Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Story So Far. . . Since those two towers fell.

By Fantastic Lad in Op-Ed
Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:46:17 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

Way back on a fine September morning in 2001, I wandered downstairs, made myself a bowl of oatmeal with raisins and walnuts and various other ingredients, (none of which came out of a little individually prepared envelope), and then stood in front of the television. I like to take the pulse of the bullshit version of reality; if you lick your finger and stick it up into the dry wind of network news, you can usually get an interesting type of information about what might really be going on in the world. --That is, if the Big Voice tells you to ignore something, then a shoulder check for little men behind curtains is generally quite rewarding. Or something to that effect.

I turned on the television news.


What do you know? Those two tall buildings in New York I never bothered to think about for more than 10 seconds in my life were all screwed up and there was black smoke everywhere. One of them was gone, and over breakfast, I got to see the second one collapse while some on-air rich guy was trying hard to deliver the appropriate measure of, "Calm and Informed Talking Head" mixed with "Stunned Americanism" mixed with "Holy Shit, this is one of THOSE moments, so I'd better stay cool and not sound like an idiot!"

He did a pretty good job, I guess.

Now, I admit that I actually felt my stomach turn. I don't even live in the U.S., and I felt the shockwave of fear rumble across the land from ground zero in New York and slam me in the gut where I stood with a bowl of oatmeal in the living room. Pop, it went. The silly daydream of happy Western consumerism just burst. Pop! Remember waaaay back when Clinton was in office and everybody was still innocent and merrily squabbling over who blew who? Gone. The bombs were falling and the end was nigh.

Okay. So I went for a quick walk. --The fear was palpable. I figured it was my job to talk to people and keep heads calm around town, so down to the post office I went. On the way I overheard a pair of men walking up the street, the guy speaking did so with firm karate chop gesticulations in time with his verbs. "We're going to find out who did this," he said, angrily. "We're going to find them, and then we're going to get them!"

It was clear that he was talking more to reassure himself than the fellow walking beside him. Funny part was, he wasn't even an American, so that 'We' stuff was bubbling up from somewhere deep indeed. Fear does funny things.

At the post office, a twenty-something woman was talking into her cell phone, looking high-school embarrassed. "Yes Mom, I know. I'm at the post office. Yes! I said I'm fine already. --No. No. . . No! I know this isn't a joke, Mom! I know it's serious. Mom. . ! Will you relax. I said I'm fine!"

So I talked with the people I knew. I went to the barber, and talked to Jimmy and the couple of guys there. Same at the grocery store. Everybody was rattled, and I repeated my pitch. Something about, "This is just an attempt to fill people with fear so that we'll be confused. It's just a couple of buildings. We have to keep cool, because the dangerous part is going to be in how we respond." I don't know if it helped or not. People were pretty dazed, and frankly, so was I, trying to reassure myself that I knew what was going on. I guess I wasn't really so different from karate chop guy. . .

A few hours later, Bin Laden was blamed. My friend who works for a local television news station said a year later, "Can you tell me something? I've asked people, but they just look at me like I'm from Pluto. All the people at the station are from pods. But tell me this: How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit? His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact. Where the hell did that come from? I work in news, and I can't even figure it out. Can you tell me?"

I couldn't. And I've to this day yet to hear a reasonable answer to his question.

Back to the 11th of September. . .

Sitting in a Sushi joint with a couple of friends. The television was on. "President Bush has deployed ships to Afghanistan."

"Hm. That quick," I noted, feeling surreal and queasy.

My friend nodded. "Oh yes. Americans don't waste any time when they go insane."

We ate our raw fish and pondered the end of the world.

It actually took about 4 weeks before the first bombs were dropped on Afghanistan. Five days before, however, the first anthrax attack came down the pike soon to be followed by a couple of others, notably at CBS. While scary, it turned out to be nothing really major, only about five people directly affected, but everybody went running around buying duct tape, sheets of plastic, buying up anti-anthrax pills regardless. --Some of the Anthrax spores turned out to have been made by the good old U.S. military, a detail which went largely un-dealt with. Nobody was arrested.

The Stone Age

In the days that followed, a particular email began making the rounds. The now almost universally remembered, Afghanistan Has Already Been Bombed Back To the Stone Age email circulated the web, was read and like an effective virus, was forwarded by millions to millions more. In the end, though, it didn't make any difference.

The U.S. and the world were seeing red; their heads still spinning, thus, despite the fact that neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban army, were ever shown to have any connection to the 9-11 attack, --and despite that there has still yet to be a proper investigation into the tragedy, (9-11 is perhaps the most under-investigated event in the history of Front Page American crime.), despite all of these things, on October 7th, 2001, American and British bombs fell on Afghanistan.

And the West grunted with satisfaction even as it licked its wounds and cleared up the mess of iron and glass and plaster covering New York.

Still, I remember saying at the time, "What if this is really all about Oil and Opium. . ? There's this strategic bit of pipe-line land and an oil-rich Caspian sea, plus the Taliban for the last couple of years have been burning billions of dollars worth of heroin which, it has been long said, the CIA highly values as a political and economic lever to control and destabilize countries and regimes. Some even say that the CIA profits directly. Plus, all of that money moves through Wall Street at some point; more than just drug dealers get rich on narcotics, you know, and some of those people own banks and wield influence in dark, political places." I got scowled at for this. A lot. People were really messed up by 9-11 and they were not into listening to anything but war drums.

Guantanamo Bay and Camp X-Ray (soon to be replaced by Camp Delta) opened for business. Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true. Few cared.

USA Patriot Act

On October 26, 2001, the USA Patriot Act was signed into law. "Although the bill is 342 pages long and amends over 15 different statutes, it passed only 5 weeks after its introduction." --Though the part I thought was weird was that somebody had a 342 page bill prepared and ready to go mere days after 9-11. But America was too stunned to be thinking rationally about such points. --Fortunately, the act is also filled with sunset clauses all designed to self-destruct on the dawn of 2006. Two years and two and a half months to go. I wonder if we'll make it?

Oh, and there was also Enron, (and a dozen or so others). . .

[. . .]the nation's seventh largest company, goes bust amidst rumors of insider trading, document shredding, etc. Thousands of people suffer large financial losses. Calls for federal regulation of energy, business, securities, and the accounting industry, etc, increase. At mid-January Senate hearings, the outrage is palpable on "both sides of the aisle." By early February, it is common knowledge that the Federal Government had passed a law giving immunity to certain accountants and auditors for the sorts of actions that resulted in the Enron collapse[. . .]
And so time passed. . . The anniversary of 9-11 came and went, with nothing big to report until. . .

The Washington Area Sniper

Starting October 2, 2002, The Washington Area Sniper went into action, and for three weeks Washington was terrorized. 14 random victims were shot with a hunting rifle fired from inside a specially re-configured car. John Allen Muhammad, 41, an Army veteran of the Persian Gulf War who qualified as an expert marksman in the service, and 17-year-old John Lee Malvo, a Jamaican citizen were caught.

People were feeling entirely squirrelly and tense at this point. It had been been a tough year. The dollar dropping, the job market failing. A tough year indeed.

The Homeland Security Bill passed

On November 25, Bush signed into legal existence, the department of Homeland Security, a department with designs on keeping an eye on, well, everybody and everything.

Meanwhile, Bush and his people, who had started making noises about Iraq mere days after the twin towers went down, started getting louder. --"Iraq is a terrorist country! Iraq is part of the Axis of Evil, and they must be stopped!" --The story hadn't broken at this time that the plan to take Iraq had been drawn up well before 9-11. Didn't matter. The world was entirely capable of feeling uneasy all on its lonesome at this point. Its insanity had cooled off.

Roll out the Weapons Inspectors!

On November 27, 2002, Hans Blix became the man of the hour as the UN Weapons Inspection Team began playing the idiot game, Find the WMDs in earnest.

The ins and outs of this distracting game of table tennis was fascinating to watch. Depending largely on how easily fooled you were by slick politicians, you either saw Saddam as a cagey bastard who kept dancing tauntingly around the U.N., or you saw him as being harassed by an unfair bully which kept changing the rules of the game whenever Iraq conceded to the latest set of Bush's ultimatums. --Ultimatums which became ever more unrealistic each time they were met and the U.S. should have accordingly sent home its salivating war machine, (which had already been fired up, fail-safes unlocked and was steadily deploying itself throughout the Persian gulf and Middle East).

The truth of the matter? Well, to quote Hans Blix himself: "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly." -quote And did the UN team find anything? No. They did not.

Heck, even after a whole seven months of US occupation, the US itself grudgingly admitted that it wasn't able to turn up a single WMD either.

But I'm skipping ahead. . .

"Saddam is responsible for 9-11!"

Well, actually, he wasn't. Indeed, that war cry became quickly hard to digest as not a single shred of evidence has to this day appeared linking Iraq to 9-11. Though, miraculously, this hasn't prevented Americans from believing the opposite to be true. --According to a poll taken by USA Today, 70 Percent of Americans belive in a 9-11/Saddam link. How does one account for this? Well, according to a study by the University of Maryland, the more FoxNews you watch, the more likely you are to have stupid misconceptions about the Middle East.

But again, I'm getting off track. Where was I. . ?

Right. "Saddam is Responsible for 9-11!" --Except he wasn't, so the cry quickly changed to, "Saddam has WMDs! Let's get him!" Except this cry also became a hollow one as the world realized through the UN inspections that it simply wasn't so. --Maybe ten years ago it was true, but all those chemical weapons, George Bull Super Guns, and nuclear programs were dismantled and thoroughly destroyed by the UN inspections teams and the coalition forces after the first Gulf War, after which economic sanctions kept Iraq from building new ones. (As well as starving much of its populace in the process.) Indeed, ten years later, in 2002, there were no WMDs evident anywhere, and so the world refused to play along.

This, however, did not present any obstacle to the Bush gang.

"Okay, okay. . ," They cried. "Saddam is a really bad guy then! A REALLY bad guy!"

Sigh. Whatever. Bush was going to have his war whatever the cost, so the excuse was just dressing. Thus, even as the rest of the world screamed and demonstrated and begged the U.S. and the U.K. to come to their senses, the U.S. instead "Came with a mighty force to liberate" the Iraqi people.

And the world watched with shock and awe.

The spectacular American army did what it did best; it played Command & Conquer to the very best of its abilities. The Abram tanks rolled in, Jessica Lynch was a Hollywood hero, a few hundred Iraqis showed up to cheer as Saddam's statue was pulled down, journalists were in bed with the invading army, and America thought very highly of itself. For about a month. And then things began to go sour under that wilting Arabian sun. . .

I remember screaming and yelling like a ripe asshole on day one of the invasion. "What arrogant morons! Don't they realize. . ? Doesn't anybody see what's going to happen here? The Pentagon ordered 77,000 body bags before setting sail, for crying out loud!"

"Fears that Iraq will inflict heavy casualties on British and American troops intensified yesterday when it emerged the Pentagon had ordered almost five times the number of body bags it requested before the last Gulf War. Within weeks it will have more than 77,000 bags at the ready, compared with 16,000 in 1991.In the last conflict, 148 US soldiers were killed in combat, including 35 by "friendly fire", while Iraqi forces suffered some 30,000 casualties. The increased order will reinforce concern that Saddam might be preparing to use chemical or biological weapons. It will also fuel speculation that planners are expecting to suffer high casualties in street fighting as the troops try to take major cities such as Basra and Baghdad."

-News.com.au (Had to clip this from my own snapshot-of-news-page archives. This item, once all over the place, is now posted on exactly zero respected news sites on the web.)

To make an omelette, you have to. . .

Since March, misery, chaos and brutality have reigned in Iraq. Nobody is happy. Nobody is healthy. Depleted Uranium dust fills the air, making both Iraqi and American sick. There is no electricity, no running water, no communications system, no jobs, no safety, no stability. Nothing but fear, murder and confusion, and perhaps a bit of corruption tossed in for good measure. American troops are being sent home dead or wounded every day. The true numbers of casualties are not posted by the main media outlets, which should give some indication as to just how high they are. I could post links, but frankly, if you aren't able to see the state Iraq is currently in, then it probably means you don't want to see it, in which case you might as well stop reading this because it isn't going to get any better.

Oh, and desperate drug use is also running rampant in Baghdad. Just to cheer you up.

But what of Israel?

When Baghdad was taken by U.S. forces, Israel launched a conveniently timed campaign of its own. It sent massive offensives against all things Palestinian. Walls went up, and houses went down. Brutal armored strikes against civilian targets, including women and children, foreign aid workers and journalists, to the point where even 27 members of the Israeli air force, sickened by the inhuman demands placed upon them signed a letter of complaint and formally refused to fly any more missions against civilian targets. Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon promised swift retribution for the pilots.

All in retaliation to the endless Palestinian suicide bombings, (which, if truth be known, have been quietly questioned by a few as to just how 'Palestinian' some of them really are. 50 years of mind-programming experiments, you know. . . But this is fodder for another essay entirely!). In any case, a sticky, stinking situation.

Indeed, the attacks by Israel deeply upset many Jews, and there have been many protests both in Israel and abroad. A couple of days ago, this ad was placed in the Washington Post by Jews opposed to the Zionist agenda.

And what agenda might that be? What can be determined from an Israeli bombing attack on Syrian territory? --Like I said; another essay entirely. And I'm getting off track again. . .

Thus, In Only Two Years. . .

The two year anniversary of 9-11 has come and gone, and a ton of things have happened. Nobody knows what the heck really went down on 9-11 because there has yet to be a proper investigation. Bush has virtually bankrupted the US, has provided all the tools for a seriously fascist America to do whatever a seriously fascist America wants, the Nazi-sympathizing Terminator, (self-proclaimed friend of WWII Nazi atrocities participant, Kurt Waldheim), is now in politics, and Corrupt Diebold is there just in case people threaten to vote the wrong way.

Now, I've left out a ton of details, including everything from French Fries and Homeland Spooks in your local library to Cheney and Halliburton, North Korean nukes, India v.s. Pakistan, RFID chips, increasing internet security troubles, Wellstone's plane crash, and all the way to the Space Shuttle getting blown out of the sky. Among many other things. --All of which brings us to today.

One a hell of a ride from that surreal morning in my living room two years back. --With a bowl of cooling oatmeal in my hand and my jaw hanging slack as the early release trailer for Sam Raimi's Spider Man went from being simply dumb to being tasteless in the five seconds it took for the South tower to vanish in a cloud of powder.

So that's that. And what is my take on it all? Where does a humble conspiracy nut see this all going? If you will pardon my indulgence. . .

1. I think it is reasonable to assume that Iraq isn't going to be the last chip to fall. Nor do I think that Syria or Iran will be the last chips either.

2. I think there will be a draft in America, and I think it will happen shortly after whoever manages to be 'president' becomes president. --It may well be Bush again, but it hardly matters at this point as the game is so entirely rigged. Nothing short of a miracle or an armed coup, I think, will change the course of the freight train now.

3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out.

4. I think we are going to see the Semites, (both Jew and Arab), having a hard, hard time over the next decade. Like, WWII hard. This worries me more than anything else.

5. I think that before things really go to hell, the world is going to be distracted by a lot of rocks falling out of the sky.

In short, I think we are right smack dab in the middle of the most interesting times we will ever see, and that we should be damned pleased to be here to see them. If one can stay open to this stuff and keep on watching without getting scared and without lying to themselves, then one can also take the necessary steps to avoid the various land mines which are going off all around us. --Try to think of it as a game where you get to be the main character. --A smart main character might try to get out of the line of fire, (as well as the line to the draft office.), but then I don't live in the U.S. or the Middle East, so it's easy for me to talk.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go make another bowl of oatmeal. Think I'll use dried cranberries today. (Not from an envelope.)

And today, like yesterday, I won't turn on the news over breakfast. I don't need to lick my finger and stick it anywhere to test for little old men behind curtains. Either the curtains have gotten thinner, or the little guys have simply taken to running around out in the open more often. In either case, thank goodness for the internet.

I wonder for how long. . ?

-FL

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
I think America is. . .
o Genuinely trying to do the best it can with an imperfect system. 5%
o run by a Shadow Government. 0%
o run by assholes. 9%
o run by aliens. 0%
o run by corporations. 18%
o run by intelligent, honest men trying to solve a difficult problem 2%
o run by greedy half-wits trying to create a New World Order 24%
o Most of the above 36%

Votes: 209
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o made by the good old U.S. military,
o Afghanista n Has Already Been Bombed Back To the Stone Age
o American and British bombs fell on Afghanistan.
o pipe-line land
o heroin
o political and economic lever to control and destabilize countries and regimes.
o Guantanamo Bay
o tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers
o was signed into law.
o The Washington Area Sniper
o department of Homeland Security
o drawn up well before 9-11
o Find the WMDs
o quote
o No. They did not.
o admitted that it wasn't able to turn up a single WMD either.
o 70 Percent of Americans belive in a 9-11/Saddam link.
o stupid misconceptions about the Middle East.
o true numbers of casualties
o desperate drug use
o signed a letter of complaint
o this ad
o Israeli bombing attack on Syrian territory?
o Nazi-sympa thizing Terminator, (self-proclaimed friend of WWII Nazi atrocities participant, Kurt Waldheim),
o Corrupt Diebold
o rocks falling out of the sky.
o Also by Fantastic Lad


Display: Sort:
The Story So Far. . . Since those two towers fell. | 329 comments (276 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden)
Predictions. (1.94 / 17) (#4)
by pb on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 10:53:10 AM EST

Your predictions tie in pretty well with John Titor's, at least for as far as they go. He'd also advise people to find somewhere safe, (but where will that be?) due to civil war in the US that should start manifesting itself in 2005. Of course, only time will tell; here's to hoping that everything miraculously works out ok in the decades to come, because I'd really rather not leave my homeland.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
John Titor (1.80 / 5) (#55)
by ComradeFork on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 01:03:46 AM EST

Although the hoax was quite funny, he left plenty of clues. I've thought of doing a hoax like this myself.

