. Going back quite some way.Two Bears, the idea about those moving buildings. I saw that years ago in a Monty Python Trailer film.Interesting, did you see the same film?
Oh yes Sledge the personal attacks, I realise I'm from a foriegn culture, but you don't really know me. I might be quite friendly.
Oh I get it. Soldiers go to foriegn places, meet interesting people and kill them. I suppose I'd better keep my head down.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 02:07 AM

Can you please state WHAT you would accept as a WMD, if the hardware and the chemicals are not enought for you to admit that the chemical weapon is there?

Trace chemicals and disembodied hardware do not amount to weapons of mass destruction. Weapons of mass destruction amount to weapons of mass destruction, mate. So far none of those have turned up, and they aren't likely to.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 02:18 AM

Guest,

So, the US did not use an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Only trace chemicals left after the explosion... and the artillary shells needed only the chemicals put in, which is always done just prior to use.

By the definitions that the UN was using, they WERE WMD, and prohibited to Iraq.

So they have turned up, already.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Metchosin
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 03:24 AM

huh?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 03:34 AM

Bearded Bruce, your use of the many thousands of dead from Hiroshima to make a cheap point shows just how low you are willing to sink.

"So, the US did not use an atomic bomb on Hiroshima? Only trace chemicals left after the explosion" And the piles of charred corpses, the blast victims, the flattened city, the high incidence of radiation related illness at the time and since. Not forgetting the film of the event.

No wonder your posts attract so much hostility.

Sledge

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 03:39 AM

Sledge,

Let me know when you can recognize sarcasm.

My posts attract so much hostility because my facts cannot be disputed. Or would you like to discuss the facts instead of your preconcieved notions of what you want to have happened?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 03:49 AM

Ok, Facts, give us a link to a UN source that states that empty shell casings are an accepted proof of WMD and not just evidence that they MAY at one time have existed and I may be able to take you more seriously.

And before you go to sleep tonight, please say a prayer for the dead of Hiroshima, thanking them for the sacrifce that has allowed you to flex your awsome wit.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 04:13 AM

and was that a personal insult?

My concern about the WMD in Iraq is a desire to prevent anything like Hiroshima happening again. I will be able to live with myself, because I have not stuck my head in the sand and ignored the danger that the Left seems to think will just go away if they pretend it is not there: Will you?

Sorry. under the SRS Rule, I do not need to believe any soucre that I do not already agree with. So you might want to look at the UN resolutions, over 12 years, and see what was prohibited. And then remember that Saddam killed more of his own people than died in Hiroshima. I hope you say a prayer for them.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 12:02 PM

Beardedbruce, I've stayed away from this stupidity for quite a while.

My posts attract so much hostility because my facts cannot be disputed. Or would you like to discuss the facts instead of your preconcieved notions of what you want to have happened?

Your posts attract so much hostility because they're all based on rationalization and sophistry. You're hoping that if this (specious) material is repeated often enough someone will begin to believe it is true. Just like your good buddies in the Bush administration. You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. I'm outa here again--no one who has a healthy respect for intelligent discourse is going to waste much time arguing with you and your pal Two Bears. It becomes clear that you have no capacity for anything but reductive circular arguments, always coming back to your own illogical conclusions as the "proof" that you were right to begin with.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 04:45 PM

Well, gol danged, bearded-one... Empty cannisters? How scarey!

Ahhhyh, you wouldn't have happened to have seen the photo of them when they were dug up did you? Heck, it was all over the TV and in the newspapers and all... I mean, did you see the photos? I didn't think so... These things obviously had been burried for a long, long time and looked more like artifacts than WMD. Yeah, I keep *hearing* that there is WMD evidence but yet to actually see anything that even closely resembles something that Bush would have half a chance convincing half the people were all that WMD-ish.

Part two: If Saddam had all these things why didn't he use them to try to defend himself? Hmmmmmm?

Hmmmmmm, Part Three. While I mean no disrespect to anyone, there are a lot of us folks paying attention here and mere declarations of scarey stuff ain't enough. Show us your evidnece. If you don't have any, fine. Be willing to say, I'll get back to you all on this when we find some real evidence. I can respect that. Parroting empty declarations is getting a tad, ahhhh, boring. Not only that, those making them are beginning to prove that a fool is not known until he opens his mouth... Again, no offense. Just an observation and perhaps a little advice. You're not helping your cause...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 09:23 PM

Bobert:

"Part Three. While I mean no disrespect to anyone, there are a lot of us folks paying attention here and mere declarations of scarey stuff ain't enough. Show us your evidnece."

When we show you evidence, you tell us that it is not good enough.. I asked what would be adaquate, and was basically told " whatever we want to believe". THAT is what I am trying to find out- What would be sufficient evidence.

"If you don't have any, fine. Be willing to say, I'll get back to you all on this when we find some real evidence. I can respect that. "

Again, what will you accept as real?

"Parroting empty declarations is getting a tad, ahhhh, boring. Not only that, those making them are beginning to prove that a fool is not known until he opens his mouth... Again, no offense."

I do not consider that the fact of hundreds of chemical weapon warheads, albeit unfilled, and the chemical warfare suits found during the intial phases of the war to be empty declarations. That seems to be a point in dispute. Hence, my request BEFORE more is found as to what would be "valid" evidence.

No offense taken, but I object to being told that I have to accept anything that the Left presents as God-given truth, and anything the neocons present as devil-spawned lies. I try to look at the facts involved, not the person presenting them. Either the facts are true, or not. IF there is evidence, it should be examined, regardless of who provides it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 09:38 PM

SRS,


I think the following might well apply more to you than to those trying to have a discussion of facts, here.

