Kennedy Airport Story

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:25 PM

Dick Cheney should not have provoked them.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 11:24 AM

There was a large attempted bomb attack in London last night.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6252276.stm

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Jun 07 - 11:06 AM

dianavan - Yes, I think you're right. A number of people seem not to want to admit to the possibility of this happening, however. Or maybe they think the new-world-order would be an improvement over what we have (had?).

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 10:21 PM

I do see the conflict in the Middle East as a means of creating a new world order.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 09:30 AM

Do you see the Middle East as the center of the conflict brought about by the new world order, or do you think it is just one of many?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 24 Jun 07 - 02:25 AM

Since the Palestinians have been bearing the brunt of the new world order since post world war II, I would guess that the Palestinians would react just as the Americans and Israelis would react if they were impoverished and living in tents.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 10:08 PM

Okaaay! I think that's what I meant to say.

             So how would we expect the Palestinians to react to that?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 02:44 PM

In the new world order, whether you are Israeli or American makes absolutely no difference to the neo-cons.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 10:09 AM

And the neo-cons want to use American resources for the benefit of Israel, right?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:06 AM

If you are a neo-con there is plenty to be gained. All of the old structures need to be torn down before there can be a new world order.

The Nazi knew all about this.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 10:23 AM

I quess the question that needs to be asked is: why is the American government stupid enough to participate?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 10:53 PM

Yes, the Muslim fanatics are winning the war on terrorism because they are bleeding the treasury of the U.S., depleting the troops and the number of terrorists are increasing. The twin towers were symbolic of 'tearing down' the financial structure.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 06:56 PM

"He is succeeding in bleeding the world's most powerful nation of billions upon billions of dollars, in tying up armies all over the planet and with very little expense to himself in either manpower or currency."

               pirandello - That's true, but it's mainly true because western governments are willing to commit troops and spend money when there's not much of anything to be gained by it.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: pirandello
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 05:37 PM

Returning briefly to the topic; the terrorist's strategy is the instilling of 'terror', of fear, of the anticipation of violent attack; death is infrequently the motive and merely a by-product. In this the Moslem fundamentalist terrorist is succeeding and winning. He is succeeding in bleeding the world's most powerful nation of billions upon billions of dollars, in tying up armies all over the planet and with very little expense to himself in either manpower or currency.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 05:12 PM

"Oh, by the bye, who said anything about foreign oil companies bankrolling the Sudanese Government?"


                That's just the kind of thing oil companies do, isn't it?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 01:20 PM

"Is $70+ a barrel the "lowest price for crude"?"

             Of course not. That's what they're selling to for to the refiners. They aren't telling us what they are stealing it from the Sudanese for.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Teribus
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 10:06 AM

How about an answer to my questions Riginslinger?

"They ensure the lowest price for crude through monopolistic practices, and they ensure the highest prices for retail products through monopolistic practices." - Riginslinger

Now explain to us how they do that, i.e. ensure lowest prices for crude. Is $70+ a barrel the "lowest price for crude"? Or does that just happen to be the market rate? What price do you think they would prefer it to be and then tell us all why through "monopolistic practices" they can't force the price of supply down to meet that.

Oh, by the bye, who said anything about foreign oil companies bankrolling the Sudanese Government?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 08:42 AM

Okay, let me make sure I've got this straight: The foreign oil companies are bankrolling the Sudanese Government; the Sudanese Government is backing the Janjaweed Militia, while the Janjaweed Militia is taking action to assure the oil companies a cheap supply of crude.
                Subsequently, a plumber in Hoboken is able to fill up his Hummer with fuel substantially below what the market price would be if all of the above wasn't happening, and the only folks who are taking it in the shorts are the people who owned the oil in the first place.
                Does that about cover it?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 12:19 AM

"Unless they're bankrolling the Janjaweed Militia."