[ Parent ]
clues. (none / 0) (#190)
by Technix on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 01:29:10 PM EST

List three clues that make you disbelieve.
-Chris Simmons,
Haiku News http://haikunews.org
[ Parent ]
3 reasons I don't believe (none / 0) (#205)
by skorn on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:03:38 PM EST

1) Titor said that he did not want to divulge information about specific citites destroyed because he did not want to alter our 'worldline', yet he mentioned Jacksonville, Florida as being hit 'by the first warheads'. 2) Although he claimed that we existed on different 'worldlines', he still blames the people of this one for the death of his love, going so far as to proclaim his hatred for all of us. 3) The similarities of his story to the book: Alas, Babylon cannot be denied.
end trans
[ Parent ]
i think you're a quack with that toxin crap (2.47 / 23) (#6)
by circletimessquare on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:00:16 AM EST

but you wrote an honest good read

so +1 fp, this is the best of kuro5hin: a heartfelt personal  paean to how you view the reality we find ourselves in today

so thanks dude ;-)


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

+1FP (1.62 / 16) (#8)
by psychologist on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:31:41 AM EST

Conspiracies are always good discussion.

Can we please stick to a conspiracy theory? (1.77 / 18) (#9)
by thefirelane on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:33:14 AM EST

plus the Taliban for the last couple of years have been burning billions of dollars worth of Afghan heroin which everybody knows the CIA likes to fund its operations with. . ."

Ugh... wait... I thought that it the US was supporting the Taliban's destruction of Afghan drugs, and giving them money to do so. Therefore we obviously sent Osama a blank check and can't bitch about 9/11

Or, I guess now they were doing it of their own accord, and we were pissed about it, and used 9/11 as an excuse to attack the innocent Taliban who were merely trying to clean up the drugs we were pushing on them

In Summary:

The US attacked Afghanistan because we were/were not pissed about the drugs they were/were not destroying.

This is not meant to be a troll. It is more a sarcastic comment at the fact that everyone seems to have their own far-out pet theory regarding 9/11. Why is it with 9/11 Occam's Razor goes right out the window, and the most complicated, intricate conspiracy seems to win out in people's mind?


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
other connections - not just poppies (3.00 / 4) (#88)
by phlux on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:26:17 PM EST

"The US attacked Afghanistan because we were/were not pissed about the drugs they were/were not destroying."

No, there are many more reasons as to why we attacked Afghanistan that many people dont know about.

For years the US has been trying to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan - and we were in talks with the Taliban in order to do so, it wasn't until those talks broke down and they told us that we couldnt build one that we told them "You can either pave Afghanistan with gold or bombs."

Following are links related to the renewed effort (now that we bombed the shit out of the Taliban) and the original efforts of the Unocal to get to build an oil line there:

Renewed info - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

Here is a link from 1997 talking about the consortium put together to build the pipeline:
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/97news/102797a.htm

Here is a statement from 1998 talking about the pulling out of Unocal due to political problems:
http://www.unocal.com/uclnews/98news/082198.htm

"El Segundo, Calif., Aug. 21, 1998 -- As a result of sharply deteriorating political conditions in the region, Unocal, which serves as the development manager for the Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline consortium, has suspended all activities involving the proposed pipeline project in Afghanistan. We are discussing this suspension with the other members of the consortium."

Here is a link about the appointment of an Afghan born employee of Unocal to the Special Envoy to Afghanistan by Bush:
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/islam/p123101.htm
(There are other links about this story on various sites that are from various political slants - so I will just leave you with the US State Department's announcement - you can look into this further on your own.)

The point here is that one should not think that there is one easy answer to anything - especially when talking about politics and war. The efforts of the Us and Oil companies from around the world to get an oil pipeline through Afghanistan are fact - and they are well documented.

You can find many, many stories on it - even research in oil publications talking about the benefits such a pipeline would provide to the industry.

Another aspect of this story - as it relates to Iraq is that there are rumors that the oil pipeline was to be built in Afghanistan - but then we found out that Iraq had weapons that would actually have the range to be a threat to the line - which prompted further efforts to deliver an excuse to eliminate that threat.

As I have stated before - if you were a major corporation who needed to ensure maximum profits, using a governments military and resources to protect your interests and bottom line is an ideal solution to having to spend your own money to ensure that your interests are safe. And what better way to get a government to be cooperative to your needs than to ensure that key positions in that government are held by people with direct interest in your industry - say ex-oil executives.

Don't just pass this off as troll - take a look at Donlad Rice's credentials. He is on the Board for Unocal: (he was secretary of the Air Force - and worked at many high-profile defense contractors)

http://www.nssg.gov/About_Us/People/Commissioners/Donald_Rice/donald_rice.htm

Additionally Condoleeza Rice is on the Board for Chevron:
http://www.chevron.com/about/annual/directors/main.html
http://www.moles.org/ProjectUnderground/drillbits/5_05/vs.html

The Secretary of Commerce is an ex-oil CEO Don Evans:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/evans-bio.html

Also - here is an interesting tid-bit on both Evans and Bush

http://www.utwatch.org/utimco/evans.html

Basically - look deeper into all aspects of these things. The answers will not be the ones that you first pop to conclusion on based on your very weak information you may have gotten of big name media outlets, or simply decided to believe in your own head.

[ Parent ]

Uhm... (none / 3) (#111)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:23:59 AM EST

You seem to believe that the information you present is little known and that it proves Afghanistan was attacked to facilitate the UNOCAL project. Neither belief is correct. The information regarding the UNOCAL project was reported in the mainstream US media in connection with the US assault on Afghanistan. In fact, Ted Rall, a columnist syndicated in major newspapers in nearly every major news market in the country, wrote numerous articles peddling the exact same conspiracy theory you are. The story wasn't dropped because it was suppressed, the story was stillborn. There isn't a single shred of evidence that the decision to attack Afghanistan was motivated by anything other than security threat it represented.  

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Wrong, (none / 4) (#115)
by phlux on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:24:18 AM EST

First of all, don't make assumptions as to what i may or may not believe. As you can see from my above comment - which was in reply to a previous post regarding the attacks on Afghanistan being possibly connected to the growth, or lack there of - of opium poppies.

Secondly - for you to so vehemently attempt to discredit this post just means that you are not even bothering to look at what was written. I specifically say that all I am asking is that people not make up their minds based on the cursory facts that are presented  by any main-stream media outlet - and additionally that people attempt to not make up their minds with no information at all, which seems to be the case in far too many people.

What I believe happened with regards to Afghanistan and Iraq is rather irrelevant. What is pertinent right now is that people actually make some attempt to gather Facts and shed light on the lies and mis-information that is so rampantly spreading throughout the world with regards to what is really happening on all fronts political, military and cultural.

I would ask that rather than attempting to carry the torch for any group, one rather seeks to find the truth and real motives behind any action. i think you can see from my post that i gave links to verifiable facts on all my points.

"There isn't a single shred of evidence that the decision to attack Afghanistan was motivated by anything other than security threat it represented"

Show me proof of this statement. Although I am sure that your version of proof here would be along the lines of "Just listen to the president's speaches" - or "It was all over the news and papers" - while, though these may be technically acurate statements - they hardly hold as True Fact and Proof. Obviously the media and political arms would not be spinning it the other way.

Although, I can feel your eyes rolling in your tiny little head right now - because you just read that statement as "Conspiracy theory hogwash blah blah..." but why is it that only things that disagree with your perception of the way things are, sound to you like conspiracy. Why would anything that disagrees with the party line be anything but Conspiracy Theory.

How about this for a conspiracy theory - your thoughts are not your own. When you do manage to come up with something original - I'd love to hear it....

Although you may think that, just because your perception of the reporting of the Unocal story is that it was stillborn - does not make it less important of an event (or series of)...

Please post any proof that discredits or (to use a term you may prefer, given the context) debunks the facts that I posted. Also please note that I used the term "Rumors" when talking about something that was, in fact, pure and utter speculation.

[ Parent ]

Evidence... (none / 3) (#143)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:11:29 PM EST

...is what's lacking from your "conspiracy theory"--and, yes, it is a conspiracy theory. Interesting "connections" and insinuations do not make for an argument. You ask me to present evidence "debunking" your claims, but nothing you've presented constitutes evidence in favor of a UNOCAL motive in attacking Aghanistan.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
better (none / 2) (#149)
by phlux on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:28:06 PM EST

This was the only correct statement you have made so far, "...nothing you've presented constitutes evidence in favor of a UNOCAL motive in attacking Aghanistan.."

I was doing just what you said presenting interesting connections and insinuations - all for the reader to make up his mind in whichevr way one chooses.

Again I will state that the original comment was in REPLY to someone who was thinking along the lines purely of poppy production.

I dont know what the whole situation was - nor is my opinion matter. I am simply stating that we, The USA - and UNOCAL (Among others) had been trying to get the Taliban to agree to let us build oil pipelines through their country for many years, and that it was stated to the taliban (although for some reason I can no longer find any reference to the quote) that they had the choice of bombs or gold. Which would in fact imply a connection to the line and the war....

but rather than try to create an instant skeptisism (sp?) by ensuring me that it is in fact conspiracy theory - call my comments fro what they were "intersting, factual and documented connections and insinuations"

Thank you.

[ Parent ]

Wake up, get a brain, live. <nt> (1.00 / 6) (#125)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:20:32 AM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Stunning retort. Moron [n/t] (none / 2) (#144)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:12:16 PM EST


---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
You were accidentaly trolled, sorry. <nt> (none / 3) (#148)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:25:49 PM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
I stopped reading (1.46 / 26) (#14)
by Kirsten on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:26:03 PM EST

at this point:
plus the Taliban for the last couple of years have been burning billions of dollars worth of Afghan heroin which everybody knows the CIA likes to fund its operations with.
Stupid.


:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Research Based Suggestions for a Happier Life
Especially since ... (1.66 / 9) (#43)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:57:43 PM EST

... quite apart from the fact that you can get perfectly good herion from Laos, Myanmar, Thailand, Uzbekestan, and so on, and so on, the main reason the Taleban were burning opium poppies was that the US government had paid them to.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
[ Parent ]
excellent (1.85 / 28) (#15)
by reklaw on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 12:39:21 PM EST

But tell me this: How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit? His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact. Where the hell did that come from?

I've wondered this for ages, but it's not something people are really willing to discuss. Bin Laden and company were found guilty despite a lack of any real evidence, mostly on the basis that he was the most likely candidate. "Bin Laden was responsible for September 11th" has become almost a religious belief that people do not question, when actually it was something that, although quite likely, was never really proved.

For all we know, the US might have no idea who was responsible for 9/11. That's actually my favourite conspiracy theory. Imagine the fear if no-one knew who'd done it -- they had absolutely no idea -- and no-one to take revenge on. Bin Laden's name was shouted long enough and loudly enough that people could believe it was him, and go after him.

Then there's the string of reasoning you get. A bit like this:

Planes were flown into the Twin Towers
AND...
Bin Laden was responsible (probably)
SO...
we should invade Afghanistan where he's hiding (we think)
OH, AND...
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (or at least, did ten years ago)
AND...
these weapons could fall into the hands of Bin Laden and his merry terrorists (somehow... work with us here)
SO...
we should invade Iraq!

As each thing has been accepted in the public mind, it's become gradually less clear how precarious each statement is. The justifications for the Iraq war (and even the wider "War on Terror") are a probably built on a maybe built on a most likely.

But then, what if no-one was giving the appearance of doing anything about any of this? What if the US Government had admitted that they couldn't be sure who was responsible for 9/11, and done nothing because of that fact?

I bet we'd be shitting ourselves.
-

How it was known (1.57 / 19) (#20)
by wiredog on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 01:55:00 PM EST

SIGINT

He, and his people, were using wireless commo systems, and the commo got intercepted.

And then Senator Hatch publicly said that was how we'd gotten the info, and Bin Laden stopped using those systems.

How do I know this? I read the newspaper.

Wilford Brimley scares my chickens.
Phil the Canuck

[ Parent ]

provide a source on that (1.00 / 15) (#31)
by reklaw on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 04:17:30 PM EST

...and then could you suggest why I should believe a senator who is so obviously open to bribery from the music and movie industries and so probably also open to it from others? Thanks.
-
[ Parent ]
At some point (2.30 / 10) (#50)
by ZorbaTHut on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 10:16:13 PM EST

you have to say "okay, probably this is the truth". Yes, he *could* have been bribed. Yes, the radio transmissions *could* have been faked, Yes, Osama *could* have been lying. And yes, if Osama himself came up to you tomorrow, showed you documents dated three weeks before 9/11 explaining every detail, gave you the names of all the people involved, their airline tickets, their wives and parents and addresses, showed video tape transmitted from inside the planes, including full biographies on everyone killed in the planes and why they probably wouldn't resist . . .

. . . then yeah, it *could* be a monkey in an Osama suit, hired by the FBI, in a private virtual reality constructed after hypnotizing you to be receptive to new ideas, all for the purpose of convincing you that it was Osama the whole time and not your neighbor Frank.

But it probably isn't.

I'll admit that it isn't certain, and there's a lot of stuff I'm pretty skeptical about, and that I've never heard of this wireless-comm theory before. But if that turns out to be accurate, and nobody's objected to it, it's quite possible that it's true.

[ Parent ]

Still got nothing to back that up, then? (nt) (none / 4) (#119)
by Drooling Iguana on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:35:56 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Bin Laden (1.73 / 15) (#24)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 02:39:14 PM EST

I think that reasoning is valid until the part where we invade Iraq. We pretty much know that Bin Laden was behind 9/11 - he has praised the attackers in tapes and made specific references to knowing individual attackers and being involved in their training. He has strongly implied that the attacks were his doing. We have proven connections between many of the attackers and al Qaeda. I don't think it's any stretch to say that we are positive that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks.

As for Afghanistan we are pretty sure that he was there until around December 2001. I think it was a good gamble to take. Iraq is where this really falls apart, because we know that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the 9/11 attacks. Increased awareness of terrorism is no reason to suddenly conquer another nation.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

questions: (1.58 / 12) (#30)
by reklaw on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 04:14:44 PM EST

  1. If I praise something and strongly imply that it is my doing, does that prove that I did it? 2. Are you seriously willing to start wars on the basis of shoddily translated tapes?
  2. Did we have access to any of these tapes when bin Laden was first named as the man responsible, or did they mysteriously surface later?
  3. Should we be bombing the shit out of countries in order to catch one person (or a small group of people) that are somewhere within the country's borders?
Ta.
-
[ Parent ]
Answers (2.00 / 10) (#36)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:17:05 PM EST

  1. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... well? We know Bin Laden provides most of the financial support for Al Qaeda. We know that some of the hijackers were in Al Qaeda training camps and were also involved in the embassy bombings and the USS Cole. Both of those attacks were done by Al Qaeda. Bin Laden knew the hijackers and spoke about their training. Should I go on?
  2. I think Al Jazeera and the CIA probably understand Arabic pretty damn well.
  3. Later, but I don't see what your point is. The guy went on TV several times after the attacks. Are you saying that we faked Bin Laden tapes?
  4. I don't know. Certainly not Iraq. As for Afghanistan there were a significant number of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists operating there and it was probably best to bomb the shit out of them and round up the rest. We're not talking about a small group here.


--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Regarding answer #1 (1.33 / 6) (#64)
by emwi on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:34:52 AM EST

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... well?

It could be a cygnet? Ferrytales taught me so.

We know Bin Laden provides most of the financial support for Al Qaeda.

That's you and...? "Most"? How much? Any balance sheets from swiss banks to prove that? ANYTHING to prove that?

We know that some of the hijackers were in Al Qaeda training camps and were also involved in the embassy bombings and the USS Cole.

I am absolutely sure you can't even NAME me the hijackers, don't even start to talk about training camps.

Both of those attacks were done by Al Qaeda.

Any proof of that?

Bin Laden knew the hijackers and spoke about their training.

Any proof of that?

Should I go on?

Absolutely. Allegations are the easy part, now to the facts, please.
Mind you, I'm talking about PROOF, as in any court of your choice.

Thanks,

emwi

[ Parent ]

Hm? (2.66 / 6) (#81)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:29:15 AM EST

Bin Laden's ties to Al Qaeda are simply not up for debate. We know that Bin Laden formed the group to fight the Soviets - the US supported him! Throughout the 1990s Bin Laden issued fatwas as the leader of Al Qaeda. We have many videos of him with Al Zawahiri as well. We have testimony from multiple perpetrators of the embassy bombings as well as independent proof of their connections to Al Qaeda - one of the attackers had money wired to him by Bin Laden after the bombing.

We have Al Qaeda video of the hijackers training in Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan including Abdulaziz Alomari, who talks about how he will "invade New York and Washington." In the same video Bin Laden names hijackers Mohammed Atta, Hani Hanjour, Marwan Al-Shehhi, and Ziad Jarrahi.

These aren't fucking allegations, you tin foil hat loony. These are from credible witnesses, signal intelligence, and multiple verified video tapes that have been broadcast on Al Jazeera.

See: here, here

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

yep (none / 2) (#121)
by reklaw on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:14:45 AM EST

We know that Bin Laden formed the group to fight the Soviets - the US supported him!

Exactly. You don't find that a little suspicious?