" You're hoping that if this (specious) material is repeated often enough someone will begin to believe it is true. "

" You wouldn't know a "fact" if it bit you in the ass. I'm outa here again--no one who has a healthy respect for intelligent discourse is going to waste much time arguing with you ..."

" It becomes clear that you have no capacity for anything but reductive circular arguments, always coming back to your own illogical conclusions as the "proof" that you were right to begin with. "

"Parroting empty declarations is getting a tad, ahhhh, boring. Not only that, those making them are beginning to prove that a fool is not known until he opens his mouth... Again, no offense. Just an observation and perhaps a little advice. You're not helping your cause..."

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 09:57 PM

Bobert,

"Part two: If Saddam had all these things why didn't he use them to try to defend himself? Hmmmmmm?"

If you knew anything about the use of chemical weapons, you would know that they are effective only in the case of an initial attack on an unprepared opponant. The impact on prepared troops is to make things more difficult, but that applies to one's own troops as well. NOONE has ever planned to use chemical weapons in a defensive war. They are offensive weapons, and weapons of terros against unprepared civilian populations, such as his Kurdish insurgents. If he had used them in, say, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, we would have used our WMD on him.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 10:06 PM

So let me see if I have this correct, You say these anitque cannisters were to be dug up, filled with nasty chemicals (none of which have been found) and then, ahhhh, hmmmm? This is where it really gets tough to follow yer logic, bb, but then what happens? Saddam fires 'um at us with one of his missles that only go 125 miles?

Is this yer final answer for invading Iraq?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 10:11 PM

Bobert,

The artillary shells that were found in storage were not antique.

The "nasty chemical" are always loaded just prior to use, for safty reasons.

They would then have been transported to wherever the proper artillary was, and fired. Those SPECIFIC WMD would have only been a danger to Turkey, Israel, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iran...

I ghave to assume that you do not consider those people to be worth keeping UN resolutions for?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:03 PM

BeardedBruce:

I clearly and directly answered your "what would constitute proof" question and got a very cryptic, possibly sarcastic, possibly snotty, certainly dismissive answer.

Many people have disputed and/or asked for proof of your facts, and typically get an answer that boils down to "because I say so".

You repeatedly assert a false paradox fallacy of "it was either invade Iraq or submit to his world domination", or "invade Iraq or allow him to slaughter his own people", or "invade Iraq or stick your head in the sand".

These things are the source of the hostility.

I'm with SRS on this one. Bye-bye.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:19 PM

TIA,

I seem to recall I thanked you for an honest answer, and said I would look for evidence that you would accept. I am sorry if you thought it was sarcastic: that was not the intent towards you.

The point of proof is what is being debated_ if every time something is found to support what the Left does not want to believe they declare that it is not sufficient, I think that we are entitled to know what would be acceptable proof to them- Or are you saying that regardless of what is found, your beliefs about the situation are greater than what may actually be the case?

If this is hostile, perhaps one should look at the comments that have been posted about some of us, just because we have a diferent view of what is happening. Why is it that freedom of speech is never allowable for the people you disagree with? I have been asking for a discussion of the facts: I get insult and the statement that the facts don't matter unless they come from the proper source.

Did the US have other choices than to invade Iraq? Certainly. But, would the administration have been correct in following those other paths? THAT is what we are trying to determine. I have seen nothing to lead me to believe that further inspections would have changed the situation- IMO the delay caused by trying to get consensus in the UN has increased the risk to the US and the world.

I would love to see the facts discussed, rathre than people's beliefs.

"repeatedly assert a false paradox fallacy of "it was either invade Iraq or submit to his world domination", or "invade Iraq or allow him to slaughter his own people", or "invade Iraq or stick your head in the sand"."

or are you saying that the "proper" choice was to wait and just see what happened? I really would like to know what we should have done.

ANd what you would do with the inevitable results of that choice.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:22 PM

And I'm finding myself with both SRS and TIA, B-zer... With every post of yours your credibility slides even further down that slippery slope. At this point, I'm not too sure you can bring it back.

Fact by proclamation is not evidence... Heck, it's not even fact... What it is is Fiction by Proclamation... You are very much like Bush. You just spew out stuff and figure everyone is going to believe you??? Now I'm not a psychiatrist or of even a psycologist so I'm not going to venture into just what might have happened in yer past that has given you this feeling that if you proclaim it, it's true but like lots of folks here, we'd like to see actual evidence that goes beyond other folks proclamations of unfounded stories...

Is that asking too much?

And don't go playing that game on me about just who within a 125 mile range I wanted killed by Saddam. That's just a smokescreen to try to buy you some time in coming forth with your evidence. BTW, when you come up with it, I'd suggest that you get in touch with the Bush PR team. They'll make you a rich beardedbruce, sho nuff they will...

I mean, look at even Teribus who is the Number One Bush apologist. He's even thrown in the towell on the WMD and moved on to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for attacking Iraq...

Now if you have this sentimental attachment to the WMD Lie then fine, but for gosh sakes, don't impose it on the rest of us. It's bogus... Plus, like I said, it ain't helping your credibilty...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:30 PM

Bobert,

You do not present any facts, or refute anything of what I have said.
The statement that my facts are fiction does not make them so.

Were there artillary shells designed for chemical weapons found in the initial attack?

YES

Were there stockpiles of Chemical warfare equipment found in the initial attack?

YES

Have there been prohibited delivery systems found in Iraq after the October (?) 2002 resolutions?

YES

Was Saddam a risk to the security and saftey of the United States and those with whom we have treaty obligations?