I believe that they are being sponsored solely by the Sudanese Government. The oil companies in question here are mainly Chinese, Indian, Malaysian and French.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 06:05 PM

"Nothing to do with "big-bad-oil-companies" sharing out anything."

             Unless they're bankrolling the Janjaweed Militia.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Teribus
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:56 PM

In most cases the mineral rights are owned by the State irrespective of who owns the land. Under normal circumstances the land owner is recompensed for any disruption caused by exploration and extraction/production. This can be paid by a lump sum payment, straightforward rent or by royalty payments paid per barrel.

The State that owns the oil does not necessarily have the money or the expertise to explore or extract the oil, so it sells a licence to "the-big-bad-oil-company". Now the oil company does not own the oil, but it pays for the exploration effort, it pays for the installation of the wellhead structures, blow-out preventers and pielines to extract and transport the oil. In return for all this investment the Government who still owns the oil gives the oil company a share of the proceeds. The State can revoke the oil company's licence at any time. That is basically why you can't steal anybody's oil, because by and large until the reservoir's exhausted, you can't take it anywhere. If you extract it you sell it on a world market, for the market price.

Now in the case of Darfur, the Sudanese Government and their proxy agents the Janjaweed Militia are trying to drive the locals off the land in order that they do not have to compensate them, and/or share the wealth of the province. Nothing to do with "big-bad-oil-companies" sharing out anything.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 09:12 AM

"The owner's" it seems, are whoever happens to be in the neighborhood with the most money to buy the security forces necessary to take and hold the oil.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: jeffp
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 07:58 AM

You can't get the oil without paying the owners. If that's the government, that's who you pay. Or you go without. It's easy to say what should happen. Not so easy to make it happen.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 05:23 PM

jeffp - In all honesty, I don't have any idea, but I would offer the suggestion that the resources of the country should be going to help the people who live there. I think you are probably right that corrupt leaders are taking the money for themselves.
          What the oil companies could do would be to quit buying off the corrupt leaders, but that would need to be brokered by somebody. If Exxon quit doing it and BP refused to, it would only hurt Exxon.

                   I guess all I can offer is, it seems like something is wrong there, I don't know how to fix it.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: jeffp
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:53 PM

So you believe that all of the population of Sudan are entitled to the proceeds of the oil sales? What percentage of the proceeds? Is the oil in the ground owned by the people as a whole? Or is it owned by individuals?

I assume that if the oil is nationalized, then the proceeds go to the government, which is then responsible for what happens to it. I seriously doubt that the western oil companies have anything to do with what happens to it after they pay it.

If the oil is owned by individuals, as it is in the US in most cases (I'm using individuals in the broad sense to include corporate entities), then those individuals will do what they wish with the proceeds, as mineral rights owners do here. This, again, is not under the control of the oil companies.

I don't know the status of the oil in the ground in Sudan. I wouldn't be surprised if it was all owned by the government and that oil revenues were mostly lost to official corruption. However, I don't really see what the oil companies that buy the oil can do about it. Any ideas?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM

I'm talking about that portion of the Sudan population who, if they had their fair share of the proceeds would buy some new shoes and something to eat for diner. They might even opt for some clean drinking water and sanitary conditions to live in.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: jeffp
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:41 PM

The phrase can be interpreted in at least two ways, as stated in my post. Try to remain civil, if you can.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: 282RA
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:33 PM

>>What do you mean by "the poor people of Sudan"?<<

He means the rich prople of Sudan, you idiot, what do you think he means?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: jeffp
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 04:23 PM

What do you mean by "the poor people of Sudan"?

Do you mean the population of Sudan? Characterized as "poor."

Or do you mean just the poor section of the population?

Who owns the oil? Is it owned by the government? Or is it owned by individuals? Who gets paid for the oil?

Do you know the answers to any of these questions?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:00 PM

Teribus - you're talking about the price of crude on the world market. What do you think the poor people of Sudan get for it?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Teribus
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:15 AM

"They ensure the lowest price for crude through monopolistic practices, and they ensure the highest prices for retail products through monopolistic practices."