A major attack happens. The US has no idea who did it and needs someone to blame for the sake of public peace-of-mind. They also wish to invade Afghanistan for purposes of their own. What they're looking for is someone who:

  1. They know well (and so can predict his reactions).
  2. Has been involved in small acts of terrorism before.
  3. Has made plenty of statements threatening the west in the past that can be used against him.
This sounds like a bit of a loony theory, but the fact that bin Laden was named so quickly -- certainly before the names of any hijackers were known and before any tapes had been dug up -- gives it quite a bit of credibility.
-
[ Parent ]
You forgot (1.75 / 4) (#160)
by fluxrad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:50:42 PM EST

Noriega too.

Seriously dude, are you that comic book guy from the simpsons?

To wit:

We know that Bin Laden formed the group to fight the Soviets - the US supported him!

Exactly. You don't find that a little suspicious?


Why would anyone find that suspicious? At the time the USSR was the world's number one problem. So, in order to mitigate the problems faced by yet another country being taken over by communists, the US actively supported a guerilla war against them. I hope you're picking up the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" theme here. While the US is the sole uber-power in the world right now, that does not mean we were. And we sure as hell weren't going to risk causing WWIII because of Afghanistan. At the time Osama bin Laden was the obvious choice to support our nations goals of preventing soviet imperialism.

The thing conspiracy theorists forget is that 99.9% of the time, leaders in the US only have one thing in mind, the interests of the public of the United States. Would they stab another country in the back to keep us safe, you damn well know it. Even Watergate was a misguided attempt by Nixon to protect what he thought was the American way of life. Granted, the Bush administration appears to be a total clusterfuck. But I don't think this is because of some vast right wing conspiracy to take over the world. I think it's simply because the neo-cons believe what they are doing is best for the US.

BTW - has anyone on K5 actually bothered to read the neo-conservative statement of purpose before spouting off?

Oh shit...I almost forgot, to further support the notion that you are a complete nincompoop:

This sounds like a bit of a loony theory, but the fact that bin Laden was named so quickly -- certainly before the names of any hijackers were known and before any tapes had been dug up -- gives it quite a bit of credibility.

Ahh yes, the theory that we framed Osama for this. Pay no mind to the fact that we have video of Mohammed Atta getting on the plane, a list of hijackers connected to Al Qaeda (before we invaded Afghanistan), or Todd Beamer's description of arabic guys hijacking his plane. These are all coincidences and lies disseminated by the Bush administration.

--
"It is seldom liberty of any kind that is lost all at once."
-David Hume
[ Parent ]
Neocons (none / 0) (#193)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:30:01 AM EST

I guess you mean the PNAC statement when you talk about the neo-conservative statement of purpose. I have read that and I think it's a poor strategy because it leaves us with no way out. After conquering a couple more countries, America will have no choice but to continue until there is nobody left to bomb. This country will have enraged so much of the rest of the world that we'll have to guarantee that we are the sole superpower for the forseeable future. And the way we do that is through ever increasing military spending, continued unilateralism, and aggressive nation-building. Once the neocons have done enough to fuck over our foreign relations, the only choice left will be to continue on their nationalistic path. Pretty soon all the other doors will be closed.

So yes, I have read the neo-conservative statement. I don't doubt that they have the best interests of the people in mind. But I do think they are taking a risky path that leaves us fully committed for a long time.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

A nit... (none / 1) (#168)
by cr8dle2grave on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:50:43 PM EST

Bin Laden's ties to Al Qaeda are simply not up for debate. We know that Bin Laden formed the group to fight the Soviets - the US supported him!

That's not actually true. Al Qaeda was formed after the Soviets had disengaged from Afghanistan and Bin Laden was back in Saudi Arabia. Also, Bin Laden was never specifically targeted by the US for funding during the Afghani/Soviet conflict. The CIA funneled money and weapons to the Pakistani ISI who were mainly responsible for distributing it. At that time Bin Laden wasn't even a major player and was notable only in that he was rich Saudi playboy with access to a significant source of funds. Other than that, nice comment.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
any court? (none / 1) (#213)
by Daelin on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:18:20 PM EST

Mind you, I'm talking about PROOF, as in any court of your choice.

Like ~80% of the courts in the world based on the Napoleanic Code, in which you're guilty until proven innocent?



[ Parent ]
The true american spirit. (none / 1) (#126)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:43:00 AM EST

it was probably best to bomb the shit out of them and round up the rest. We're not talking about a small group here

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Agree that the reasoning is fragile (none / 1) (#295)
by Calieri on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:13:01 PM EST

What do the Taliban have to do with al Qaeda, except that they were both in Afghanistan, both had Muslims of some kind in them, and that we have been exterminating both groups?

[ Parent ]
more like 20 minutes (1.50 / 12) (#46)
by phlux on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 07:55:50 PM EST

"But tell me this: How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit? His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact. Where the hell did that come from?"

It wasnt just a few hours. On Sept. 11 2003 - Fark.com put up the archive of Fark comment from 9/11/01 - and there were all the posts about "OMFG" etc... but there were at least 2 comments that said "Osama!" and "Its Bin Laden - we're gunna get him"

These comments were made pretty much in real time when the towers were still standing.

Here is one:

2001-09-11 09:24:35 AM - Mme.Mersault:

Osama.

http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=45086

And from Guvmint Mouthpeices:

"This looks like the signature of Osama bin Laden," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who had been briefed by high-level government officials on the attacks. "We're going to find out who did this and we're going after the bastards."

[ Parent ]

Or Less than 20 minutes (none / 3) (#123)
by TomV on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:56:03 AM EST

FWIW, at pretty much the moment that the second plane hit and I realised that the reports from NY didn't refer to a little tourist plane getting it wrong, I jumped atraight to the Osama conclusion, based on the audacity of the attack and its multi-pronged nature.  Now, the 'Osama' I immediately thought of was of course the 'Osama' reported previously in the media, who may or may not relate to a real individual called Osama bin Laden, but since 'Osama' was the name we'd already seen associated with several audacious and co-ordinated attacks on US targets (two embassies in Africa bombed atthe same time, for instance), and isnce there was only one name in the public mindspace associated with simultaneous attacks, it seemd a reasonable guess at an unreasonable moment.

So, for me at least, it was the multiple attacks thing that led me to the Osama assumption, really.

[ Parent ]

ladies and gentlemen (1.50 / 18) (#22)
by paprika on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 02:22:32 PM EST

i do not remember anything that occured b4 sept 11
everytime i speak in conversations i say 'well this is one of the most interesting things since 9/11' and then i write a piece on it

Well ... (1.95 / 23) (#38)
by pyramid termite on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:26:44 PM EST

1. I think it is reasonable to assume that Iraq isn't going to be the last chip to fall. Nor do I think that Syria or Iran will be the last chips either.

And with what are we going to fell these chips? Syria might be doable - Iran? No, we'll see some real dedicated resistance there, not the half-assed stuff the Iraqis have been giving us.

2. I think there will be a draft in America, and I think it will happen shortly after whoever manages to be 'president' becomes president.

I think that would be one of the most politically divisive things that could happen in this country. A significant minority will resist and evade it. The majority will be wondering what the hell we need it for. The only circumstance that might change that would be a war with N. Korea.

It's kind of funny you didn't mention that possibility - especially seeing as it might not even be through our underhanded choice.

3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out.

Over what? I'm sorry, but don't you think some kind of motivation for that is necessary? And not just for us, for them. Remember that Europe is not exactly what you'd call the most belligerent and aggressive area of the world - isn't it just as likely that whatever we demand from them will be provided or the countries of Europe will bicker uselessly as we establish our overlordship? Just what is this all about, anyway?

4. I think that before things really go to hell, the world is going to be distracted by a lot of rocks falling out of the sky.

Two words - steel umbrellas.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
heavy resistence in Iran? (1.66 / 6) (#53)
by jjayson on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:39:03 PM EST

I doubt it. Many indications are that the US could strike a deal with the standing Iranian military to oust the theocratic leaders and dispose of its paramilitary supporters. Looking at the cross-poll data, there might just be more people that wouldn't mind seeing US action in Iran than those who support the existing government.

That't not to say that the troops would be welcomed by many or that the US should use military action, but sewing the seed of revolution (and supporting it) isn't a bad idea.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]

You're suggesting a different plan (2.60 / 5) (#65)
by pyramid termite on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:50:21 AM EST

Many indications are that the US could strike a deal with the standing Iranian military to oust the theocratic leaders and dispose of its paramilitary supporters.

That's a different proposition from an invasion, though. It might work, but then, supporting a military government wouldn't exactly advance our fight for democracy in the Middle East, would it?

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Not supporting a minitary government (none / 3) (#67)
by jjayson on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 06:34:24 AM EST

If the Guardian Council was booted from power, that would still leave fully staffed and running excutive, legislative, and judicial branches with a mostly workable constitution. Considering that those candidate had to be vetted before running for office, the next election cycle would probably be quite a shakeup.
_______
Smile =)
Given the culinary lineage of its former colonial masters, America's "theft" of other nation's cuisines is considered by mo
[ Parent ]
Fight for democracy? (1.60 / 5) (#74)
by fn0rd on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:19:12 AM EST

Supporting a military government wouldn't exactly advance our fight for democracy in the Middle East, would it?

I dunno, why don't you ask General Musharraf? King Fahd might have an interesting opinion on Middle East democracy, too.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]

Why Bin Laden..because... (1.94 / 18) (#42)
by StephenThompson on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 06:56:09 PM EST

If you had been paying attention to the news in the years before 9/11 you would know that Bin Laden had been making threats of blowing up american stuff for a long long time. Thus, the reason they thought it was Bin Laden was he had been the one making threats. Also, he had been linked to other things blowing up around the world.

Don't you remember when Clinton sent a missle into afghanistan trying to kill Bin Laden? Had you forgotten about that? He had been on the radar for quite some time.

None of this proves that Bin Laden was really behind 9/11, but it does explain where they got his name from.  

Oh, so that's that he was doing!! (none / 1) (#127)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:53:39 AM EST

It's odd, i often think Clinton was only shooting missiles at Afgnistan to prevent the press to further dig on the connection between Lewinsky's mought and his missile. Just thoughts, really... damn she's ugly!

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
You forgot that we on K5 were even talking.... (none / 0) (#145)
by gte910h on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:29:12 PM EST

....of the Taliban and Bin Laden

I remember thinking on Sept. 11 that it was probably either Hamas or Bin Ladin. That was because I had read of these groups on k5 in the articles linked above that summer.

[ Parent ]

You're too pessimistic (1.90 / 21) (#45)
by Simon Kinahan on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 07:17:47 PM EST

I sympathise somewhat with your skepticism about official explanations and despair at how things are going, but I think you underestimate the fragility of the US position internationally and domestically.

1. I think it is reasonable to assume that Iraq isn't going to be the last chip to fall. Nor do I think that Syria or Iran will be the last chips either.

If the US invades another country without absolutely clear cause (no mysterious intelligences, thanks), Britain will not help. There would be riots here, and there is no way the government would survive. The absense of WMD in Iraq has seriously damaged Blair. Millitarily, thats in irrelevance, but internationally it makes a big difference. Without the UK, there is no prop of legitimacy, Australia, Poland and so on would probably follow a British lead.

Quite aside from that, the US millitary is seriously tied down in Iraq and getting to the point of overstretch. Reserves are being used for longer and longer tours.

Fundamentally, the US is very bad at old-fashioned colonial imperialism. This administration in particular does not understand how to do it. 100,000 British civil servants did not rule India by driving around in armoured columns and undermining local power structures.

2. I think there will be a draft in America, and I think it will happen shortly after whoever manages to be 'president' becomes president. --It may well be Bush again, but it hardly matters at this point as the game is so entirely rigged. Nothing short of a miracle or an armed coup, I think, will change the course of the freight train now.

It isn't clear to me that a different administration would continue with the same foreign policy. American foreign policy is notoriously swayed by the groups that have the president's ear. I doubt the neo-cons who drove the Iraq thing, and would necessarily drive any continuation on to Syria or Iran, would have the ear or Wesley Clark or Howard Dean.

Domestic policy is another matter. I'm afraid I don't see any sign of a future administration having much respect for civil rights.

3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out.

That would indicate a massive failure of the international system, which is basically set up to prevent wars withing the "West" by diverting all tensions into political channels. I'm not saying its impossible, but an amazingly large amount of stuff still has to go wrong for it to happen. The trading system would have to collapse into regionalism: its stalled but not in reverse yet. Something would have to undermine the tradition of defense cooperation: its hard to see what. And most of all, Britain, France and Germany would have to rearm, and, frankly, there is no way we could afford it.

Anyway, if it did happen, I'd be emigrating *to* the US. There's no way I'd fight for the EU.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate

too optimistic (2.50 / 14) (#51)
by martingale on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:02:58 PM EST

If the US invades another country without absolutely clear cause (no mysterious intelligences, thanks), Britain will not help. There would be riots here, and there is no way the government would survive. The absense of WMD in Iraq has seriously damaged Blair. Millitarily, thats in irrelevance, but internationally it makes a big difference. Without the UK, there is no prop of legitimacy, Australia, Poland and so on would probably follow a British lead.
You underestimate the seriousness of Blair's treason (in the sense of turning his back on the international system). The UK no longer commands much respect, I think, certainly compared to before the attacks on the UN. The EU is in as deep a crisis as the UN is.

There might be riots in the UK if he goes to war again, but fundamentally any future military adventure will be seen by the world for what it is, rightly or wrongly: crass self-interest. The UK can never realistically claim the moral high ground again, as it did in the Iraq invasion.

No one gives a crap about Australia. They're a featherweight, firmly set to serve the US, and are now being rightly excluded by its Asian neighbours.

Poland is a newcomer to the EU, not particularly British in outlook I think. Like the new members, it wants to position itself as high up the pecking order as it can. It's going to assert itself vigorously, and now that the door for "vigorous policy disagreements" has been opened wide by Britain, it's going to get rough for a while until power relationships are settled. As an international power, the EU is currently schizophrenic and likely to stay that way for some time.

Quite aside from that, the US millitary is seriously tied down in Iraq and getting to the point of overstretch. Reserves are being used for longer and longer tours.
That's the best news of a bad batch, but I don't believe it's that bad for the Americans yet. The US population has been fed on a steady diet of mediatic militarism for decades, and has plenty of people "willing to die for their country" left. Unless the numbers of these people are reduced drastically, it doesn't look too rosy. After all, the US didn't win WWII on military prowess, but on sheer industrial strength.

Fundamentally, the US is very bad at old-fashioned colonial imperialism. This administration in particular does not understand how to do it. 100,000 British civil servants did not rule India by driving around in armoured columns and undermining local power structures.
You're forgetting that India took a long time to get to the point where it was ruled by British civil servants. Things were very different in the early years of the East India Company. The British encouraged the political fragmentation of the Mogul empire, and conquered the country piecemeal over a century.

It isn't clear to me that a different administration would continue with the same foreign policy. American foreign policy is notoriously swayed by the groups that have the president's ear. I doubt the neo-cons who drove the Iraq thing, and would necessarily drive any continuation on to Syria or Iran, would have the ear or Wesley Clark or Howard Dean.
The problem is that, except for the top people, appointees of one administration are often there when the next administration comes in. The Bush administration has instilled cavalier attitudes in people which will be around for a long time. Think about the cultural changes in organizations such as the FBI, post "War On Terror". The WOT may be a sham, but the funding it brings in has already converted a lot of people.

I've said this before, but I expect that unless the next president is a strong leader with diametrically opposed viewpoints, the US won't be very different for the next ten years or so, until the next generation of people with possibly different ideas are in the workforce. I don't see noteworthy American leaders anywhere.

That would indicate a massive failure of the international system, which is basically set up to prevent wars withing the "West" by diverting all tensions into political channels. I'm not saying its impossible, but an amazingly large amount of stuff still has to go wrong for it to happen. The trading system would have to collapse into regionalism: its stalled but not in reverse yet. Something would have to undermine the tradition of defense cooperation: its hard to see what. And most of all, Britain, France and Germany would have to rearm, and, frankly, there is no way we could afford it.
Perhaps you missed the memo? The international system *is* in tatters. The US and UK, two of the pillars and beneficiaries of that system, have elected to betray it. Perhaps Blair didn't know what he was doing, but he still did it.

The Iraq invasion is the most visible example, but most prewar agreements I can think of, which form the basis for international cooperation on trade, environment, human rights, justice, arms control, are either stagnant or have regressed. These agreements will take a generation to get back on track.

The order of the day is anarchy.

[ Parent ]

Which international system? (2.50 / 8) (#80)
by cr8dle2grave on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:19:36 AM EST

Perhaps you missed the memo? The international system is in tatters. The US and UK, two of the pillars and beneficiaries of that system, have elected to betray it.

The one that actually exists? Or the glorious vision, held by some countries and NGOs, of what the wanted the system to become? I see no evidence that the international system is any way diminished from what it was during the cold war era.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
I'd rather stay and bomb. (none / 0) (#128)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:57:01 AM EST

It's my land, ya know.

If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
perhaps, perhaps not (none / 0) (#321)
by ddraig on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 11:07:52 AM EST

Without the UK, there is no prop of legitimacy, Australia, Poland and so on would probably follow a British lead.

Never assume Australia will follow the British lead. It will almost invariably follow the US lead. That's been certain since the fall of Singapore.

Everything you say in the above is correct, but Australia would remain uninvolved due to the issue of legitimacy, not any sense of British loyalty. And it's almost certain that our government would go in if the US *really* wanted us to, and the government thought the public would put up with it. Which they might. Or might not.

I think war between the EU and the US is inevitable, due to resource reasons. But I'm also certain that before we get to that point we'll sort our efficiency issues out and this won't be a problem. Although that's more due to blind hope than any real proof. Europe is re-arming as we speak. Not proof, but it is another factoid.