THAT is the question I would like to see answered here: not these personal attacks.

And let me say to you: "You just spew out stuff and figure everyone is going to believe you??? "

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Jun 04 - 11:36 PM

BTW, the best market for the evidence would be Kerry- He would pay a lot more to hide it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 12:25 AM

beardedbruce, it appears that you have information that the bush administration would love to have. Are you just that smart or do you have a pipeline to Iraqi facts? Stop and think about it- if your 'facts' were factual, we, the people, would be bombarded by the evidence. And it just ain't so- the bushies are clearly on the defensive on this matter.

Big talk do not evidence make. Ask Bill O'Reilly.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 12:48 AM

Ebbie,

I do not claim to have any information that the rest of you do not have access to, if you were willing to accept it. No, it is not a big, obvious mushroom cloud. I think that there is a lack of critical thinking here. I am asked "why didn't Saddam use the wmd?" as if that means not using it means he did not have it. Well, WHY DIDN'T he comply with the UN resolutions for 12 years? THAT obviously, by the logic being used, means that he did have WMD to hide.

The question is, where are they? Or did they just evaporate into thin air? Some seem to believe that the fact that they have not been found ( or that the parts found are not "acceptable") means that they were never there- others think they may have been removed, or hidden. Why is it so horrible to even try to find out the facts of the matter, that so many of you insist on such attacks on anyone who even asks the questions? Are you really so frightened of the answers?

If you want to deny anything I have brought up is true, DO SO! But all I see are blanket denials that there could be any reason for invading Iraq. Are my facts false? SHOW ME: To the best of my knowledge, they are accurate representations of what I have found in multiple news sources. Could I be wrong? Of course- BUT you have to give me a reason to decide that, not just tell me you don't like my conclusions.

I can think of several reasons that evidence of the existance of WMD might not be publicized- none that lead to any happy conclusions. I will not speculate here, as I have no evidence one way or the other on what unpublicized evidence anyone might have.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:15 AM

Classic BeardedBruce

"or are you saying that the "proper" choice was to wait and just see what happened?"

Tactic 1: Put words in peoples' mouths. This is called the Straw Man Fallacy. I have NEVER advocated doing nothing.

"I really would like to know what we should have done. ANd what you would do with the inevitable results of that choice."

Tactic 2: Couch pure speculation as fact, and proceed on that premise. These sentences essentially say "what does TIA think we should we have done, and how would he react to his inevitable failure?" BB, when did you stop beating your wife?

It really is impossible to carry on a useful discussion, and it has nothing to do with the politics of left vs. right.

BB, I might like you in person, and might enjoy your music, so I mean nothing personal, but these political/historical/philosophical discussions get very Alice Through the Looking Glass.

See you above the line.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:43 AM

But, beardedbruce, you haven't addressed the implications of my question. Are you seriously suggesting that you- out of all the people, in the USA, in the U.K, in Iraq itself, who have been going to innumerable meetings on the subject and consulting 'experts' all over the place for more than a year- are the one who knows these facts? bush doesn't know, rumsfeld doesn't know, powell doesn't know, kimmet doesn't know... but Bruce, the Beard, does know? Wow.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 01:57 AM

Ebbie,

Your post is an example of Tactic 2...

I NEVER SAID I had any information anyone else did not. I DO NOT have any political reason to not talk about what I have noted during the last 12 years in news reports, various websites, and UN and other government reports. The way the liberal press jumps on this administration, noone in it should make the mistake of any speculation. And I am afraid that, as can be seen here, most people do not have an adaquate knowledge of the tactical and strategic uses of WMD. I am not sure that anyone WANTS them to be educated- it brings up far more questions than answers.

I have stated the facts upon which I have based my conclusions. I have seen no refution of those facts, just personal attacks. These facts are available for anyone to verify, if they would bother. The fact that no one seems to want to discuss facts indicates to me that regardless of the truth, there will be those who refuse to allow any discussion that might lead to their own viewpoint being found wrong.

And who says "bush doesn't know, rumsfeld doesn't know, powell doesn't know, kimmet doesn't know"? They all claim to know- people just have been making the unsubstantiated accusation that they were all lying: " You're hoping that if this (specious) material is repeated often enough someone will begin to believe it is true. "

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:05 AM

Thanks for highlighting your evidence.

Empty shell casings, if thin walled, then they are just as easy to call them high capacity high explosive. If you chemical pumps were founf next to them then thats another matter.

Chemical warfare suits, something possessed by just about evry modern army around the globe, use of these weapons does not indicate ownership of chemical weapons.

Just as BB did, I served in my country's military and did NBC training, lots of it, so I do have some knowledge of the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:12 AM

The "shell casings" were the specific warheads for chemical weapons, To the best of my knowledge, these are NOT usable for HE, or anti-armour, use, just as a delivery means for chemical weapons. Anyone have firsthand knowledge about these? I am limited by the fact that I have only ( multiple) news reports of what was found. As far as I know, there are no liquid HE artillary warheads.

The finding of the chemical warfare suits at other than a storage facility ( they were in an HQ unit near the front line/border, and at a hospital being used as a local /unit level depot) does give one thought.

But at least you want to discuss the facts of the matter.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:18 AM

By the "standards of proof" being demanded, can anyone out there "prove" that the US presently has any WMD? I mean, we could be lying you know...

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:21 AM

Chemical suits should allways be where the troops are, just like any other piece of kit.

Liquid explosives are quite common, so much so they are often used in demolitions or construction, the new tunnel being pushed under the Alpes has made extensive use of them, a trickle down from military use.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:27 AM

Yes, but would the warhead using them be dsigned to disperse the liguid? I do not know- the PAVE systems were liquid/gas, but only in a statioanry/dropped package, not artillary.