OK, "They ensure the lowest price for crude through monopolistic practices" Now explain to us how they do that, i.e. ensure lowest prices for crude. Is $70+ a barrel the "lowest price for crude"? Or does that just happen to be the market rate? What price do you think they would prefer it to be and then tell us all why through "monopolistic practices" they can't force the price of supply down to meet that.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 11:10 PM

"I do not believe that "we" are attempting to do either anywhere. I have asked dianavan, time and time again exactly how one "steals their resources". Not once has there been any example or description of method or means. Dianavan, the US, or more correctly the companies purchasing oil/gas for import to the US pays market price for it, exactly the same as everybody else, so are they too guilty of "stealing their resources"?"


                It seems to me that the balance of power has shifted so far to the advantage of capital that nothing else even matters. The players in the petroleum game are so few and so huge that they can manipulate the markets on both ends. They ensure the lowest price for crude through monopolistic practices, and they ensure the highest prices for retail products through monopolistic practices. The developing countries with the resources take it in the shorts, and the working stiff in the developed countries takes it in the shorts.
                The circle will become complete when Exxon and British Petroleum start selling shorts.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 03:09 AM

"The problem is that we have no right to impose our culture on those living in the Middle East and we have no right to steal their resources." - dianavan, 06 Jun 07 - 12:28 PM.

I do not believe that "we" are attempting to do either anywhere. I have asked dianavan, time and time again exactly how one "steals their resources". Not once has there been any example or description of method or means. Dianavan, the US, or more correctly the companies purchasing oil/gas for import to the US pays market price for it, exactly the same as everybody else, so are they too guilty of "stealing their resources"?

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 07 - 11:44 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6755797.stm
This is about a terror trial just finished here.
There was a US dimension but I do not know how much coverage it got .

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:05 PM

OK..don't bother saying I hate Muslims because I have stated many times my fondness for the ones I have met. I hope to travel to various areas such as Palestine and Jordan etc. There is a threat. Part of it is from parts of the Muslim world. It is real. But, put this in your pipes and smoke it..people do not have to hate us in order to do us harm. The Mafia does not necessarily hate us. It might, but that is not what drives them. The Columbian drug lords probably don't hate us and our way of life and our drug-addicted and promiscous teenagers. Probably some WWII Nazis are still alive and well and dreaming of the day. People do not have to hate us to want to take what we have. Making them love us probably is not going to work. Now, this is not just my idea, although I certainly have it..but all these groups and many more you can think of are going to join forces..and essentially probably have. All the bad guys and gals in the world sooner or later meet up. So there you have it. Eternal vigilance or kiss it goodbye. I think many of you have made your choice and past a certain tipping point the job of protecting America and others just can't be done. So I am at the kiss it goodbye stage. Might not have to but that is where I would put my money. Has nothing to do with racism, hating Muslims, whatever. There are opportunists in the world and they will take advantage of weaknesses. It doesn't matter who they are. Get rid of one group and others will pop up. And hatefullness is hatefullness no matter who it is expressed against.   mg

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Grab
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 07:42 PM

I'm not convinced that freedoms threaten anyone's way of life. Iraq for all its failings managed to let women go around without full headscarves, drive cars and hold down jobs; Turkey and Egypt likewise; and this hasn't noticeably led to extra immorality there.

Islam isn't a conservative religion in itself - the problem is that many *countries* in which Islam is the primary religion are conservative countries, and interpretation of religion is used as the means of control. We can't impose our culture - but we can support self-determination (vocally or otherwise) when the people of those countries decide they've had enough of it. The problem is that the very concept of self-determination can be seen as a threat. That's a standard government problem though, and it's not specific to Islamic countries - most countries' governments today have been founded after some kind of popular protest against the previous rulers, and most of them celebrate that revolution whilst simultaneously saying that popular protests against the current rule are immoral and evil. Such is government. :-/

The problem is though, we claim we celebrate freedom of religion, and then we get front-page newspaper articles about "mad mullahs", or a devout religious family who do nothing but help their neighbours being dragged from their house and shot by the police. Similarly we claim we don't discriminate, and then more black and Asian men are stopped on suss. Does not compute.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 12:28 PM

Well said, Graham.