[ Parent ]
Needs a disclaimer (1.25 / 8) (#52)
by debacle on Thu Oct 09, 2003 at 11:22:38 PM EST

"Not about The Two Towers!"

I didn't read it, but I was going to.

It tastes sweet.

+1, insane (2.35 / 31) (#54)
by RyoCokey on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 12:55:29 AM EST

Surely the mirth this piece illicts makes it worthy of the front page.

despite the fact that neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban army, were ever shown to have any connection to the 9-11 attack

Well, he did admit to doing it including testimony from the hijackers, who were easily traced back to Bin Laden (Probably the reason for the early mention of his name.)

more than just drug dealers get rich on narcotics, you know, and some of those people own banks and wield influence in dark, political places." I got scowled at for this. A lot. People were really messed up by 9-11 and they were not into listening to anything but the war drums.

No, trust me, being a paranoid delusional will get you scowls under any circumstances.

The story hadn't broken at this time that the plan to take Iraq had been drawn up well before 9-11.

No good conspiracy theory is complete without PNAC.

Ultimatums which became ever more unrealistic each time they were met and the U.S. should have accordingly sent home its salivating war machine, (which had already been fired up, fail-safes unlocked and was steadily deploying itself throughout the Persian gulf and Middle East).

They never confirmed WMDs that the UN had records of being produced, but never destroyed. These weapons remain missing to this day.

The truth of the matter? Well, to quote Hans Blix himself: "All inspections were performed without notice, and access was almost always provided promptly." -quote And did the UN team find anything? No. They did not.

Blix had something else to say on the matter of Iraqi cooperation, not to mention the intercepted Iraqi communications regarding moving items before UN inspectors arrived. The UN inspectors went on to find an undeclared UAV project, missiles beyond the allowable range from the ceasefire, and hidden documents on Iraq's nuclear program.

Since March, misery, chaos and brutality have reigned in Iraq. Nobody is happy. Nobody is healthy. Depleted Uranium dust fills the air, making both Iraqi and American sick. There is no electricity, no running water, no communications system, no jobs, no safety, no stability.

No electricity? Nobody is happy? DU projectiles aren't hurting much of anybody.

As you can see, this inane rant goes on for several more paragraphs. I advise voting it up, so the author can be the object of more of the derision and mocking he so richly deserves. Much like someone once said about the moral of Forrest Gump: "It's a true testament to the fact that a person can live through some of the most famous and memorable times in history and still not have the slightest clue about what went on or why."



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
Yowza! Read past the headlines! (2.23 / 17) (#61)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 04:07:52 AM EST

Oh man!

Rather than write another big essay, I'll zip right to your last three points.

1. Electricty From your link:

"U.S. officials say Iraq's power supply, a huge irritant for Iraqis, is now at about pre-war levels and they hope to be able to meet demand next summer when more industries have been revived.

Andrew Natsios, administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, told reporters that Bechtel, USAID's prime contractor in Iraq, had restored up to 4,400 megawatts of power by Monday -- about the same capacity as before the war."

Well! That sure sounds, doesn't it? Now how about giving us an independent report from an agency which ISN'T the U.S. government or the corporation to which it gave the billion dollar repair contract? Thanks, but this isn't exactly unbiased information, especially in regard to what Baghdad was like before America bombed it into the ground. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe that the U.S. government and large corporations never tell lies to make themselves look better. (Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! Oooh dear, my side hurts.)

Moving right along. . .

2. The poll which tells us that Iraqis are happy with their new American rulers.

The poll was created by a conservative journal. Right there, I confess, I become suspicious. The cities polled?

"Basra (Iraq's second largest, home to 1.7 million people, in the far south), Mosul (third largest, far north), Kirkuk (Kurdish-influenced oil city, fourth largest) and Ramadi (a resistance hotbed in the Sunni triangle)."
I wonder what would have happened to their percentage curve had they taken their little Republican poll to a city like, oh, say. . , Baghdad. You know, the Iraqi capital?

In other words, your poll is bullshit.

Moving right along. . .

3. From the WHO Kosovo Depleted uranium study you provided. . .

"People, most likely soldiers, close to an impact could therefore be exposed to dust by inhalation. UNEP (2000) has estimated that the inhalation and ingestion of depleted uranium contaminated dust, even under extreme conditions, and shortly after the impact of projectiles, as determined by the amount of dust that can be inhaled, would be less than about 10 millisieverts (mSv). This represents about half the annual dose limit for radiation workers."
So. . . a person encountering three burning wrecks in a week has potentially been exposed to 150% of the annual dose limit for radiation workers? Yeah. Sounds safe to me!

More from the document. . .

"Upon weathering, non-oxidized small particles become adsorbed to clay minerals and humus. The surfaces of remaining depleted uranium fragments will slowly oxidize to uranium oxides in moist conditions. The hydrated uranium oxides will then slowly dissolve and be transported into the surrounding soil, pore water and eventually groundwater, although adsorption of uranium to organic compounds in the soil will inhibit the rate of migration. In contrast to these oxidizing conditions, uranium is practically insoluble under reducing conditions, such as those found in anoxic soil conditions."
Hmm. What's the annual rainfall in Iraq?

It also stated. . .

"It is assumed that a large fraction (50 to 96%) of the [DU contaminated dust] consists of respirable particles that could enter the lower respiratory tract and cannot be expelled."
Encouraging.

As to the health effects, the document, while it made a valiant attempt to suggest that Uranium is not particularly dangerous, failed to convince me. Among other things, it tells us that epidemiological studies have demonstrated that while uranium miners show evidence of increased lung cancer, such cancers have more to do with radioactive gasses than with radioactive dust, and that Gulf War I vets don't have provable evidence of kidney disease due to uranium poisoning.

I'm sorry, but if it is all the same to you, I'll not be heading to Iraq any time soon. But please, if you wish to travel there, I would be more than happy to see you go. I'll even smile as I wave at your diminishing form.

-FL

[ Parent ]

3 points? Fine. (2.57 / 7) (#90)
by RyoCokey on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 06:26:58 PM EST

1) So I'm to understand that you offer no rebutal other than it's possible that the sources cited lied. No evidence to the contrary, or explanation as to how they could get away (or even why they'd bother) with lying about something that could be easily independantly verified.

2) Here's the poll from Baghdad. Additionally, I think jjayson submitted a story about Iraqi polls, if you want to go digging for it.

3) In parts:

So. . . a person encountering three burning wrecks in a week has potentially been exposed to 150% of the annual dose limit for radiation workers? Yeah. Sounds safe to me!

Kindly note the study says the dust does not remain airborn for any length of time after the initial impact. If you are around 3 different vehicles as they're incinerated by A-10's, I think you have more serious health issues to dodge.

Anoxic conditions would occur underground, meaning any missed shells would not contaminate the groundwater. Due to the weight of the oxidants, they weren't thought to travel far from the source of the impact.

As to the health effects, the document, while it made a valiant attempt to suggest that Uranium is not particularly dangerous, failed to convince me.

Well, fine. At least you didn't go into a rant about how WHO is a US-backing, rightist organization.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
Keep trying. . . (2.28 / 7) (#97)
by Fantastic Lad on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:35:59 PM EST

1) So I'm to understand that you offer no rebutal other than it's possible that the sources cited lied.

Yes. --Except given the track record of the U.S. Government, I wouldn't use the word 'possible' in that sentence of yours. I'd use a phrase more like, 'Highly probable.'

When trying to determine the truth behind any situation of this nature, it is generally considered foolish to trust such an obviously biased source. Give me some evidence from a neutral party that Baghdad enjoys the same level of electrical service it did before the Americans blew everything up, and then I'll spend some energy to look into the claim.

Now keep in mind; I think it is entirely likely that electricity will eventually flow. America would like its newly captured land to become another identical strip mall of commercial freedom and MacFranchises. And after all, when you award a plumb reconstruction job to a salivating contractor, then some work must get done at some point, right? (Just as long as it's not by a company native to the region or culture, of course! Betelco learned that one the hard way.) After all, it wouldn't do for America's newly annexed piece of empirical property to be powered by anything other than white people.

2) Here's the poll from Baghdad.

Oh, well now that's hardly the same thing, is it? At least the first poll you linked to made some pretense about trying to be authentic and accurate. But this is poll was taken by a recognized organ of U.S. propaganda. And yes, I'm sorry, but that alone is good enough for me to take it with a huge grain of salt.

As for DU. . .

I own a small piece of Uranium as a mineral sample. This doesn't worry me. But the fact of the matter is that a whole lot of the stuff went aerosol in a densely populated city. I think it is foolish to believe that people did not inhale and ingest the stuff. And while I don't think the risk is greater than, say, a land mine going off under one's feet, I definitely think the assertion that DU is 'Safe' is poorly founded. I wouldn't want radioactive dust permenantly deposited in my lungs, and I bet you wouldn't either, regardless of what a WHO report might have to say on the subject.

Anyway, quit splitting hairs. You want to believe that the U.S. Government did a good and noble thing in Iraq? You want to believe that Americans are the 'Good Guys'? That they (you) were not manipulated with lies and stirring appeals to the emotional center into wasting billions of dollars on a retarded war? Fine. Go ahead and believe that if it makes you feel happy and safe.

I think you are being childish. Strength and respect do not flow from pretending that objective reality is something other than it is.

-FL

[ Parent ]

That's great (2.14 / 7) (#110)
by RyoCokey on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:47:28 AM EST

I think you are being childish. Strength and respect do not flow from pretending that objective reality is something other than it is.

I think you've pretty much summed things up.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
The poll you make reference to is misleading. (2.00 / 4) (#135)
by xutopia on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:22:40 AM EST

Here is the results they give :

"Sixty-five percent of Iraqis polled in Baghdad claimed they want the U.S. military to stay until Iraq is stable and secure; only 17 percent want American soldiers out now. "

I wonder what the answer would be if you would ask them if they felt safer since the invasion? Seriously now they want to have an army closeby to feel safer because war lords are having a ball!

I have to tell you most media outlets I have seen outside the US are showing a very different picture than the one you see on American stations. For example I know that there have been more than 375 casualties of war on the US side only since the call of the end of the invasion by Bush!

Clearly the writer of this K5 story has a point. The american media is biased beyond belief. This is somewhat normal when you consider who Rupert Murdoch is and what he really owns aside from Fox News. Could it be, let's see, one of the largest military contracting compagny?

[ Parent ]

375 casualties is BS (none / 1) (#147)
by RyoCokey on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:18:07 PM EST

That number comes from total deaths in Iraq, non-combat deaths generally would have occured even if troops were not deployed there. Casualties are generally defined as battle field deaths only.

Additionally, roughly 1600 people die in non-combat situations in the US military each year, regardless of whether we're at war or not. (Related Link) Currently, for 6 months, we're well under our usual count, in spite of the war in Iraq.

I know people love to harp on Fox News, and I personally find their slogan "Fair and Balanced" to be fairly humorous, but they're only one media outlet among a great many in the US, and a fairly new one at that.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
Oh please (1.07 / 26) (#57)
by ph317 on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 01:26:18 AM EST


Refill your prescription and give it a couple weeks to take effect before you post again.

Fantastic Lad. (2.80 / 5) (#69)
by Mr Hogan on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 06:51:51 AM EST

I think it would interest you to read about the "Party of Huah" in We're in the Army Now: The GOP's Plan to Militarize Our Culture Harper's/October 2003. Here is the concluding paragraph - which may sound whack read out of context here on Kuro5hin now nothing can be trusted since Rusty seized the initiative and went on the offensive against the downtrodden peoples want the CMF off their back - but I'm saying it was proven in the article.
When the Party of Huah can no longer keep up its various pretenses, we will seek out an even stronger, more confident hand. The one public institution we respect above all others -- because most of us have never experienced it. The one that more than three quarters of us have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in, and the one that has, after all, the longest experience running a paternalistic, authoritarian society. The one that is demographically the most like us, that does its job with startling efficiency and without complaint; the one that captures our imagination to the point that men hold twenty-one-year round-the-clock vigils to honor it.

In the end, we'll beg for the coupe.

So anyway Mr Hogan will not be voting for the unwitting Trojan horse Wesley Clark at any time in the near future that's for sure - knowing especially he is Rusty's preferred "moderate" candidate.

--
Life is food and rape, then tilt.

-1 (1.09 / 22) (#70)
by bigbtommy on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:27:07 AM EST

Mentions "Two Towers" but then talks about American politics. Now blow me down with a feather, but if you start talking about the "Two Towers" you should go on to talk about Hobbits, Isengard, fucking great big battles and Gandalf?

Oh, wait, sorry... wrong story.
-- bbCity.co.uk - When I see kids, I speed up

no, he talked about "falling two towers" (1.50 / 4) (#73)
by boxed on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:28:37 AM EST

The towers of Isengard and Mordor never fell. In fact, Barad Dur can probably only be undone by an act of a Valar.

[ Parent ]
Magnificent. Absolutely beautiful. (1.75 / 12) (#76)
by Russell Dovey on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:35:58 AM EST

People! Be not so quick to deride this crackpot visionary as some kind of normal crackpot. For his true message lies in the first five-sixths of the story, which does not mention a giant Nemesis planet.

The US government wanted 9/11 to happen, they planned for it to happen, and they were quite ready when it did. They want to reign forevermore over you commoners, and control the world so their children can do the same, and their children, and so forth and so on. They're going to! The US media is under their control, so the citizens who would stop them are unable to react.

Therefore, savvy world leaders who see this scenario unfolding want to be on the empire's shoulders, not under its boot! Blair and Howard, the two who sent their young'uns to war alongside Bush's young'uns, are simply pragmatists! That explains the seemingly foolish behaviour that has so perplexed us!

So, US empire-builders, where are you going to go today?

"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan

If they planned it, who was supposed to watch Bush (none / 0) (#139)
by wumpus on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:46:18 AM EST

Somebody really dropped the ball there. You would think that when they all rush off to start the war in Iraq, somebody would have noticed that the handler in charge of Bush that day was sick. Instead, he goes on and on reading A Very Hungry Catipiller after the WTC was hit.

While that approaches the comptetance I would expect from a conspiracy, it doesn't match the rest of the assumed "results".

Wumpus

[ Parent ]

Bush isn't stupid. That's a clever act. nt (none / 0) (#224)
by Russell Dovey on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:37:49 AM EST


"Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
[ Parent ]

+1FP, but... (1.25 / 3) (#77)
by rapha on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:00:57 AM EST

...you forgot about that other type of smart main character. The one who'd jump right into the middle of it, get to know things and use them creatively.

Although, being in Germany, it's an easy talk for me as well. But I'm seriously planning on doing the (in)famous World Journey (tm) in some five years time, or so.

The feeling of walking right through the middle of a thunderstorm. Amazing.


---
NIETS IS ONMOGELIJK!

My take on a 9/11 conspiracy... (2.76 / 17) (#78)
by Psycho Dave on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 10:44:23 AM EST

Follow me here...

As the article states, removing Saddam Hussein from power was policy goal before 9/11.

The FBI and CIA had information about the hijack before 9/11. The reason it was not acted on is generally blamed on jurisdiction and inter-agency disputes.

Even the White House is said to have vague knowledge of a terrorist plot as soon as a month before 9/11.

Immediately after 9/11, we were pretty sure that it was an Al Qaeda operation. The nineteen hijackers were also identified very quickly. (for the record, I do believe Al Qaeda was to blame for the attack)

In the weeks after 9/11, there was attempt in the press to link the terrorists to Iraq with the supposed "meeting" that took place in Hamburg, which has been widely discredited.

Hypothesis: The Bush White House and the Justice Department were aware of the Al Qaeda cells operating in our country, and that they were planning a major attack. Though they may not have been privy to the wheres, hows, or even most of the whos, they had enough knowledge to be able to shut down the operation prior to 9/11.

So why didn't they? I'm not so cynical as to claim the government *allowed* the attacks to occur, knowing that the political climate would shift radically to their favor. I believe their plan was to link the Al Qaeda plot to Iraq *before* it occurred, hoping that it would swing public sentiment towards going to war against Saddam Hussien.

This would have been a much more ideal situation for the government, as it would have allowed them more control over the information. They could have had the room to invent a direct link between Saddam Hussien and terrorism against America (it is a well known fact he did support Palestinian terrorism.)It may have even been easier to get UN support for the invasion, as the doctrine of pre-emptive war would seem necessary rather than imperialist.

Unfortunately, they dilly-dallied to long and the attacks that never were supposed to happen, did happen.

If such information got out, it would have undermined the administration's goal of invading Iraq. Hence the foot dragging on any probe into the events of 9/11.

Fortunately, the political climate of the country changed sufficiently to allow the administration to invade Iraq without the direct link to Al Qaeda. They created a list of reasons (weapons of mass destruction, unstable regime, "he gassed his own people") and went with the one that was most popular in the Gallup polls.

Thoughts on this?

The electorate voted for the war. (2.50 / 6) (#83)
by fn0rd on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 12:44:56 PM EST

Anyone who has a shred of intelligence and saw any of Bush stump speeches or debates in which he mentioned Iraq had to know from his bellicosity that his #1 axe to grind was Saddam. I hadn't a doubt in 2000 that this stooge would get elected and that he would bring us to war with Iraq. If anything, 9/11 postponed the inevitable invasion, since we had to do some regime changing over in Afghanistan first. No doubt, 9/11 helped him smooth any wrinkles having to do with preemption and the perception of imperialism, but everyone who voted for him knew in their blackened little hearts that he was going to start a war in Iraq. He had a mandate, albeit from a statistical minority of voters, to go to war.

--------------------------------------------------------------
This fatwa brought to you by the Agnostic Jihad
Death to the fidels!