Yes, they should be, and I am sure that our chemical suits are available to the unit level in Europe- but we expected a chemical attack from the Soviet Union. Where did Saddam expect an attack from?
Do the surrounding countries have that level of chemical protection for their troops? ( Any country that plans to use chemical weapons better have the protective gear for their own troops)

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:37 AM

As far as I know Artillery rounds didperse their agent by using a bursting charge to shatter the case and allow a cloud of agent to drop onto the target so the prime thing would be an airburst set fuse with a charge suitable for use as a bursting charge, to achieve good effect it would need to be bigger than a standard detonater.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:48 AM

so, the design should be different from a chemical projectile. I do not have enough data to rule this out, but it needs further information.

Thanks.

I presume there would be a delayed ignition charge, then? That would be an obvious difference from a chemical weapon. No info in the press reports at that level of detail.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 02:59 AM

To make it an effective chemical weapon the fusing would require an airburst, these fuse types have been around for over a century, so nothing new or too high tech there, they ahve also been employed for airburst shrapnel rounds.

I also recall reading that the Soviets did have a large stockpile of pre-filled chemical rounds in storage, whether it was a good idea or not is another matter, they did many things that we would not consider very bright, Saddam followed soviet doctrine in many military matters, it can be safely said that he is also not the brightest lightbulb around.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 03:07 AM

Agreed about the airburst- but wwould the HE need an additional delayed charge to ignite the dispersed explosive? PAVE systems did.

Casings would be different for HE vs Shrapnal vs Chemical- just not sure if the media would get it right.

older thread on WMD

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: sledge
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 08:18 AM

Media reporting to date has often been a bit poor, today we have had reports of the murderer Zaqawi being captured, no he wasn't , yes he was then NO he hasn't. They are all to ready to spew out reports before checking their veracity.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Jun 04 - 08:11 PM

No, bearded-one, the United States does *not* have any WMD's. Hiroshama was nuthing but a figment of the imagination...

...and here's yer cookies and milk. Nighty, night...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 06:39 AM

Bobert - you are perfectly correct in stating, in your post of 27 Jun 04 - 11:22 PM, that:

"Fact by proclamation is not evidence... Heck, it's not even fact... What it is is Fiction by Proclamation..."

You should know, Bobert - you do it all the time - want an example from the same post as quoted?

"I mean, look at even Teribus who is the Number One Bush apologist. He's even thrown in the towell on the WMD and moved on to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for attacking Iraq..."

When exactly did I, "throw in the towel on the WMD" Bobert? You proclaim it as fact - now tell me when?

Every single instance of material discovery that supports an existing WMD capability mentioned by Beardedbruce and Two Bears has been borne out by fact - all of these involve equipment and material that the Iraqi's proclaimed to the world that they did not have, despite being warned repeatedly of the consequences, should they try to conceal there presence.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 07:25 AM

Bobert:

"No, bearded-one, the United States does *not* have any WMD's. Hiroshama was nuthing but a figment of the imagination...

...and here's yer cookies and milk. Nighty, night..."

BUT you have said that the use of WMD by Saddam on his own people, documented, photographed, et al does not meann he had WMD.... SO MAKE UP YOUR MIND!


You have just told me that you know Saddam has WMD, but for your own political reasions you will lie and deny it.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM

See, there both you knotheads go either inventin' stuff 'er denying stuff...

First to you, T-Bird, since we go back a little further. Now we were wrangling on this very topic just a month ago on some thread 'er another and you *did* state that you were down to the "Saddam was a bad man" excuse for the invasion. Okay, you migh not have said it exactly that way but it seems that I, an well as a few others, had you conered on the issue and that was the impression I got. Now you know perfectly wel;l that I ain't gonna go back and reread every danged war thread and you also know that I don't do all that fancy stuff like many of you do in creating these little files to yank out of the filing cabinet to throw back at folks but.... I'm sure someone who does remmebers the thread and maybe they'll yank it out of their filing cabinet and put it in this thread. Then you can go about doing your Clinton "depends on the definution of is is" act and we can start the entire process over with you.... Yer purdy good at that "angels on the end of a pin" stuff, you know....

Now, as fir yer understudy, the bearded one. You gotta take him aside and give him a few pointers 'cause he makes absolutely no sense at times. I say to him that there doesn't appear to be a vast body of evidence to support his WMD claims and he says "Yes there was!" real loud and expects everyone to just believe him. Crips, if there was don't you think the Bush PR folks would have made a real case for this? So Sledge even takes him to task on the specifis and the bearded-one demonstrates once again the adage that a little learning is a dangerous thing and ends up not knowing just what he was professing to know about WMD. Then I point out that a bunch of old canisters bried in the desert and some traces of chemiclas does not exactly constitute too scarey a WMD program then he say that with the level of proof I, and millions of others are asking for, is so stringent that even proving the United Sates has WMD would be difficult???

I mean, can you belive that one, T-Bird. Like I said, he needs a little side bar. Maybe you could give him some homework assignments like you do me...

But now the gull of it is that it looks like the bearded-one is changing his story to: "The reason we attacked Iraq is because it used to have WMD's!" Well, yeah, BB, they did. We gave 'um to them, they used them up on the Iranians and Kurds and what was left is looking more and more like the antique cannisters, that Sladge says ain't up to the task, anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium. Plus throw in the fact that Iraq'a borders have nor been secure and Bush telling the terrorist world to bring it on, it not surprising that a "trace" of chemicals have been found...