Yes, the west is a different culture, Kipp. You are right when you our freedoms threaten their way of life. The problem is that we have no right to impose our culture on those living in the Middle East and we have no right to steal their resources.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Kipp
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:44 AM

I think that we here in the US have a different culture as does the west for that matter.,and our culture is one of the dominate ones right now. Yet we can not only say that it is the Bush administration we we have many different things going on as does the the countries of Europe. our popular music gay rights more freedom for women the list goes on and on. That also is why we the Us is refered to as the Great Satan the freedoms that we hold dearly is considered a threat to some if not most forms of Islam. So it is not only or polotics it is our why of life. I think that it is for that reason most of all Islam is a very conserative religion and the notion of freedom a thing that we hold very dearly and is at the core of what makes or coutry work
   Kipp

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 09:22 AM

"But you can usually stop them hating you in the first place by not doing things that'll piss them off."

Which is exactly why i suspect that many people internationally will continue to hate the US for a very long time....

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Grab
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 08:47 AM

Problem with this whole militant thing is that it assumes there's one guiding intelligence running it. There isn't.

Yes, 9/11 was the work of people who'd had contact with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

But London? Disaffected locals working on their own. Spain? Disaffected locals working on their own. This one? Disaffected locals working on their own. That's why I agree with 282RA - all these *are* isolated incidents.

But there *is* a terrorist threat. What have all these got in common? Answer: disaffected Muslims who have grievances over what's been done to Muslim countries by the US and the West in general, and who also have grievances against the treatment of Muslims in the US and West in general. Is the answer to impose more sanctions on Muslim countries and put more restrictions on resident Muslims? For me, that seems stupid. You don't prevent this by cracking down harder on Muslims, you prevent it by dealing with their grievances.

To put the same question another way, was the best response to the IRA to send out the B Specials/UDR/RUC to intimidate Catholics? Or was it brokering deals that would give Catholics a say, and dismantling the apparatus that institutionalised the violence against Catholics? And in the US, was the best response to the Black Panthers to send the police out on the streets and fire-hose black protestors? Or was it to give blacks equal access to schools, jobs and social environment, and prevent discrimination on the basis of colour?

The simple fact is that once someone hates you, you can't stop them taking a swing at you, and that's as true for individuals as for countries. But you can usually stop them hating you in the first place by not doing things that'll piss them off.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 04:17 AM

282, why do you keep saying that they are RELYING on the dealers evidence, when they clearly have other evidence as well?
No such thing as a terrorist threat, just isolated incidents?
Well yes. Each attack is an isolated incident.
The pattern is for a group or cell working largely independently to carry out random acts of mass mrder.
And that is the threat, not Middle East style chaos.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Jun 07 - 03:51 AM

Thanks for clearing that up, Wolfgang.

Sorcha, your comment is short, sweet and to the point.

They are not only controlling their citizenry with fear, they sensationalize insignificant arrests so that we actually think they are trying to protect us. Its also a way of saying, "Hey, look over there!" It a diversion and takes up space on the front page so they can hide their crimes and incompetence.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 08:28 PM

>>Our terrorists had no problem obtaining funding or explosive.
The money was gained locally from crime, mostly credit card fraud.
The explosives were made from locally available materials.
Is the only evidence the testimony of a dealer?<<

Yes. Otherwise, why would they need his testimony. He's about as questionable a witness as one could have. It's ridiculous and unbelievably hypocritical of the gov't to rely on such testimony when they waste $30 billion a year on their little war on drugs--which is apparently trumped by the one on terror--both of which have succeeded in only making each problem worse if not outright creating it.