[ Parent ]
Operation Northwoods (3.00 / 12) (#120)
by audionerd on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:58:37 AM EST

Yes, all of this sounds crazy, but there are precedents for this sort of plan: attack youself, blame the enemy, and justify military action to the public.  For example, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, Hitler burning the Reichstag, and a fairly recently declassified plan called Operation Northwoods.

Op Northwoods was a plan drafted by JFK's Joint Chiefs of Staff that detailed intentions to attack, or stage attacks, against American people while blaming Castro's government. This was intended to paint Cuba as a rash and irresponsible regime, justifying a military response to their "unprovoked" attacks.  

I found this document sometime in December 2001, and was quite shocked. It shows that the military has had experience with such matters (unmanned aircraft, the ability to conduct "mock funerals" for boatloads of "mock victims", etc.). The very language of the thing gives the impression that these people truely believed that "the ends justify the means".  Now, in the age of preemptive war, it doesn't seem too radical to believe that the current administration may not have any qualms about outing 3,000 Americans to justify what appears to be a well thought out agenda for "global American leadership" (this sounds extreme, too, but read the statement of principles for the PNAC, then read the signatures: http://www.newamericancentury.org/)

Someone recently said to me: "May you live in interesting times."  

indeed....

-audionerd

more on northwoods:

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf - PDF of orig. file

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html


[ Parent ]

Correction (2.14 / 7) (#84)
by SwampGas on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 01:00:50 PM EST

The DC Sniper (if you even want to call him a sniper...I don't) didn't use a hunting rifle.  He used an AR-15...most sheeple call that an "assault rifle".

It would have been interesting if he did use a bolt action .270...would the idiots consider the traditional hunting rifle to be a "dangerous assault rifle that menaces this country and has no place in civilized society"?

You'd be surprised... (none / 1) (#86)
by baron samedi on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 03:55:04 PM EST

I remember some nutty legislators running around trying to place restrictions on "sniper rifles", i.e. bolt actions with scopes.
"Hands that help are better by far than lips that pray."- Robert G. Ingersoll
[ Parent ]
because, you know, (none / 0) (#152)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:00:42 PM EST

So many people get shot with bolt-action rifles. Sad, isn't it?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Slight correction. (none / 0) (#315)
by joshsisk on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 12:30:54 PM EST

It was a Bushmaster XM-15. Similar, not the same.
--
logjamming.com : web hosting for weblogs, NOT gay lumberjack porn
[ Parent ]
dietrologia (1.85 / 7) (#89)
by circletimessquare on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 05:48:54 PM EST

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/9/26/4473/07838


The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction.

Great. (none / 3) (#91)
by phlux on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:04:12 PM EST

A great article FL - and I am finally happy that you actually got the motivation to post something - with many informative links.

These type of articles are hard to write - as there is so much information avialable on both sides of the coin - in an attempt to drown you in confusing stories - that they can be difficult teo research. I just hope that people will begin to look beyond what they are initially told - and begin to dig into the clues that are given them through "News"...

Thanks


Paranoid freak (1.19 / 21) (#92)
by sellison on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:21:13 PM EST

We KNOW Bin Laden was behind Sept 11 and we KNOW he had help from Saddam.

These things are as true as the flood and the fall of Jericho.

Only fools, panderers, and frenchmen still question these things.

Fortunately our wise leadership has done the smart thing and taken the war directly to the terrorists.

Now the crazies who want to die so they can personally lick the toes of Mohammed can convieniently try their luck with trained, professional, volunteer American soldiers rather than cowardly attacking unarmed America women, children, and elderly!

More power our wise surgeon Dr. Bush and his loyal assistent Rumsfeld for having the courage to make the cut where it had to be made to protect our innocents from further attacks.

The thing to do now is get the crazies even more p'o'ed, so they'll fly around like maddened hornets, and so we can find their nests. Once we've rooted them all out of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc., only then will the world be safe again for freedom and democracy.



"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."- George H.W. Bush

how? (none / 3) (#117)
by llimllib on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:29:14 AM EST

I could only read the first line of your comment, and I'll bite. How do you know that saddam was connected to bin laden? These two hate each other. HATE each other. How do you know?

Peace.
[ Parent ]
Fairy tales (none / 2) (#122)
by drquick on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 05:18:48 AM EST

We KNOW Bin Laden was behind Sept 11 and we KNOW he had help from Saddam.
These things are as true as the flood and the fall of Jericho.
Only fools, panderers, and frenchmen still question these things.
Right, they're equally true but, fools and panderers don't seem to question the 911/Saddam connection myth !
Once we've rooted them all out of Syria, Iran, Pakistan, etc., only then will the world be safe again for freedom and democracy.
Umm... safe for what? Is this supposed to be sarcasm? Attila the Hun would be proud of your nihilist scheme.

[ Parent ]
excuse me, drquick ... (none / 2) (#159)
by rmg on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:45:01 PM EST

are you or have you ever been drduck?

_____ intellectual tiddlywinks
[ Parent ]

bin laden and saddam? (none / 2) (#124)
by crazney on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 07:46:49 AM EST

How do you know this?

The evidance Colin Powell gave the UN on the connection between Iraq and Bin Laden was a load of dribble. All of the evidence can easily be refuted. In fact, a lot of the evidence was totally made up, and some stolen from a university thesis!

The two men are absolute enemies, they have no reason to help each other. Bin Laden was a religious fanatic, Saddam wasn't - he was very much a moderate.

You have to remember that not all muslims are the same, just like not all christians (and derivites of) are the same.

[ Parent ]

-1, crappy troll. <nt> (2.33 / 6) (#130)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:09:06 AM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
-1, Abominable Lies (1.55 / 9) (#93)
by sllort on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 07:54:08 PM EST

How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit? His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact. Where the hell did that come from? I work in news, and I can't even figure it out. Can you tell me?" I couldn't. And I've to this day yet to hear a reasonable answer to his question.
There's a videotape in which Bin Laden literally giggles about blowing up the World Trade Center. Let's try to stick to the remotely believable when promoting our liberal bias, ok?
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
Right. (1.83 / 6) (#94)
by handslikesnakes on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:04:28 PM EST

Because nobody ever takes credit for things they're not responsible for.

[ Parent ]
If you take credit for crimes... (none / 2) (#162)
by RyoCokey on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:14:12 PM EST

Don't act surprised when the police kick down your door.



farmers don't break into our houses at night, steal our DVDs and piss on the floor. No
[
Parent ]
The video (2.83 / 12) (#100)
by opendna on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 09:09:13 PM EST

...was found months later when we invaded Afghanistan. But on 9/11 we had no evidence, only speculation. I watched as the pundits decided that it was Bin Laden. First they didn't know, then they wondered who it could be, then they asked if it could be Bin Laden, then they told us it was Bin Laden.

That night CNN ran hours of repeating footage of Al Queda, Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Iraq, Iran, World War II, World War I, the Great Depression, Kennedy's assassination, Roosevelt making speaches, Nazi Germany and the Death Camps, Hammas, etc.

We didn't know shit yet, in terms of evidence. But someone in the Liberal Media you identified had decided - by 10pm on September 11th - that it was Bin Laden who was linked to Saddam, who were the Nazis and therefore the President was a Roosevelt/Kennedy hybrid who we should all unite around.

Worked pretty well, imho.



[ Parent ]

What liberal media? (none / 0) (#201)
by sllort on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:30:37 PM EST

I said our liberal bias, not liberal media, as in YOU and I. I have a liberal bias and I admit it. And at NO POINT did I make the assertion that we knew conclusively that Bin Laden was responsible on 9/11. I said that we know this now, and that anyone whose article expects to be taken seriously should acknowledge this. This article does not, and is therefore rubbish.

If you were CNN, who would you have been playing footage of for your suspect list on 9/12? The Michigan Militia? On 9/12 the FBI had 20 airplane reservations containing the word Mohammed and some pretty decent black & white airport security video.

And I say that as a liberal. Put your canned cliches back in the pantry.
--
Warning: On Lawn is a documented liar.
[ Parent ]

Got Arabic? (none / 1) (#161)
by cicho5 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:09:12 PM EST

And you of course understand Arabic sufficiently to know what it is he's giggling about?

[ Parent ]
Innuendo will get you nowhere. (2.42 / 14) (#95)
by Apuleius on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:16:12 PM EST

Thank you for showing in a brief article, so succintly, just why the antiwar movement got nowhere post 9/11. Quoting you: "What if this is really all about Oil and Opium. . ?" And what if you're an ass? The truth about Afghan oil prospects and Afghan opium is far more boring. Afghanistan is so far inland, and so underserved by roads and rails, that virtually nothing can be exported profitably from there. Except, that is, for opium, which has a high dollars per pound density. So, the Afghans have long grown it. And the US was not able to do much about it (and is still not able to do much about it). As for the pipeline, the loony left always leaves it halfway described to create by innuendo the impression that the Taliban were moved out of the way in order to get it started. The truth is that the Taliban were quite eager to start the pipeline, and that it was Unocal that rejected it. Now Kharzai is quite eager to get it built, and Unocal is still not nearly as eager. Kharzai and the Taliban wanted the pipeline because it would supply Afghanistan with hard currency without any moral taint. Unocal is skeptical because the pipe would have to go through the Pakistani Northwest Frontier Province, because India has announced she would not buy anything that comes through it, and because Russia could retaliate by waiting for the pipeline to be completed and then undercutting it and making the expense a waste.

Next time, try to go lighter on the innuendo. You'd be more likely to convert people who aren't in the choir. Mor critiques to follow if I can be arsed.




There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
pipeline (none / 3) (#106)
by cronian on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:33:55 PM EST

Unocol is just one oil company, but there has been talk about the supposedly vast Black Sea oil reserves for years. Policy leaders have known or at least believed that the Black Sea oil would were of geostrategic importance for at least a decade. However, it was always a question how they would be developed since all the countries between the Stans and the ocean have been politically volatile. Keep in mind all this was known back in 1998, way before September 11th or even the election of Bush for that matter. There were really only two possible ways for the resources to be exploited at the time: the Taliban stabalizes Afghanistan or the develops friendly relations.

I don't think Bush administrations purely so they could build the pipeline, but I'm sure they were very of the prospects upon completing a successful invasion of Afghanistan. However, Black Sea oil appears to be mostly a bust so the pipeline is no longer a priority, and the US is leaving Afghanistan fragmented into anarchy. The Neo-Cons have wanted for years, and they saw their opportunity right after 9-11. However, I think Powell probably got Bush to delay and waste his time trying to get UN approval which he never got anyway.

The thing many of the anti-war protesters don't seem to understand is that the US did have the power to make the lives of Afghans and Iraqis better. However, Bush has failed to commit the resources to improve conditions in Afghanistan, and Iraq still faces much uncertainty.

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Geography (none / 2) (#108)
by jandev on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:22:14 AM EST

/me thinks you are mistaken, and are confusing the Caspian and Black seas. I have a hard time understanding how the Black Sea ties in with pipelines through Afghanistan.

The Black Sea is the body of water between Turkey (South), Ukraine (North), Bulgaria/Romania (West), and Georgia (East), sort of north of the east end of the Mediteranean.

The Caspian is further to the east, and Azerbaidzhan, Iran, Kazakhstan, and (I think) Turkmenistan share its coastline. Pumping oil from its East coast towards the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf through Afghanistan makes more sense.

Buy an atlas. They are amazing sources of information.

JdV!!

"ENGINEERS" IS NOT POSSESSIVE. IT'S A PLURAL. YOU DO NOT MOTHERFUCKING MARK A PLURAL WITH A COCKSUCKING APOSTROPHE. APOSTROPHES ARE FOR MARKING POSSESSIVES IN THIS CASE. IF YOU WEREN'T A TOTAL MORON, YOU WOULD BE SAYING SOMETHING LIKE "THE CIVIL ENGINEER'S SMALL PENIS". SEE THAT APOSTROPHE? IT'S A HAPPY APOSTROPHE. IT'S NOT BEING ABUSED BY SOME GODDAMN SHIT-FOR-BRAINS IDIOT WITH NO EDUCATION. - Nimey
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected on that point (none / 0) (#136)
by cronian on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:24:41 AM EST

I meant the Caspian Sea

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Shmipeline. (none / 2) (#109)
by Apuleius on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:28:35 AM EST

Unocal is the only company that even looked at the pipeline. And they rejected the plan each time. I have a feeling they're only holding the meetings to review the Afghan proposals because the CIA is asking them to.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
the black sea? (none / 0) (#151)
by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:59:33 PM EST

Wow, you're off by an enormous distance. The Black Sea oil is in Azerbaijan and Ploesti.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Fantastic Lad wrote a (1.66 / 6) (#98)
by mami on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 08:45:25 PM EST

fantastic long piece of fantastic personal thoughts and ramblings, that should have gone in the diary section.

I am not interested to know what you think between two bowls of oatmeal, to be honest, especially not, if the nuts in your oatmeal cereal seem to have gotten into your head. How how do you come up with thoughts like these:

3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out?
So, do you want to attack the US or do you think the US is attacking Europe or what?

How nutty.

Not "good chance" but *possible* (2.75 / 4) (#132)
by TDRighteo on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:50:56 AM EST

First off, I'd like to make it really painfully clear that I think "good chance" is just plain nuts. I think you have to be really paranoid for that. Same goes for a "before the decade is out" timeframe.

However, war between the US and Europe, while improbable, is certainly at least conceivable. It all relies on that old saying:

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

First off, neither the US nor Europe would ever WANT to fight each other. There is no simmering hatred that deep, and both sides would have to be insane to start that type of war anyway. Any war would be doomed to either pyric victory or stalemate, because neither side would have the might required to win on the other's soil.

Because this is bleedingly obvious, I think the only way such a thing would happen is if a series of events simply "got out of hand" - very much like the premise used in the mockumentry World War III.

The first event I think that would have to happen is that the US would have to scare Europe and Russia. I do not mean this in a minor way, where some hippies think the US has gone to far, and start holding peace vigils. I mean the sort of event that would make the leaders of Europe and Russia dramatically reconsider the global balance of power. Such events would include an UGLY war in Syria or Iran, or simply a war with North Korea that was seen to be clearly initiated by the US. Such event would have to show new US resolve to win, at costs far higher than Iraq. These costs would not necessarily need to come from the US, but might include heavier weapons or less careful strategies that would cost US global opinion.

Not very likely. But *possible*, especially if the US suffered a terrorist attack that it thought justified such tactics - (eg. Biological weapon attack justified use of tactical nuclear weapons on "suspect sites"). This escalation might well be justified. Hell, I'd certainly consider use of tactical nukes justified in the right circumstances. But that wouldn't be the point. The message would be: "The US means to win, and it's decreasingly concerned about HOW."

Sufficiently scared, Europe and Russia come to concensus on something for once: "If the world has no alternative, the US will continue to dominate, and will eventually gain a economic, cultural and military supremacy that puts everybody at risk. To avoid such a catastrophe, the world needs a second power, the sort that can only conceivably occur if Europe and Russia work together."

Such a new power would likely be very loose compared to the US, and be very much the weaker when formed. The most cohesive that might be hoped for would be Russia joining the EU, and immediate formation of a command stucture to bring all defence assets under one EU banner. Cohesive fighting force it would certainly not be for some time, but it would shift the global balance back the way Europe would like it: "Too powerful to simply push aside."

The US would not take this well, although a very weak form (EU-Russian defence pact) probably wouldn't concern it overly. If it were weak, Europe would lack the power to do anything, and so would Russia, and no war would eventuate. If it were strong, the US would start considering the new EU a threat, if only because it shrinks the US vs Rest-of-the-World gap.

So you have a superpower, and a wannabe-superpower. Now all you need is a trigger that provokes the EU. Again, if it's not strong enough, no need to worry. The new EU would probably fail to live up to expectations without a good reason to exist. The trigger would have to scare and anger the EU to test its power. (eg. Another US invasion that has negative implications for the EU, assasination of EU friendly (or outright EU) politician, moves to significantly weaken the EU, etc.)

So, the EU decides to blockade - oil, military resupply, it doesn't matter. "Escalating tensions? The US are escalating tensions. What we are trying to make clear is that the US can no longer continue to act against global public opinion and the will of the UN. When the US agrees to come to the table, and to step back from it's increasingly militaristic actions, the blockade will be lifted and talks can begin on...."

No help is needed beyond this I think. As the new European power grew, the US government and the US public would become increasingly distrustful and resentful. As it did so, European and Russian citizens would do likewise. The US could not bow to a blockade, and Europe could not afford to fail. Somewhere, somehow, somebody overreacts, and shots are fired, and people die. And the war begins...

I can't believe that anybody would like to see the above happen. Fortunately, it's hardly a likely scenario. But the important thing is that it didn't take much more than bad luck, paranoia and a little stupidity to make it possible.

And those things are in too common supply for my liking...

(NB: I am an Australian. US distraction = Bad Thing. Nothing would be worse than my country backing the US into a war certain to exhaust it. The only way we could hope to survive the inevitable regional opportunism would be to have been prepared for a hard fight long beforehand.
I might think some Yanks (and Frogs) are annoying, but I certainly don't hate either the US or Europe enough for that!)



[ Parent ]
It's possible alright (none / 0) (#196)
by Lord of Caustic Soda on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 03:02:13 AM EST

I've been waiting a long time for that possible pie to fall from the sky, and I'm still waiting.

[ Parent ]
Interesting Scenerio (none / 0) (#259)
by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 09:57:27 PM EST

The Doomsday one I've always favored goes something like this:

The U.S. takes the opposite tack, withdraws from the U.N., NATO and goes completely isolationist. A bit far fetched perhaps but not impossible given U.S. resentment at foriegn criticism and the frustrations of dealing with never ending crisis in 3rd world nations and a very hostile UN.