Now think back to the war buildup for a second if you will. What if Bush had warned that Saddam posessed a trace of WMD in his big sales presentation, BB? How would that have gone over?

And, back to you, T-zer. I don't make stuff up. We're all watching the
the same events here. Sure maybe I don't type as well as you'd like and I have on occasion gotten one tiny bit of the stroy incorrest. But on the big picture, I don't think you can find too much of what I say that is out of the mainstream in terms of infornation that is available. I believe you limit yourself because you may be just a tad academic. Academics sometimes can't see the forest thru the trees becuase of their narrow focus of interest. I know I have no right to ask it of you but I think you migh benefit from tuning your danged pudder radio to Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" radio program for the big picture, plus a lot of *inform*ation that apparently has escaped your scope...

Now, if it makes you two knotheads happy to thing that ol' Bobert just makesa stuff up, knock yer knothead selves out... I know it ain't true. Most folks here know it ain't true. And deep inside you you know it ain't true...

Again, I'll admit to an occasional lack lack of know2ledge on a tiny, tiny little insignificant part of the story but I'm purdy much on the boigger picture... (the Kuwait once being part of Iraq... I'll confess to that right up, T... )

Fire away... I can handle it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 09:07 AM

Bobert,

"what was left is looking more and more like the antique cannisters, that Sladge says ain't up to the task, anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium."

You are the one stuck on antique cannisters, not me. I stated the chemical warheads, which sledge and I have discussed. There may be some doubt, as the media, that you seem to depend on for all your information, has not provided an adaquate description- The ones I have seen specify CHEMICAL warheads. If this is not so, sobeit- but the information available is what I am working with, not my own imagination.

The trace chemicals are of chemical weapons- you are implying that the US has been using chemical weapons???? I challange you to either provide some justification for this charge, or retract it.

The point of my message was that you have stated that the US has WMD because we used them in 1945.... So my conclusion that you would think Saddam has them since he used them in the 1990s is valid. It is you who are dishonest about the whole topic, and not making any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 10:19 AM

Dishonest, B-zer?!?!?...

Yer the one who is suggesting that the United States does not possess WMD?!?!?...

Dishonest, B-?!?!?...

Yer the one who, inspite of the Bush administrations intense desire to find evidence of WMD, hasn't been able to find eufficient evidence to present that is credible to the vast majority. Heck, had they then the PR folks would be running up and down the streets with it but what are we hearing from them? Nuthin', that's what...

Dishonest, Bearded-one?!?!?...

No, my friend, I am being completely honest is asking, as is the majority of the world's population, for the evidence...

... or is that too much to ask?..

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 10:26 AM

Bobert,

Try reading what I write, not dreaming.

I said that "By the "standards of proof" being demanded, can anyone out there "prove" that the US presently has any WMD? I mean, we could be lying you know... "

THIS DOES NOT STATE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE US DOES NOT HAVE WMD.

You ask for evidence, refuse to consider what is presented to you, then refuse to state what would be evidence.

Yes, you are dishonest.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:05 AM

Geez, look who's talking about dishonesty. He's delusional, Bobert. Others have tried, but there's no information 2x4 that's going to whack that ass hard enough between the eyes to get his attention. Others have tried.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:15 AM

GUEST GUEST:

So, anyone you disagree with is delusional?

You present no facts, no information, and make no contribution to this discussion. Come back when you are willing to show who you are, and take the responsibility for your words.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 11:54 AM

Well, what's your excuse, Bruce? You present no facts, no information, no good links, and make no meaningful contribution to the discussion, for as long as you've hammered away at it. You like to hear yourself talk, and you throw people's words back at them with a "nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah" schoolyard move that is an empty gesture. Someone called it circular logic. You've mastered it, and have sat on this tread and turned it to rhetorical mush.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 12:31 PM

Bobert - 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM

Sorry Bobert, you would be completely wrong in your belief that I, how did you put it, limit myself because I am just a tad academic.

Now what "stuff" have either Beardedbruce, Two Bears, or myself "invented"? What "stuff" have we denied?

If anyone has proved themselves to be totally blinkered Bobert, it is yourself. Your "big picture" as you like to call it, is no such thing at all, you look at things from only one perspective, one extremely narrow view point. You neither read, or research, to establish background, or detail. All you do is trot out information from very dubious sources, that just happens to support your line of arguement. When challenged on it you launch into complete and utter waffle. Remember the thousands of Patriot missiles that were supposed to have rained down on Baghdad? Remember the 100's of thousands of Iraqi's that were supposed to have died? Remember the 'nukes' that the US were sure to use? Remember the 'heads on sticks' on the lawn of the White House?

What you mistakenly identify in me as being academic, is the trait that I do tend to pay attention to detail, whereas you do not. That makes it incredibly easy to challenge most of what you contend.

One detail for you Bobert. On the "Saddam was a bad man excuse", I think you will find that it was you who stated that it was the current US Administration who, "huddled together" and came up with that excuse/reason for invading Iraq. I merely pointed out to you that the US policy decision regarding the desireability of regime change in Iraq was established in 1998 by Bill Clinton, therefore already in place long before George W. Bush came into Office.

By all means let us, "...think back to the war buildup for a second"

1. It was not Bush who said that Iraq possessed WMD, stockpiles of chemical/biological agents and munitions - it was UNSCOM - Bush merely quoted what was clearly stated in the UNSCOM report.

2. It was Russia that, in the aftermath of 9/11, informed the US security services that Saddam Hussein was planning attacks of a similar nature on the US.

3. It was the UN, who when asked to act on enforcement of UN resolutions relating to Iraq's disarmament, proved to be totally ineffectual.