>>I thought that there were recordings and evidence of extensive surveilance.<<

Sure. That's why they're relying on a convicted drug dealer as their informant--because they have so much evidence.

>>If you believe that there is no real terrorist threat anyore, you are ignoring the evidence of the attacks in Britain and Spain, and the higher profile of US as a target.<<

There never was a terrorist threat. There never has been and there never will be. All we have are a handful of incidents--overall inconsequential to our continued survival and comfort level. No threat to us at all. There is virtually no chance of a terrorist attack going down the US. Even the attacks on the WTC were actually intended to disrupt what one isolated group saw as the international Jewish financial empire. But there simply can't be extended guerilla warfare over here--terrorist groups don't have time, money or people for that. Look what fighting overseas is doing to us, for god's sake! It is simply NOT going to happen and it isn't going to happen in Europe either. An incident here and there but certainly nothing like what's going on in the Middle East. They are able to carry on with their war in the Middle East because it's in their backyard. Anyone who thinks that a million terrorists are going to fllod America and Europe and drown us in chaos and bloodshed is an amazing coward and an even more amazing idiot.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:45 PM

I do not discount the fact of terrorist existence, etc. but I refuse to tremble in my boots and lose sleep over this crap anymore. I firmly believe that our own goverment is manipulating us, or trying to with scare stories to get away with even more illegal acts, invasion of privacy, etc.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Wolfgang
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:26 PM

I think we may assume that Dickey and tarheel might be one in the same. It seems they never post to the same thread (Dianavan)

They look to me like very different people with similar political leanings. They have posted to the same thread and BTW it was a thread to which Dianavan has posted as well.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 01:53 PM

It looks as if these men were conspiring to commit an act of terrorism but that they did not have the support of any terrorist organization. In any event, the plot seems to have been ill-conceived. Here's a video discussing the possible outcome of their plan.

http://edition.cnn.com/video/player/player.html?url=/video/us/2007/06/02/meserve.jfk.happen.cnn

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 05:38 AM

Our terrorists had no problem obtaining funding or explosive.
The money was gained locally from crime, mostly credit card fraud.
The explosives were made from locally available materials.
Is the only evidence the testimony of a dealer? I thought that there were recordings and evidence of extensive surveilance.
If you believe that there is no real terrorist threat anyore, you are ignoring the evidence of the attacks in Britain and Spain, and the higher profile of US as a target.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 03:03 AM

If you look at the posting history, I think we may assume that Dickey and tarheel might be one in the same. It seems they never post to the same thread and it also appears that they are both ruled by fear and motivated by hate. They are also competing for the lowest IQ.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: Sorcha
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:31 AM

Thank you Mick. I have rec'd communication from another clone as well.

Subject: RE: Kennedy Airport Story
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Jun 07 - 02:27 AM

The arrest of these so-called 'terrorists' is obviously a way to divert our attention away from the fact that the 'surge' is failing. Bush is just trying to justify his war on terrorism and re-claim any credibility he may have had.

"Military officials also acknowledged Monday that U.S.-led forces have control of fewer than one-third of Baghdad's neighbourhoods despite thousands of extra troops nearly four months into a security crackdown. That assessment came as the U.S. death toll approached 3,500, with at least 15 American troops reported killed in the first three days of June.

Lt.-Col. Scott Bleichwehl, a military spokesman for Baghdad operations, confirmed that a status report completed in May found that American and Iraqi forces were able to "protect the population" and "maintain physical influence over" only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighbourhoods, while troops have either not begun operations aimed at rooting out insurgents or still face "resistance" in the others."

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=c823335b-d4fe-4943-b324-f954ebf1ec0f&k=44986

I agree with many others on this thread - its a way of saying, "If we weren't on the ball, you would all be blown away. You need us to protect you. We may have missed the mark on 9-11 but we're really up to speed these days."

Yeah, right. We need your war mongering like a hole in the head.