Couple this with the realization that the U.S. doesn't really need political dominance abroad in order to maintain a very strong economic base as long as we are willing to make profitable trades with ANYONE of ANY political stripe... and completely end all foriegn aid.

At the same time Russia slips even further into economic and political chaos and anarchy. Certainly not inconcievable.

European nations continue to draw closer together politicaly through the EU.

China continues to advance technologicaly. A better educated and more sophisticated Chinese population begins expecting a higher standard of living. This places great pressure on the older generation of Chinese leadership to provide thier citizens with enough resources to keep them satisfied (and thus maintain power for themselves)

The leading nations of the world develop effective ABM systems... which has the unfortunate effect of reducing the effectiveness of nuclear weapons as a deterent to agression.

China begins to eye the sparsely populated but resource rich asiatic regions of Russia hungrly. Russia's deterent of nukes has been nullified by ABM tech and thier conventional army has long since been sacrificed on the alter of the economy.

Prehaps there is a touchstone incident, Chinese dissadents based out of Russia, assasinate a senior Chinese official, etc. China roles into Russia like a hot knife through butter.

The European nations suddenly wake up to find themselves next to a very aggressive and very hungry Chinese SuperPower....and this time there is a pretty good chance that the New World will NOT come to the aid of the Old.

Ok, pretty far-fetched.... but it'd make a damn fun novel.

[ Parent ]

Does sound interesting, but... (none / 1) (#276)
by TDRighteo on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 09:34:06 AM EST

Sounds quite interesting (from a purely hypothetical point of view).

However, I personally think that scenarios get better with plausability. So, here's my own ideas about where this one needs some work.

1. Russia
Um, problem is, this is a great scenario for Russia BEFORE Putin, not after. Russia isn't exactly in great shape, but it's not as impotent as it was in the mid-90s. What's more, with the increased oil drilling, chances are it's cash flow is going to get better, not worse. I'm not saying this couldn't change, but I'm wondering how many people you have to shoot to go back to the instability of the 90s. So, any scenario needs an explanation of how Russia moved from increasing prominance into the 21st century version of the Holy Roman Empire. (ie. Who got killed, what policies changed, or how the economy went back down the shute again.)

2. US withdrawl
As you said, unlikely, however consider the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby in the British comedy "Yes Minister":
"You have to get behind somebody to stab them in the back."
To destroy the UN (were that the goal), the best thing the US could do is subvert it from within until it goes the way of the League of Nations. So instead the US you envisage simply has no interest in the rest of the world, so long as they aren't being shot at by them. To be effective, that probably has meant a complete pull-out from the Middle-East to the point where nobody knows where it is anymore (almost), and the philosophy "if we don't give them something to get mad at, then they can go shoot each other instead". That sounds very plausible under certain conditions, and it leads to some very interesting questions about what will happen in South America now the the US is looking closer to home for new markets and resource supply.

3. ABM
Um, I think you need to think about what sort of technologies could make that viable. Missle-base is looking REALLY dodgy at the moment, so I would shy away from countries like China investing that much money in it. Nuclear interceptors have been done before, and the answer was "they hurt more than they save". So I think you're looking at the proliferation of some type of alternate AA, such as laser-based (needs lots of power from somewhere) or novel solutions based on tech we don't have yet (EMP interceptors maybe?).

Note that with the former the effect would be devestating on non-stealth aircraft, and the later might make tactical missle use a problem. These would have military ramifications that might well affect the global position. (Both the ABM solutions I suggested would make air-power far less critical to victory, but would make wars far more bloody and costly if the enemy digs in.)

4. Europe
Nothing implausible with your vision of Europe, except that I believe that they would step in before the Chinese crossed the Urals. However, that alone is a BOON to making things interesting, because you now have a much different sort of Russia. Europe would be powerful enough to step in and attempt to reform the chaotic Russia around Moscow, and to perhaps make fighting them sufficiently bothersome that China wouldn't press the issue, but they would surrender most of eastern Russia, including the precious Siberian oil fields. By this stage, chances are oil will be at least slighly more valuable than now, so that could be an interesting issue.

If I get things right, the world that would ensue would have a federal EU that now is trying to integrate a Russian protectorate that may or may not have had a functioning goverment, hold the Urals (for when the Chinese finally make a push), and decide whether occuping part of Kazakhstan is okay if it reduces the border it must protect. India might be an issue too by this stage, as population issues must be getting on it's government's mind. China is busy integrating the vast tracts of Russian land it just got. Everybody with a stake in the region is in an arms race, and the US may start thinking of where it's interests lie long-term.

Oh, and my lovely little country down south has probably done some very interesting things since the US giant went to sleep and it had to ramp up it's defence to compensate. Same goes for Japan too.

In any case, a very interesting scenario to think about.

[ Parent ]

Make your choice (1.50 / 4) (#138)
by Viliam Bur on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:44:04 AM EST

Kosovo scenario
USA gives lot of money to terrorist / liberator / whatever group in Europe. Military conflict arises. USA comes to solve conflict; by bombing the country, of course. This may be repeated.

Libertarian scenario
Next election: in New Hampshire wins Libertarian Party. Part of Libertarian policy is that corporations are free to lead wars against their enemies. GMO producers of New Hampshire declare war on Europe, because the bad guys do not want to eat their food. They seem to have incredibly large financial sources (but this is being explained as the benefit of smart Libertarian policy).

Al-Quaeda scenario
USA sends special inspectors to Europe, to find possible connections to Al-Quaeda. Some diplomatic troubles... inspectors must leave. This is explained as a proof that Al-Quaeda was organized from Brussels.

I guess Pentagon has already more and better (i.e. more professional) scenarios prepared. Ask them.

[ Parent ]

+1 Moronic enough to be preserved (1.54 / 11) (#105)
by duffbeer703 on Fri Oct 10, 2003 at 11:22:06 PM EST

This is drivel of the highest quality and deserves to be preserved!

Me, I was going to dump it. (none / 3) (#107)
by lazloToth on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:45:39 AM EST

But I totally see your point.

[ Parent ]
I don't get it. (2.00 / 7) (#112)
by cgp314 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:08:03 AM EST

run by corporations or run by greedy half-wits trying to create a New World Order

What's the difference?


-- American Weblog in London
Fcuk You. (1.80 / 10) (#113)
by cgp314 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:18:49 AM EST

In short, I think we are right smack dab in the middle of the most interesting times we will ever see, and that we should be damned pleased to be here to see them.

I'm an American citizen and I'm 22. I wont consider being drafted to fight and possibly die for a cause I don't believe in 'an interesting time'.


-- American Weblog in London
Fly to Europe. <nt> (none / 2) (#131)
by Vesperto on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:13:17 AM EST



If you disagree post, don't moderate.
[ Parent ]
Re: Fly to Europe (none / 2) (#170)
by cgp314 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:43:36 PM EST

I did. I'm living in London. :)
-- American Weblog in London
[ Parent ]
Legend has it... (none / 1) (#141)
by tonedevil05 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:48:49 AM EST

that to "live in interesting times" is a Chinese curse. There is some controversy however.

[ Parent ]
More on the Terminator. . . (2.00 / 4) (#114)
by Fantastic Lad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:23:15 AM EST

From a very conspiracy website. . .
The Bush Cabal has lusted after California for a long time. And now with Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor, they have finally realized their goal: to capture California, the world's 10th largest economy. Even "presidential advisor" Karl Rove signed off on it.

Most importantly, Arnold has been sanctioned by the Olympians. The European Families have authorized the deal and their American cousins at the Bohemian Grove seconded the motion to install Arnold as Governor. On Sept. 24, 2002, Reuters published a story called 'Buffett's Back, with the Terminator' about Arnold and billionaire Warren Buffett visiting the ancestral home of the Rothschilds in England, where they "stepped onto Waddesdon's freshly cut lawn to be greeted by Lord Jacob Rothschild... Among those invited to Waddesdon Manor were the likes of James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, Jorma Ollila, chief executive of Nokia and De Beers chairman Nicky Oppenheimer."

Next Sen. Orrin Hatch wants to end the prohibition against foreign-born citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger from becoming president [...]

Just thought it looked interesting. I don't know about the veracity of any of these details other than it seems to be agreed by the underground media that this meeting took place.

And this was before Schwarzenegger entered the recall race. Ooooh. Spooky.

-FL

Correction. . . (none / 2) (#116)
by Fantastic Lad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:28:59 AM EST

And this was before Schwarzenegger entered the recall race. Ooooh. Spooky.

Sorry. It was after. Not so spooky. Just creepy. Must sleep.

-FL

[ Parent ]

Maybe just the energy industry (none / 2) (#133)
by cronian on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:02:46 AM EST

According to Greg Palast
Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off

...The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.

...Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=283&row=1

We perfect it; Congress kills it; They make it; We Import it; It must be anti-Americanism
[ Parent ]
Is this a joke? (1.21 / 14) (#118)
by d s oliver h on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:06:06 AM EST

This is the sort of stuff that gives the internet a bad name. America at war with Europe? Who the hell voted this rubbish up? It's the most nonsensical paranoid piece of garbage I've ever seen. You who wrote it are a crazy person.

Not a joke (none / 2) (#134)
by Viliam Bur on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:18:25 AM EST

Imagine someone having told you in 2000 about things that happened in 2001-2003. Including all the "funny" details like WMD in Iraq (being the cause of war, but never found), etc. Would you believe it? Or would you say: "too paranoid"?

[ Parent ]
well, i would have been quite surprised (none / 1) (#154)
by d s oliver h on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:24:39 PM EST

but i might have given it credit. but i don't see any point in obsessing over the international situation and gnashing one's teeth over it. humanity will survive i am sure. we are worse than cockroaches in that respect.

[ Parent ]
I would not. (none / 1) (#309)
by dimaq on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 05:13:31 AM EST

I may not have imagined the scale, but I saw it coming. (that for both ny and iraq)

[ Parent ]
-1, Redundant Poll Options (none / 3) (#129)
by taerom on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:02:32 AM EST

I think America is. . .

  • run by assholes.
  • run by corporations.


Ugh (1.06 / 15) (#137)
by shokk on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:30:43 AM EST

Utter utter crap. The black helicopters are coming for you.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
Complaining (none / 4) (#140)
by virtualjay222 on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:34:34 AM EST

Complaining about the government, at least in America, is slowly overtaking baseball as our national pastime. Frankly, I'm sick of it, but I do feel that certain issues regarding our democracy need to be addressed. What viable suggestions do people have to fix them?

And on a related note, what is the general consensus regarding the two party system? Does it limit democracy, or prevent circuses like what just happened in California from happening on a national scale?

---

I'm not in denial, I'm just selective about the reality I choose to accept.

-Calvin and Hobbes


just having two major parties (none / 1) (#165)
by phred on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:42:12 PM EST

is no insurance against a circus come election time.

[ Parent ]
Israel (2.12 / 16) (#142)
by Peaker on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:52:29 AM EST

Being an Israeli, I can refute most of the points regarding Israel as utter crap. I can only assume that the rest is just as accurate.

When Baghdad was taken by U.S. forces, Israel launched a conveniently timed campaign of its own. It sent massive offensives against all things Palestinian.

Israeli attacks always target armed Palestinian organizations, unlike the predecessing Palestinian attacks.

Walls went up, and houses went down.

The houses of Palestinian suicide bombers are destroyed as a means to lower the incentive to suicide-bomb and to counter the financial aid that suicide bombers' families get from terrorist organizations.

Brutal armored strikes against civilian targets, including women and children, foreign aid workers and journalists,

Twisting the truth into lies is just as bad as outright lying. Israeli strikes are not against civilian targets but against Palestinian militants.

Unfortunatly, Palestinian militants do not have the minimal morals to separate themselves from the civilian populace and so in attacking them civilian casualties are inevitable.

to the point where even 27 members of the Israeli air force, sickened by the inhuman demands placed upon them signed a letter of complaint and formally refused to fly any more missions against civilian targets.

They believe that attacking the terrorists surrounded by civilians is unacceptable. That is in my oppinion an acceptable oppinion, but not a higher-moral stand, because not attacking terrorists also has its high moral cost.

Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon promised swift retribution for the pilots.

The pilots are armymen first, and oppinion holders second. The orders they're given are not illegal as they target militants with attempts to minimize civilian casualties. Therefore, those pilots are breaking the law by disobeying.

All in retaliation to the endless Palestinian suicide bombings, (which, if truth be known, have been quietly questioned by a few as to just how 'Palestinian' some of them really are. 50 years of mind-programming experiments, you know. . .But this is fodder for another essay entirely!).

Incredible claims require incredibly strong evidence. That's the most absurd form of propoganda I've seen in a while:

  • The Palestinian organizations take responsibility.
  • All Israeli governments lose popularity over those attacks.
  • No Israeli suicider would be willing to do such a thing.
  • Occam's razor

    This kind of claim shows just how one-sided and blind you really are. Your view can be summed up as Israel being the big evil satan and all Palestinians being little angels.

    In any case, a sticky, stinking situation.

    Ah, I almost thought there would be nothing of value in your text.

    Indeed, the attacks by Israel deeply upset many Jews, and there have been many protests both in Israel and abroad. A couple of days ago, this ad was placed in the Washington Post by Jews opposed to the Zionist agenda.

    I do not understand the coherency of your last paragraph. You are attempting to link anti-zionists with those Israelis and others who are upset by the Israeli attacks. You wouldn't find many Israelis who are anti-zionists as the mere existence of a democratic Israel is zionism.

    And what agenda might that be? What can be determined from an Israeli bombing attack on Syrian territory? --Like I said; another essay entirely.

    Israel has stated its goals of its attack on Syria: Making it clear to Syria that supporting the terrorist organizations has its consequences and they may be dragged into war themselves as well.

  • sir (none / 1) (#150)
    by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 01:54:48 PM EST

    All in retaliation to the endless Palestinian suicide bombings, (which, if truth be known, have been quietly questioned by a few as to just how 'Palestinian' some of them really are. 50 years of mind-programming experiments, you know. . .But this is fodder for another essay entirely!).

    This should have been your tip-off. 'The Palestinian suicide bombings are actually setups by the US and Israel' is what the article poster means. In other words, he's a raving loony.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]

    us? (none / 0) (#153)
    by skelter on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:14:07 PM EST

    He means arabs from south of Isreal.

    [ Parent ]
    you know (none / 1) (#157)
    by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:12:54 PM EST

    On reread, I can't tell just what the heck he means. That's a big part of this article's problem.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    OT: Your sig (none / 1) (#178)
    by Xoder on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:51:58 AM EST

    Thanks for quoting the sagas.

    I often feel that they're ignored too much.

    That said, Njal got the short end of the stick and it sucked!

    Lately I've been hearing that god's on our side But rumor has it, there's one on their side too So what I'd like to know is, when it comes down to it, can my god kick their god's ass or what?
    [ Parent ]

    Poke, Poke. (none / 0) (#171)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:17:19 PM EST

    And run away laughing.

    The 'Battle Troll' sees red, types furiously once again, spits and fumes and cries things like, "We Hates Him! We Hates Him! We Stays Up Late Pretending We Beats Him!"

    Only when you come to terms with your issues of self-importance will you have a chance of touching me. You ain't got no clothes, buster, and your intellectual dick, for all its pseudo-potential, remains soft and floppy.

    Now pardon me. It's time for me to ignore you again while you behave with zealous, self controlled wit just to show everybody that I'm wrong.

    Poke, Poke.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    thanks for entering this thread (none / 1) (#174)
    by Battle Troll on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:36:01 PM EST

    Could you explain this line to me?
    [t]he endless Palestinian suicide bombings, (which, if truth be known, have been quietly questioned by a few as to just how 'Palestinian' some of them really are. 50 years of mind-programming experiments, you know. . .But this is fodder for another essay entirely!
    Are you suggesting that the Palestinian suicide bombers are mind-programmed, or is it we non-cospiracy-theorists who have been mind-programmed to believe that the bombers are Palestinian? Because it's not clear from context.
    --
    Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
    Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
    [ Parent ]
    Okaaaay. (none / 3) (#169)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 08:33:57 PM EST

    Being an Israeli, I can refute most of the points regarding Israel as utter crap. I can only assume that the rest is just as accurate.

    Dude. Being in Israel actually diminishes your ability to know what the hell is going on. If you think you are not the target of massive state propaganda, then you are a complete, utter, jabbering imbecile. Sorry.

    I have read a few hundred stories from all manner of sources in the world media which say that you don't know what the hell you are talking about. At all. Zip. You have been programmed. You beep at night. If I were to roll you over, I would find a digital cable jack on the back of your neck. Am I being clear enough for you? YOU HAVE BEEN HAD.

    I don't even know where to begin in addressing your post. You offered no proofs of your claims, so I don't really see why I should go to the effort of pulling up the hundred or so links which would collectively tell you that you are a total moron. People saturated with propaganda to the depth you have been are like cult members; I would have to spend all damn night cobbling together a series of posts in an attempt to de-program you, and frankly, you strike me as being simply too damned snotty to be worth the effort.

    Please swallow down your pride, go do some soul searching, and then, (please!) do some reading beyond your favorite brand of sugar-coated propagandic press which says that you are the righteous victim and that there is no grey area.

    If you don't, then you will almost certainly die an ignorant, angry tool in the unwitting service of somebody a helluva lot smarter than you.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Ha Ha Ha Ha!!! (none / 2) (#176)
    by lordDogma on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:27:16 PM EST

    You offered no proofs of your claims, so I don't really see why I should go to the effort of pulling up the hundred or so links which would collectively tell you that you are a total moron. People saturated with propaganda to the depth you have been are like cult members; I would have to spend all damn night cobbling together a series of posts in an attempt to de-program you, and frankly, you strike me as being simply too damned snotty to be worth the effort.