4. It was Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist Government in Iraq, that submitted a declaration to the UNSC stating that they possessed no WMD; no proscribed weapons systems; no chemical munitions; no chemical/biological agents. Even Dr. Hans Blix voiced his disappointment with regard to the contents of the declaration at the time.

To quote you Bobert - "We are all watching the same events here" - aren't we?

With regard to your view of the "big picture", all about oil, current administration all having oil industry connections and backgrounds. Oh yes, Bobert, you think yourself very good at "joining up all the dots". But you do so incredibly inconsistently, how about a few of these dots:

All about oil, current situation in Russia, who benifits from a high oil price? Those producing it, or those purchasing it? Who owed Russia billions? Who provided the US with the information about Saddam planning attacks on the US? Who delayed the submission of Resolution 1441 for months? Who would guarantee themselves a win-win situation by backing both horses in a two horse race? If it goes one way Russia wins because they get the richest economy in the world bogged down in Iraq, while taking advantage of the increase in the price of oil (Russian economic plans are based on a price of $21 a barrel, what did it go up to? something like $42 a barrel - that a good thing for Russia, or not?). If it goes the other way and Saddam remains in power, they can still sell him all he wants at ten times the going rate and they still get their oil concessions in Iraq.

You see Bobert, to your mind, and process, over this issue all that is immaterial, not worthy of consideration - that is your big picture - you look at it only from the view point that is most damaging to one man. In other words Bobert, you do not see the big picture at all, the sad thing is, I don't believe you ever will.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM

And after all the academic exercises you tried to put everyone thry in the lead up to war, you do, T? Reems and reems of Teribus telling us why we should invade Iraq. Resolution this, resoultion that. Big whop. A UN resaolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at yer local convience store, my man.

Who cares about resolutions. Not the United States. Not Isreal. Never met one not worth a good breaking...

As fir some of the things I warned about in the lead up to the invasion, moswt have come true:

1. Flawed reasoning. Sure, Tenet took the fall but if you'll remember, he initially was very adiment in his story that he and the CIA tried to keep the "16 words" (nuclear threat) out of the State of the Union Addess. No credible evidence has been foounf by the 9/11 Commssion in the interim report that has been released between Saddam and 9/11 and yet we hear that Bush was intent on attacking Iraq purdy much from Day One (Paul O'Niels observation since he happened to be there.)

2. The US using nuclear weapons. Not only did they test a major nuclear bunker buster off the coast of Florida, but they fired thousands of rounds of DU munitions. These munitions leave radioactive dust which has been linked to the Gulf War Syndrome.

3. Insatbility in the Middle East. Thouhg you conviently leave this out this was one of the arguments I made in the lead up to the invasion.

4. Urban warfare. You also conviently leave this one out. I don't think, given Iraq today, that you can say I was wrong about this one either.

And just a few other things to consider.

1. It's not a slam dunk that the inspectors *weren't making progress. Depends on who's story you *want* to hear.

2. The "heads on sticks" was, as I have said before, poetic license. I don't think anyone took that too literally... except you. (But, hey, I'm glad I said it because it certainly has provided you with some level of entertainment.)

3. As for saying that the invasion was *just* about oil you are doing a beardedbruce on me here because unless you take one of my post completely out of context, you'll find that has not been my position, though I consider it to be a heavy factor. I have also elluded to the Wolfowitz/Peatle Plan that goes back to 1992 that was also presented to Clinton that speaks of other motivations for occupying Iraq, other than oil. So if you're going to dig up stuff I siad a year or so ago about the motivations, please dig it up in its entirety and don't pull one part out and present it as the only argument I've ever made...

4. As fir the "Saddam was a bad man" argument. If you'll recall a couple months ago, I asked you if this was yer final answer and *your* response was "yes". (Oh, I wish I knew how to do them file things now 'er you'd be reading your word right now...)

Well, my wife says I gotta get back to work an' I leant that arguing wid the womenz don't do much more good than arguing with you or the other knothead. (BTW, where's you get him? His head is like granite.)

Gotta git...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 02:34 PM

Bobert:

Just a technical comment. DU stands for "Depleted Uranium". This means that the fissonable isotopes have been removed. There is a difference between DU and enriched uranium, which is used in reactors and weapons.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:34 PM

Well, my bearded-friend. I know about the DU's. Before you arrived here I had a thread about them and also some references to a certain VA doctor who was fired from a VA hospital for conducting a study of Gulf War vets who had been exposed to the dust and were suffering from lots of physical ailments, including cancers. When he reported his initial findings up the chain of command he was laid off supposedly because he wasn't needed, in spite of the fact that the VA wasted no time in replacing him...

Now if you would like, I'll spend some time later and try to find that thread which I think you will find interesting if you are of the opinion that the dust isn't harmful. The Iraqis certainly know since they have had to live with simialar illnesses and birth deformities that are in a much higher number per capita since the first Gulf War.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 05:42 PM

The comment was that the trace chemicals had nothing to do with DU, as your post tried to imply. Another example of your basic dishonesty. Nor are DU nuclear weapons, or WMD. Just normal, toxic debris, which no one has ever claimed indicates the presence of WMD.

Are you prepared to back up your claim that the US used chemical weapons, as implied by your post of 29 Jun 04 - 08:57 AM ?

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 29 Jun 04 - 08:05 PM

You know, bruce, I have dealt with a lot of folks here at Mudcat (and elsewhere) and have shown the utmost respect for folks with whom I disagree, even though I might poke a little fun. But, know what, not only are you a jerk but you are a pathological liar.