    This is the funniest thing I've ever read. Fantastic Lad, you are a complete lunatic, and here you are telling others that they are the crazy ones. I hate to break it to you, man, but you are beyond help. You keep demanding proof. Well, how do you know that YOU aren't the one who is being programmed by propaganda from all the horsecrap you read? What proof do all of your whacko news sources give that anything they say is actually true? They provide authentic-looking .pdf documents? Easily forged. They have pictures? Easily forged. They quote sources in the NSA, CIA and US Military? Easily fabricated.

    Damn you are gullible.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    It's about intent. (none / 3) (#204)
    by Fantastic Lad on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:41:30 PM EST

    What proof do all of your whacko news sources give that anything they say is actually true? They provide authentic-looking .pdf documents? Easily forged. They have pictures? Easily forged. They quote sources in the NSA, CIA and US Military? Easily fabricated.

    Of course, this is 100% true.

    The problem is that the U.S. and Israeli governments have a great deal to gain by manipulating information. Indeed, war-monger governments have been shown throughout history to ALWAYS lie to their populations in order to manufacture consent. ALWAYS. Please reference Joseph Goebbels.

    Independent news sources, while they often have their own degree internal unreliability, egos, hysteria, etc., are nonetheless under far less pressure and have far fewer resources with which to fabricate thousands of lies, photographs, documents, etc. --Further, much of the information I look at comes from cross-referencing the 'official' sources.

    Now, I suppose you could say that independent news sources of all stripes are really just propaganda efforts by other governments who would like to see Israel and the U.S. fall into disfavor. --But this would, I think, (if it were true, and in some instances, it probably is), simply prove that governments do indeed have the facility and resources to tell lies.

    Now, it is true that a percentage of the raw data available in any independant forum is going to be flawed. --In the main article above, I think it is likely that I have made a couple of misinterpretations which people have pointed out to some degree. But that's part of the learning curve, and it's why I provided links. That's why stories like these are important to discuss in open forum, so that accurate pictures can begin to form. --I bet you learned a few things which you did not know previously.

    To say I or you know the whole story is ludicrous. But to say that the 'official' story as presented by the U.S. and Israeli governments and their main news media outlets, is the complete story and the right story is far more ludicrous given the propensity and capacity for those sources to give only biased, censored data. And to suggest that people should not question the 'official' story, or explore the raw sewage of non-'official' data in order to think for themselves, (which is exactly what you seem to be suggesting!), is quite foul indeed.

    I think you would be very surprised if you were to look beyond your comfort zone for a while. There's a big world out there and a lot going on in it. Rather than fight tooth and nail against people like me in order to preserve a comfortable day dream, you would be much better served by going off to investigate reality yourself. You can either live and decay inside a lie, or you can grow strong by interacting with the world.

    Good luck to you.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    A Question.. (none / 3) (#186)
    by molo on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:13:39 PM EST

    Israeli strikes are not against civilian targets but against Palestinian militants.

    Can you clarify something for me?  I recently read that in retaliation for a suicide bombing, the Israeli Air Force bombed an apartment building with a 1000 lbs bomb.

    Can you tell me how you do not consider this bombing civilians?

    Thanks.
    -molo

    --
    Whenever you walk by a computer and see someone using pico, be kind. Pause for a second and remind yourself that: "There, but for the grace of God, go I." -- Harley Hahn
    [ Parent ]

    Yes. (none / 2) (#209)
    by Peaker on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:42:32 PM EST

    The bomb was dropped on the house of a serious militant. According to intelligence, nobody but him was there. It seems that the intel was wrong. However, is Israel to blame for the fact its enemies surround themselves with women and children?

    [ Parent ]
    Of course not!!! (2.60 / 5) (#220)
    by Trepalium on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 03:11:35 AM EST

    It's obviously the innocent women and children's fault for being in proximity to Israel's enemies! I mean, didn't they get the notice that the bombing against the one target was happening at that particular date and time?

    With these kind of attitudes, there will never be peace in Israel, just an endless of cycle of death and destruction. Do you want peace? Do you ever question the methods by which your government is trying to acquire peace? Unless you want to try genocide, the current path will not lead to peace.

    [ Parent ]

    You forgot another alternative (none / 2) (#233)
    by Peaker on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:05:24 PM EST

    Militants are the ones who are supposed to separate themselves from innocent civilians.

    You don't see the Israeli army operating from Israeli civilian cities. In fact, the whole point of an army uniform is to distinguish the warriors from civilians.

    On the other hand, the Palestinian terrorists attempt to hide themselves between innocent women and children, and do not operate away from them or separate themselves.

    Israel cannot be expected to do nothing in response to the repeating murder of many of its people, or can it really? Even if you think it is wise for Israel to not respond (And I believe that it might be very wise), I do not question the legitimacy of response.

    Since the only response Israel has is to attack its militant enemies, how can civilian casualties be avoided?

    [ Parent ]

    Is Peaker a typical Jew? (2.00 / 4) (#192)
    by minra on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 03:48:20 PM EST

    It is my privelege to know jews with integrity.

    Peaker is not one of them.

    My only question, is he typical of jews?

    [ Parent ]

    The only trouble is,.. (1.60 / 5) (#146)
    by Rainy on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 12:51:37 PM EST

    That instead of writing this long story, a succinct "our society is fucked up" would suffice. But we already knew that, eh?
    --
    Rainy "Collect all zero" Day
    Yup, screwed up alright... (none / 3) (#195)
    by Lord of Caustic Soda on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:56:59 AM EST

    Unlike the good ol' days when everyone were nice happy peasants toiling in the fields all day hoping they won't starve to death with a bad harvest or some plague that's so bad no ammount of leeches can help.

    And syphilis was just groovy - who doesn't want a silver nose?

    [ Parent ]

    You're being naive and stupid. (1.15 / 19) (#155)
    by Kax on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:34:32 PM EST

    Not to mention paranoid and insecure, and powerless.  Pathetic.

    Let's begin.

    On the way I overheard a pair of men walking up the street, the guy speaking did so with firm karate chop gesticulations in time with his verbs. "We're going to find out who did this," he said, angrily. "We're going to find them, and then we're going to get them!"

    It was clear that he was talking more to reassure himself than the fellow walking beside him.

    Why was this clear?

    he wasn't even an American, so that 'We' stuff was bubbling up from somewhere deep indeed. Fear does funny things.

    Heaven forbid you feel any sort of human solidarity with someone who's not a citizen of the nation you live in.

    How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit? His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact. Where the hell did that come from? I work in news, and I can't even figure it out. Can you tell me?"

    I couldn't. And I've to this day yet to hear a reasonable answer to his question.

    How about this: Since it is not your job or hobby to track, study, or investigate terrorist groups, can you allow that when people who are in a position to know these things say that X is probably responsible, it could be true?  If you don't want to trust anything the US Govt. claims then that is your business, but it has no bearing on what the truth is, one way or the other.

    We ate our raw fish and pondered the end of the world.

    Sucker.

    Some of the Anthrax spores turned out to have been made by the good old U.S. military, a detail which went largely un-dealt with.

    It's been public knowledge that the anthrax dude is probably domestic for quite a while.  In your defense, given your apparent social circle, that you would be ignorant of this is not unexpected.

    despite the fact that neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban army, were ever shown to have any connection to the 9-11 attack,... on October 7th, 2001, American and British bombs fell on Afghanistan.

    Do you agree:

    1. The Afghan government was in bed with bin Laden?
    2. bin Laden and his cronies are engaged in planning and executing violence against the USA, the UK, etc.?
    If either of these are wrong, that's pretty shocking news and I'd love to hear about it.

    I got scowled at for this. A lot. People were really messed up by 9-11 and they were not into listening to anything but war drums.

    That's because you are being a fucking martyr.  Offer up a better course of action instead of telling people they are being pawns of the CIA for wanting to get rid of terrorists.

    Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true. Few cared.

    How should we show our care?  I cared; a lot of people cared.  Do we show our care by saying, "Bye folks, we're all going home now in atonement for this accident that happened, go about your business, Al-Qaeda." ?  Or maybe you just try to not do that again.

    Though the part I thought was weird was that somebody had a 342 page bill prepared and ready to go mere days after 9-11.

    Some people plan for contigencies, a lesson you would probably do well to learn.

    The story hadn't broken at this time that the plan to take Iraq had been drawn up well before 9-11.

    What an eye-opener!  See contingency planning.

    or you saw him as being harassed by an unfair bully which kept changing the rules of the game whenever Iraq conceded to the latest set of Bush's ultimatums.

    Being able to talk to scientists without government minders present = demands of an unfair bully?

    Stop being such a naive little bitch.  If Saddam had gotten rid of his weaponry in secret, you'd think he would bend over backwards to show this is so.  Even though it makes no sense for him to do this in secret.  If he was playing some game, that's not our fault.

    economic sanctions kept Iraq from building new ones. (As well as starving much of its populace in the process.)

    Pray tell, where did the money that entered Iraq (via the UN sanctions regime and also from illegal smuggling) go?  Let's have a breakdown.

    I do agree the administration should have done more to counter the public misnotion that Saddam was connected to 9/11.  But his government did indeed support terrorism (re: payoffs to families of Palestinian suicide bombers).

    I could post links, but frankly, if you aren't able to see the state Iraq is currently in, then it probably means you don't want to see it, in which case you might as well stop reading this because it isn't going to get any better.

    What, you mean that American troops don't just rush in and suddenly everything turns to roses and sunshine?  Granted, people expected things to go more smoothly.  But come back in five years and let's see what the state of Iraq is then.

    Brutal armored strikes against civilian targets, including women and children, foreign aid workers and journalists, to the point where even 27 members of the Israeli air force, sickened by the inhuman demands placed upon them signed a letter of complaint and formally refused to fly any more missions against civilian targets. Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon promised swift retribution for the pilots.

    Wrong-o.  The pilots were upset because some of their missions were against militants, and civilians were 'collateral damage'.  Whatever you may think of the moral calculus that should be applied here, Israel does not go after civilians.

    Arnold the Nazi sympathizer blahblahblah

    Do you really think so?

    As for your 'conclusions':

    1. You're stupid.
    2. You're stupid.
    3. You're stupid.
    4. You're stupid.
    5. You're fucking insane.


    can we please stop the crapflooding? (2.75 / 4) (#158)
    by rmg on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 03:35:25 PM EST

    honestly, if idiots like this insist on posting page lengthening crap like this, what's to keep people reading?

    _____ intellectual tiddlywinks
    [ Parent ]

    My response to article's critics (2.71 / 7) (#156)
    by mbacarella on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 02:58:57 PM EST

    He did not lay out an explicit conspiracy theory. The balance of his article was to point out that many of the "facts" we accepted about the last two years barely, if at all, carry the weight of truth in them, and that's disturbing.

    Regarding the nation of Israel, they are keeping the Palestinians under apartheid (justified or not is another matter altogether). As a result of keeping a people under oppression, your soldiers when placed in that environment will of course take liberties in dealing with civilian lives--to keep a people under apartheid you must at some level have a conviction that they are inferior--and that the Palestinian's response can only be expected. They react like oppressed people.

    The Human Rights Watch has documented many, many cases of Israel/Palestinian conflicts, which uncover many IDF human rights abuses: soldiers using civilians as human shields, bulldozing homes with people still inside with no warning, children being shot for trying to assist their wounded parents, torture, etc. The HRW is very careful about getting the story straight, and I invite everyone who is concerned with the Middle East to review their site (http://www.hrw.org/)

    Also a good first hand account of both sides of the struggle is a comic book, "Palestine", by Joe Sacco.

    Regarding the 9/11 confession tape, the popular interpretation is that he is confessing to 9/11. However, as a scientist (or just a critical human being), you cannot say that this is the only possible interpretation. He never explicitly states "I am behind 9/11", so it's also possible that he's referring to another attack. It's also possible that he's lying about taking credit for it; he has stated that in other appearances, he is not responsible for the attack (but does condone it). I don't speak Arabic(?) so I can't verify that the translation is correct. What I find peculiar, well, not peculiar, disturbing, is that the U.S. will not release the physical tape itself for public review. This makes it harder to either verify the popular interpretation, or refute it.

    (I do have a gut feeling that he's responsible, but I'm not content to act on gut feelings).

    I don't agree with the article's conclusion. Georg e W. Bush is almost assured to lose reelection short of a miracle (God, I hope its name isn't Arnold Schwarzenegger). Democrats, like them or not (I hate them), do encourage investor and consumer confidence--certainly moreso than the secretive, high-contrast, uncompromising current administration does--so this can lay a good foundation for economic recovery and put a halt to our deflationary march. And since Democrats are pansy lightweights, they'll have plenty of common ground with which to rebuild our alliances with Europe.

    A fine work of fiction (1.13 / 15) (#163)
    by bobbuck on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:17:39 PM EST

    This is nothing but a fantasy rant by someone who hates Americans, probably someone who has a subscription to al-Qaida weekly. These people can bitch and moan (and lie), but the truth is that the United States is the "Good Guy." The US did a big part of the rebuilding of Europe and Japan. Japan is now a thriving democracy and while I fear Europe is sliding further into socialism and the economic decay that follows, they are their own masters and have a route to progress. Iraq is now free from a horrible dictator who openly admired Joseph Stalin and his lust for blood.

    BTW who in the Bush administration said that Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks?

    the good guy (none / 2) (#187)
    by raukea on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:42:02 PM EST

    How do you know that the US is the good guy? Certainly it doesn't act like a good guy, with all the messing around during the cold war in S.America and Asia. Well, I'm not trying to demonize the US, but really, the Stalin admiring dictator was supported by the US government until his invasion of Kuwait. He was supported by the US when he gassed the kurds.
    The post-WWII rebuilding did help in many places, but still, if you people just go around yelling: "US is the good guy and you're all bad if you can't see that" it doesn't really leave much space for development. Do you claim that the US is perfect? That, somehow, magically it's the only infallible country in the world? There are too many people who think differently from this that it would simply be enough to say, hey, we're good.

    Quod me nutrit, me destruit.
    [ Parent ]
    Re: A fine work of fiction (none / 1) (#227)
    by dmr on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:45:38 PM EST

    BTW who in the Bush administration said that Iraq was behind the September 11th attacks?
    The president certainly implied it in his state-of-the-union address: Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.

    [ Parent ]
    Whats untrue about that statement? (none / 2) (#255)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 08:11:55 PM EST

    Saddam Hussein DID aid and protect terrorists. In fact, we've even captured some of them. Like Abu Abbas, the man responsible for the Achille Lauro highjacking who was captured in Baghdad in April by U.S Special Forces.

    [ Parent ]
    Some other subscriptions (none / 0) (#280)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 11:01:35 AM EST

    probably someone who has a subscription to al-Qaida weekly...

    From the dialogue, I'm guessing the writer also has access to a stack of mid-seventies Soldier of Fortune.

    [ Parent ]
    this is just another internet conspiracy fan (2.62 / 8) (#164)
    by phred on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:30:20 PM EST

    All the regular folks agree.

    Thats what keeps 21st century civilization going, people happily acknowlege that alternative, non mainstream views are always hogwash, there has never been any conspiracy happening outside of the public eye. Our leaders are entirely too trustworty.

    Of course there will never be such a thing as a world war. Can you imagine many of the industrialized first world nations fighting a global war on many fronts, with possibly the actual use of nuclear weapons on inhabitted cities?? Of course not, thats rediculous. Civilization is just too, well, civilized for that.

    Really, don't sweat it, the human race is incapable of conspiracy, and politicians never tell lies publically. There is absolutely nothing happening behind government doors that we aren't instantly and truthfully informed about in all instances. There will never be a president booted out of office because of some coverup of facts concerning some nonexistent "conspiracy" regarding criminal acts. Politicians just don't do this sort of thing.

    Nothing to see here folks. Just another wacky conspiracy fan!

    Cough (none / 2) (#203)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:42:47 PM EST

    Certainly conspiracies do certainly exist....just ask Richard Nixon.

    That doesn't mean that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy. Just because you find a penny on the sidewalk doesn't mean that the "men in black helicopters" planted it there so that they can monitor your every movement.

    To turn you rather thin sarcasim on it's head, I offer this:

           Absolutely everything you read on the internet is true. I mean no one would push conspiracy theories or offer unsubstantiated innuendo to forward thier own political agenda would they? I mean, no human being would ever be so base as to employ such tactics to sling mud on political viewpoints they dislike? Anonymous sources that you read on the internet are always so much more reliable then figures in the public eye aren't they?

    [ Parent ]

    counterpoint (none / 2) (#206)
    by phred on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 04:04:31 PM EST

    Anonymous sources that you read on the internet are always so much more reliable then figures in the public eye aren't they?

    Depends on which figures in the public eye you're discussing.

    If you would have named a few figures in the public eye, we could have had something solid to discuss. So its hard to say, but at least anonymous sources have less motivation to mislead, they often resort to solid investigative techniques and let the written word be their proof. Some ideas make so much sense, they have a credibility all their own.

    While reputation can lend authority to subjective efforts to persuade, documented evidence and logic can stand on its own. Some ideas are so profound that it doesn't matter who typed them. Possibilities are even more interesting, but only to those willing to imagine them.

    Additionally, as much as you'd like to think reputation props up the spoken/written word, think of how many times a misspoken or poorly written word has ironically taken down the very reputation folks like you would put so much "trust" in.

    [ Parent ]

    Jane, you ignorant slut (none / 4) (#226)
    by CENGEL3 on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 10:17:11 AM EST

    People in the public eye are by definition subject to more scrutiny then an anonymous source. At the very least, you know who they are and can make educated guesses about what possible motivations might be behind thier actions/arguements.