I never said the US used chemical weapons, not implied the US used chemical weapons. Those are you pathological interpretations.

No wonder folks are giving up on discussing anything with you. You don't want to discuss jack. All you want to do is lie and proclaim. Fine. Have at it, troll, and...

Congratulations... You're the first person since I started using a computer 5 years ago who I am writing off. Not because you are right, which you rarely are, but because you are sick.

Have a nice life.

Peace

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 02:36 AM

Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 06:19 AM

Bobert, some information relating to DU munitions

<
There has been a substantial amount of public discussion on the health effects of the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions. In response to this concern the Royal Society set up an independent, expert working group to investigate the health effects of DU munitions. The Royal Society has now produced two reports and an eight-page summary covering both reports.

The health hazards of depleted uranium munitions-Part 1 (Full Report)
May 2001

The Part I report draws the following conclusions:

Except in extreme circumstances any extra risks of developing fatal cancers as a result of radiation from internal exposure to DU arising from battlefield conditions are likely to be so small that they would not be detectable above the general risk of dying from cancer over a normal lifetime.

The greatest exposures will apply only to a very small fraction of the soldiers in a theatre of war, for example those who survive in a vehicle struck by a DU penetrator. In such circumstances, and assuming the most unfavourable conditions, the lifetime risk of death from lung cancer is unlikely to exceed twice that in the general population.

Any extra risks of death from leukaemia, or other cancers, as a result of exposure to DU are estimated to be substantially lower than the risks of death from lung cancer. Under all likely exposure scenarios the extra lifetime risks of fatal leukaemia are predicted to be too small to be observable.

Many soldiers on a battlefield may be exposed to small amounts of DU and the risks of cancer from such exposures are predicted to be very low. Even if the estimates of risk for these conditions are one hundred times too low, it is unlikely that any excess of fatal cancer would be detected within a cohort of 10,000 soldiers followed over 50 years.

Epidemiological studies complement assessments of actual exposures and radiation risks. Although epidemiological studies of occupational exposure to uranium are not sensitive enough to detect small increases in overall risks of cancer, they nevertheless tend to confirm the calculations of the risks derived from estimates of actual exposures to DU.

The health hazards of depleted uranium: part II
March 2002

The main conclusions of the Part II report are:
- The risks to the kidney and other organs and tissues from the use of DU in munitions are very low for most soldiers on the battlefield and for those living in the conflict area.
- In extreme conditions and under worst-case assumptions, soldiers who receive large intakes of DU could suffer adverse effects on the kidney and lung.
- Environmental contamination will be very variable but in most cases the associated health risks due to DU will be very low. In some worst-case scenarios high local levels of uranium could occur in food or water that could have adverse effects on the kidney.>>

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: polaitaly
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:44 AM

The U.S. have used chemical weapons. The "orange agent" that they poured on Vietnam in thousans of tons is exactly that, a chemical weapon.And napalm, too, is a chemical weapon.Don't you think that if the Iraqui army, during the war, had bombed the US army with napalm (if they had it, and I don't think) everybody would have screamed " Chemical warfare" ? For the depleted uranium thing, the Italian soldiers dead for cancer very likely related to the use of d.u. bullets has now reached number 24. They were all been to Bosnia or Kossovo, and they all had breathed the dust that result from the explosion of those bullets. The dust after the explosion ,after the battle , is the real danger.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 07:57 AM

Yo, T-Bird,

I'll get back to you on DU'd when I find my info. I think you'll find it interesting. But rest assured (or not if you happen to be using DU'd as a health suppliment) them "very lows" in the studies you report look a lot more like "very highs"...

So if you are using a teaspoon of DU dust in your orange juice in the morning you might wanta stop until I unpile thatreport done by the VA physican...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 01:09 PM

polaitaly - 30 Jun 04 - 07:44 AM

Beg to differ, "Agent Orange" was most definitely NOT a chemical weapon, and it was never designed as such, never deployed as such. "Agent Orange" was designed as a defoliant, and when its carcinogenic properties were detected its use was prohibited.

Likewise, in no way does napalm, fit the description of a chemical weapon. Napalm was an incendiary agent. The UK renounced the use of Napalm in the late 60's, but should the situation arise and Napalm was needed, with the correct gelling agent RAF and FAA aircraft could be armed with Napalm ordinance within 30 minutes - it is that easy to make.

As for the final part regarding depleted uranium - this is a classic

"...the Italian soldiers dead for cancer very likely related to the use of d.u. bullets has now reached number 24. They were all been to Bosnia or Kossovo, and they all had breathed the dust that result from the explosion of those bullets. The dust after the explosion ,after the battle , is the real danger."

How many Italian soldiers were deployed?
How many of them smoked?   
Who was firing these DU rounds at these Italian soldiers?
How many Italian soldiers were exposed to this gunfire?
What is the normal incidence rate of cancer among Italian males of that age group?

The cancer was VERY LIKELY related to the use of DU bullets, exactly what are your grounds for stating this? Because if you do not already have the answers to those questions you have no right whatsoever to make the statement.

If you do not have the answers to those questions, then it would equally true to make the sweeping statement that the cause of the cancer was (fit in whatever cause of cancer you wish).

It could also be very likely that the incidence of cancer is no higher than in the general population who have never been near a DU bullet in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 01:37 PM

polaitaly,

32.40% of the Italian male population smoke.

Italian cance deaths have an incidence rate of 145 per 100,000 people

There are 251,000 men in the Italian armed forces (excluding the navy)

Statistically 364 Italian servicemen will die of cancer.

(As Michael caine would say, "Now there's not a lot of people know that.")

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 02:45 PM

Teribus   Outstanding!

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 04:59 PM

Bobert,

With regard to your post of, 29 Jun 04 - 01:36 PM

"A UN resaolution and 89 cents will get you a 12 ounce cup of coffee at yer local convience store, my man."

This means exactly what Bobert? What the relevance? Makes no sense to me at all - Just more Bobert waffle.

"Who cares about resolutions. Not the United States. Not Isreal. Never met one not worth a good breaking..."

You are close, but missing the point entirely. Who cares about resolutions, Bobert? The UN doesn't give a damn about them once adopted, they certainly don't give a damn about enforcing them - That is the point, and THAT is what led to the invasion of Iraq.

On your specific points and predictions:

1. Flawed reasoning:
I believe that while the CIA wanted to keep the "16 words" out. The Bush administration were perfectly entitled to state what America's allies believed to be the case, and it was in that context that those words were included - go look up the speach and check.

You hear that, "Bush was intent on attacking Iraq purdy much from Day One (Paul O'Niels observation since he happened to be there.)"

Don't confuse fact with opinion - what you heard Bobert was one man's opinion. You are quite keen on what you hear, you know the "word on the street" poetic licence, just like the "heads on the sticks".

2. The US using nuclear weapons.
Another instance of you confusing fact with opinion. Remember the article on "Shock and Awe", reviewed by some obscure Doctor of Divinity from some College in Colorado and presented as representing the US's stated strategy. This then being taken up by some journalist on the west coast and rushed into print. Rather than reading it and questioning it, you Bobert, boldly proclaimed it as fact.

Plain fact of the matter is Bobert the US did not use nuclear weapons did they - you were totally wrong about that. I, on the other hand, never thought that for one minute they would, or would be in a position where they thought they'd have to.

Your reference to nuclear tests and DU munitions is just more waffle.

3. Instability in the Middle East.
Believe it or not Bobert, the middle-east is a damn sight more stable now than it has been for a long time. Take a look at all those ardent sponsors of terrorism - Libya renounced its links to international terroism, Syria and Iran - have both got their heads firmly wound in at the moment Bobert, because they know damn well what could happen to them if they resorted to their old tricks. Oh, best of all, I forgot to mention another previous sponsor of international terror, Iraq itself - how many suicide bombers has it been paying for for the last fifteen months Bobert? Where's Hama's rivers of blood Bobert?

4. Urban warfare.
You are totally wrong about that Bobert. What you have in Iraq at present doesn't come anything close to what would be described as urban warfare. The situation you have in Iraq is comparable to Northern Ireland pre-"motorman".

On the "other things to consider"

1. Inspectors weren't making progress.
Of course it depends upon whose story you want to hear - if you are into listening to stories. Saddam and UNSCOM/IAEA both told stories to the UNSC for the best part of 12 years.

UNMOVIC/IAEA went back into Iraq, after a period of absense of damn near 7 years, solely because the US Government pushed the UN every step of the way to get them back in. Resolution 1441, required no stories, it required fully compliance and total pro-active co-operation from the Iraqi authorities - read Dr. Hans Blix's reports to the UNSC there's not one where the good Dr. states that he is receiving total pro-active co-operation from the Iraqi's - in fact he complained about it from day one.

The UN was told fairly plainly by the US - you sort this out, beyond doubt pdq, or we will.

2. The "heads on sticks"
Was Bobert waffle, but delivered with such hysterical sentiment it was almost touching.

3. Just about oil
I have never said that this was about oil, but you, and others on this forum, have. The point I was trying to make was that the lot of you tend to be very good at "joining up dots" when the picture revealed reflects negatively on the US and its current administration, but completely ignore doing the same exercise from the perspective of some of the other nations involved. That indicates to me that you are totally biased and blinkered - in any given situation you only see what you want to see nothing more - hell you're not even prepared to look outside the little box you've created.

All about oil, never been your position!!! What was all that ranting waffle about Dick Chaney and Halliburton, Boss Hogg and his oil industry connections - give me a break.

4. As fir the "Saddam was a bad man" argument.
I believe you asked if I thought it was a good enough reason and I replied that I thought it was - even more so in the light of the recently revealed information regarding the warning the US got from the Russians.

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: Bobert
Date: 30 Jun 04 - 11:18 PM

Well, T-Bird... Having read and reread yer recent rebuttla it would seem that we are both covering ground that has been covered before...

I mean no disrespect but if you don't mind, I'll pass on refighting these old differeneces in our perceptions of events.

We do seem to agree that UN resolutions are worthless, however, since there is no way to enforce them. That being a given, then why hold one party less harmless than another?

As fir the Big Three? You pick yer favorite and because of the kinda guy I am, I'll let you keep it as long as you like. If historians come 'round and try to collect it from you, you tell 'um I said you could keep it...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: OK, Maybe 9/11 Could Have Been Prevented
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Jul 04 - 06:28 AM

Bobert,

" anfd traces of chemicals... Well, gol danged, BB, have ya considered the fact that over 30,000 bombs have been dropped on Iraq in the last 15 months? Or millions of rounds of ammunition, including many made of depleted uranium. Plus throw in the fact that Iraq'a borders have nor been secure and Bush telling the terrorist world to bring it on, it not surprising that a "trace" of chemicals have been found..."

"I never said the US used chemical weapons, not implied the US used chemical weapons. Those are you pathological interpretations."

Looks like an implication to anby reasonable person.


"We do seem to agree that UN resolutions are worthless, however, since there is no way to enforce them"

Seems to me that the US has been enforcing UN resolutions, in spite of the fact that you don't want to admit it.