    An anonymous source is just that, anonymous, they can be anyone (even a "figure in the public eye" acting outside the public eye) thier motivations could be anything.

    "but at least anonymous sources have less motivation to mislead" .... That statement is absolutely incorrect. I'll give you just one small example... if I happen to own 75,000 shares of Exxon and I write anonymously on the internet that they are about to strike a major deal that will send thier stock prices through the roof do I have LESS motivation to mislead then a public figure who makes the same statement?

    At the very least, If I am secure about my anonymty I won't have to worry about the Security and Exchanges Commission breathing down my neck about stock manipulation like the public figure would.

    Frankly, as far as I (or most people here know) FL could be Bin Ladens second cousin. I'm not trying to say seriously that he is....but it is the literal truth that most people here have no way of knowing who he is or what his motivations might be.... True some-one else could post here verifying who FL was...but again how do we know THAT isn't just FL under a 2nd account?

    We have no way of knowing who FL is or what his motivations are other then his word (Nor do you have any way of knowing who I really am or what my motivations are)....and I don't see how the word of an unkown person can be considered MORE reliable then that of a known person.

    "While reputation can lend authority to subjective efforts to persuade, documented evidence and logic can stand on its own."

    I agree wholeheartedly with that statement but it doesn't apply to the VAST MAJORITY of what is posted on the internet, including this site and this article...and especialy what is anoymously posted.

    DOCUMENTED evidence can be a strong arguement...however for it to hold any weight whatsoever it must be just that DOCUMENTED. It must be independently verifiable, it must be substantiated and it must examinable and it must withstand critical scrutiny. At the very best when most internet posts attempt to produce ANY documentation whatsoever it is usualy just a repitition of what some-one else has said (i.e. heresay)....a link to some other site, often with an agenda of it's own to push, which reports something using little more then it's own authority as "evidence" of what it alleges...or yet another link to another site with no more real "evidence" to present or credability then the first, ad infinitem.

    Now logic is important but logic does not neccesarly dictate truth of fact...especialy when there are numerous logical possibilities. Logicaly oranges make an excellent breakfast food does that mean that I MUST neccesarly have had oranges for breakfast this morning?

    If we were to use logic as our sole guide we must conclude that Napolean would never march to Moscow... but in point of historical fact we know he did.

    [ Parent ]

    very valid points (none / 1) (#241)
    by phred on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 01:25:21 PM EST

    I still believe great words can be anonymously offered and still be great.

    Likewise, a person can destroy his reputation with just a few poorly chosen words.

    And regarding ideas and theories (such as the article we're both responding to), these can remain valid theories and ideas until proven otherwise. Anonymous speech has its worth. Many a well known individual has proved himself/herself to be worthless by mispoken words.

    All I'm offering are valid counter points to what some silly folk believe are immutable laws of reputation.

    I'm not discounting your rules of authority, I'm just saying that they're not absolute, and in todays climate of calculated deceit and popstar reputation, they're really pretty obsolete. Enlightenment is just not very mainstream.

    [ Parent ]

    Sure (none / 2) (#244)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 03:27:43 PM EST

    Great words CAN be anonymously offered... but unless something is offered along with them to substantiate them then most people (rightfully) aren't going to give them very much weight.

    Sure this article was a theory but (IMO) it was a poor one. It doesn't offer any real substantiation to back it's allegations. It requires pretty large stretch of logic to accept it's premise. Worst of all, many of the statements it makes which are testable can be proven to be factualy inaccurate. For example:

    "How did everybody know only a few hours after the event that Bin Laden was the culprit?" -

     It's easy enough to go back into the record and examine the official statements made by the U.S. government on the 11th or immediately afterward. I won't do the research for you but the documents are available. Do you see any of them saying Bin Laden was the culprit HOURS after the attack? In fact, when is the earliest official statement that you can find which attributes responsibility to Bin Laden. This is something which CAN be tested....and FL's statement isn't going to come out looking very credible to anyone who makes the effort to do so.

    "His name was just pulled out of the air and everybody instantly took it up as fact." -

       Again this is a statement which can be researched. Can you find any evidence why Bin Laden might be considered a likely suspect for the 11th even before an investigation was done? I certainly can ('93 WTC bombing, U.S.S. Cole, Embassy Bombings, Bin Ladens own statements). Tell me honestly is FL's allegation that his name was "pulled out of thin air" sound like a fair characterization of the truth or propaganda after you've done this research.

    "Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true. Few cared." -

        - This statement is even refuted by the very link which FL supplies to support it. The report in the guardian article which the link leads makes it very clear that (it's allegation) the trailers were burried by Afghan troops under Gen Dostum. The only allegation it makes about U.S. troops is that U.S. Special Forces were operating in the same general area, had links to General Dostum and MAY have had KNOLWEDGE of the act. Even if the Guardian Report were true (which STILL NEEDS TO BE PROVEN) read it yourself and tell me if FL makes a fair characterization about what it actualy says?

    At best FL's piece is a hatchet job. If he wants to allege that something sinister is going on behind the scenes in the U.S....I don't buy it, but fine he can do so.....but he shouldn't bend the truth, mischaracterize others statements and out and out lie in order to do so.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't think you're going to get my point (none / 2) (#256)
    by phred on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 09:06:34 PM EST

    But I'll make it again anyways.

    Great words CAN be anonymously offered... but unless something is offered along with them to substantiate them then most people (rightfully) aren't going to give them very much weight.

    Words often can stand on their own, and indeed as I've acknowledged, words can also bring down reputations.

    I've typed this before in this thread, so I have to accept that you must have reputation attached to ideas. I don't. Additionally, I've trusted and admired reputations only to be betrayed, so I've learned my lesson here. I'm not saying reputation isn't a good thing to have, nor am I saying that reputation cannot lend weight to statements. What I am saying is that I'm not a slave to this. Ideas are welcome to me.

    I'm not going to dispute your characterization of this piece, I'm disputing your need for reputation to follow in general. I do understand that some folks cannot consider ideas alone, and must have "star power" attached to them. For instance, some folks can acknowledge great music alone, while others must see the album sales figures before they can judge. I'd imagine your a great fan of top 40.

    Remember, I'm not "selling" this piece to you, (I didn't research or write it) I'm perfectly happy to view this piece as further evidence of healthy skepticism of the conventional story lines that folks like you are so emotionally bound to.

    You have convinced me that you prefer reputation more than I do, so I think we can agree on at least our differences.

    And even without knowing your reputation, I can consider your refutation of the piece, but again, you really only offer the ordinary view dished up in mainstream news. (But thats ok, I watch the news too.)

    (Its a bit ironic that you're granting Bin Ladin "reputation" tho, I'm perfectly happy viewing him with skepticism, especially as his words alone are enough for me to reject both his ideas _and_ reputation. You'd be wise to reconsider here too, but then again, even the US liked him just a few years back. Evil world this is.)

    Lets face it, we're probably each very happy with our individual viewpoints. Cheers!

    [ Parent ]

    I think I am (none / 2) (#260)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:13:10 PM EST

    I do think your point is evading me...or vice versa. Yes, I probably do lend more weight to reputation then you do.

    Please don't interpret that to mean that I am going accept EVERYTHING said by public figures at face value. I certainly don't....I want evidence there too.

    However I DO believe that if some-one KNOWS they are likely to face scrutiny and KNOWS that there may be negative consequences for them if they are caught lying they are more likely to tell the truth.

    I also believe that some people will act out of principle...and that if these people have a history of telling the truth in the past there is a good chance they will continue to do so in future. With public figures at least you can identify thier history.

    P.S. I HATE Top 40. Classical muisic is my favorite.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (2.50 / 12) (#166)
    by trhurler on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 04:59:11 PM EST

    A good many of your facts are wrong(nobody was arrested in the anthrax case? Yeah, right...), some have been rendered uninteresting by subsequent happenings(bin Laden obviously WAS responsible, and the means by which the government decided it knew that are both obviously secret and mostly irrelevant now.) That said, your analysis would probably be closer to the mark if you actually understood Americans.

    War with Europe? Laughable. Europe could not fight a war against the US, and European leaders do not have to wonder about that. Without US "cooperation," Europe can't even mount night operations in any useful way. Europe's industrial output still can't rival what the US could do under a rationing system, no matter how many pieces of little green paper move through the European economy yearly. The best of the European armed forces(probably the British,) are too small, and the rest are too useless; many of them have only a few men anywhere in them who've ever done anything but train or keep the peace. Perhaps most alarmingly for Europe, there is no guarantee that the UK wouldn't side with the US.

    Furthermore, we have bases all around Europe that would remain loyal to us(genuinely or through fear,) and a navy that owns the oceans. Europe would have to struggle to find a way to even begin to attack the US mainland, whereas Europeans would be under bombardment and invasion from the get go.

    BUT, that's all more than irrelevant, because the US isn't going to fight Europe. The US isn't even going to fight China, and China is a much higher probability(there are multiple reasonable scenarios under which that could happen, and none I can conceive of that would pit us against Europe.) US leaders know that US citizens by and large consider themselves to BE Europeans, and the ones who don't, while quite likely to be in the military, are not likely to have high rank.

    Finally, a draft won't be imposed any time soon, for the simple reason that it won't be needed. In any scenario in which the US would contemplate losing hundreds of thousands of lives, it would also contemplate using its nuclear arsenal, and the simple fact is, any opponent on earth would back down as soon as they realized we were serious about that. Sure, Europe has some bombs. Carried on bombers, mostly. Largely incapable of reaching the US, and very likely to simply be shot down even if they did. On the other hand, the US can simply remove any region of the earth from the realm of existence, and nobody and nothing can prevent it.

    I saw an interesting statistic the other day. Up until 1945, the death rate due to wars escalated steadily at an exponential rate. From 1945 on, it dropped worldwide to roughly one million and has stayed there ever since.

    World war my ass.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    Um... (none / 2) (#188)
    by raukea on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 12:58:28 PM EST

    Yes, I hope there will be no world war. Especially if the biggest nuclear power in the world acts all funnily nowadays. I never was pro-soviet, but perhaps the nuclear stalemate and balance of horror had its good sides too. I mean, when destroying huge amounts of bystanders and removing places from the realm of existence is considered a good tactic. The use of nuclear weapons is the stupidest thing ever to be done in a war, especially if the war is fought as a continuance of politics. Removing places from the realm of existence eliminates all the reasons for having the war, because you can't really get anything out of it anymore. So,unless the war was about genocide, there would be no point in it. And I think that even the Pentagon can see this.

    And as it comes to war with Europe, you can't really say for sure how it would turn out, I mean, lots of water would flow in the Potomac before that. If the war broke out today, those facts would be somewhat valid. But on the other hand, the possibility of a World War does seem remote nowadays. But there are other ways in which things can go wrong than war. Shouldn't be too pessimistic, but too much optimism isn't good either.

    Quod me nutrit, me destruit.
    [ Parent ]
    A determined United Europe Army... (none / 2) (#194)
    by Lord of Caustic Soda on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 02:52:20 AM EST

    Can storm across the tunnel and beat those silly tea-drinking fools down within a blink of an eye.

    Before you get too complacent, you better check which side Canada is on. Once the ice bridge is built from Siberia to Alaska those tank columns will roll down.

    My only question is, when the fuck is the US going to start actually building prism tanks?

    [ Parent ]

    A determined United Europe army (none / 3) (#281)
    by Cro Magnon on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 12:13:22 PM EST

    would probably get their butts kicked by an LA street gang!
    Information wants to be beer.
    [ Parent ]
    LA street muthafukkas rule! (none / 1) (#287)
    by axxad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:42:50 PM EST

    yo
    __________________________________________________

    I'M WAITING! They've denied me posting for a while, you knwo: rule of too many posts. The diaries section should be converted to free-form art entity. I could research AI code for it. WhatDOyouThink?
    [ Parent ]

    Re: A determined United Europe army (none / 0) (#320)
    by ddraig on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 08:54:17 AM EST

    mwahahahahahahahahahaha. History is replete with examples of this. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (none / 1) (#288)
    by trhurler on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 05:41:44 PM EST

    After all, you Europeans whooped Churchill's ass, didn't you?

    Come on, man. There are no sides here, because everyone involved(ie, the leaders, the military, etc - not you or me,) knows full well that the result would be an unprecedented disaster for everyone, and probably an END for anyone opposing the US.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Nuclear destruction (none / 2) (#219)
    by Trepalium on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:47:56 AM EST

    Why is it any comment that criticises the USA is almost always accompanied by someone who brags about the US military might, and nuclear arsenal. "Yeah, if anyone really threatened us, we'd just nuke them off the face of the planet!" It gets rather old, you know...

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 2) (#289)
    by trhurler on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 05:47:31 PM EST

    You do realize the US currently knows the exact position of every one of those submarines, right? Even if the French DIDN'T cooperate by telling us(and they do,) tracking them is well within our means. Also, it is NOT the position of France that any invasion is to be met with nuclear force. If it were, France would be kicked out of NATO in a heartbeat, because that runs counter to NATO policy in a very serious manner. Finally, keep in mind that for the French, using a nuclear weapon(even a single small one,) against the US is a simple choice: it is the choice to remove France from the planet. Not likely.

    Finally, Europe does not have and never had the industrial capacity the US can muster. Granted, we aren't using it at the moment, but we have the infrastructure still sitting there, mostly intact and largely underutilized, and Europe doesn't. Peacetime economic figures are not an accurate measure of wartime potential; if they were, then the US would have been hopeless in WWII.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Hehe (none / 2) (#303)
    by trhurler on Sat Oct 18, 2003 at 09:12:29 PM EST

    You think submarines can't be tracked? Just what do you suppose the US spent billions of dollars on doing to the Russians for all those years? Why do you suppose we have immense networks of sonar stations, thousands upon thousands of mobile magnetic anomoly detector platforms, round the clock surveillance of ports that handle submarine traffic, and so many attack submarines whose "training" consists of finding and following the submarines of other countries? You're either a troll or a hopelessly naive fool.

    As for sharing locations, France has a compelling reason to do so: the French cannot provide search and rescue efforts for their own submarine fleet. The French navy just isn't big enough or well enough equipped for that.

    The notion of a French nuclear strike on the former USSR is laughable; the USSR would suffer, and France would cease to exist. The US and USSR had mechanisms in place decades ago to ensure that a third party nuclear strike would not trigger a release by one of them against the other, so that is all France could hope for. There is NO WAY that the US would enter such a war and be decimated for the sake of France. There has never been a nation on earth whose stated policy was that "any invasion" would trigger a nuclear response, because EVERYONE knows that his interest is in keeping his options open until the last possible moment. What they all say is, in case of a nuclear attack, they will respond with nuclear weapons, no matter what.

    Your arguments about wartime production are still based on peacetime economic figures, and you are making a crucial mistake. I live here. I know what factories are where. I know where there are plants sitting closed and yet quite operable, and I actually follow the news reports on the various initiatives to preserve strategically vital industries inside the US. We're the biggest importers? True, and we were huge importers during WWII too. That's why we have a huge navy and an insane force projection capability. Japan attacked the US, for instance, in WWII, because we denied them access to oil they wanted from South America. Guess who controls what goes where today, at the end of all other considerations? That's right. The US Navy.

    Oh, and the reason the EU economy isn't bigger isn't that people work less. They do work less, on average, but not enough less to make up the difference. The problem is excessive taxation and the resultant government waste of value that could have been exploited efficiently by the private sector, along with massive subsidy/price control idiocy(the CAP is a complete fucking joke,) and finally the fact that so much of what is private sector here(and hence a part of our economy) is government run there(and hence "not" a part of the economy, which is kind of a sick joke of economic theory.)

    In conclusion, you have no notion of modern military technology or the relative capabilities of various nations, and like most Europeans, you like to call Americans ignorant despite the fact that the ones you're arguing with have forgotten more about Europe than you know about the United States. Your understanding of nuclear strategy is at best mediocre, and your French nationalist sentiment, while it would be appealing in, say, the 1700s, is beyond laughable now. The days of France the world power are long past.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 2) (#306)
    by trhurler on Sun Oct 19, 2003 at 04:45:10 PM EST

    First of all, a simple fact: The US and Russia have publicly disclosed enough details of their submarine operations during the cold war that it is a publicly known reality that the US was not only tracking but actually following Russian subs around with attack subs for at least twenty years. "Impossible?" Your statement is at odds with established historical fact.

    Second, on more than one occasion, Russians did make attempts to have the US rescue people from their submarines, or would have if they could have, as they have publicly admitted. If they'd have done it, then clearly, so would the French, who more or less consider us an ally and who know for a fact that our technology in submarines and nukes is better than their own anyway; we've got nothing to learn from you about either of those things. As for EU partners, which of them can mount search and rescue operations at deep depths anywhere in the world? Oh, that's right, none. Again, the facts do not support your claims. What DOES support your claims is nationalist delusions that France is out on the bleeding edge of technology, a big bad world power.

    Also, regarding the French "deterrent," let me point something out: without access to US-built and US-run early warning system information, France wouldn't even know it was under nuclear attack until there was nothing left; at that point, French sub commanders MIGHT fire back, if there was even an opportunity to tell them what happened, but more probably they'd miss their next regular communication, surface to try to use more reliable means, and get picked off. This is WHY Russia and the US spent insane amounts of money(which France does not have and never did,) and manpower(repeat last parenthetical phrase,) building these absurd early warning systems - without them, a deterrent is not reliable.

    You're right about one thing: the US is looking for "small" uses for nuclear weapons. I don't see how this is relevant, but I imagine that you included it because you're so caught up in this "France good, US bad" nationalist crap, and it DOES fit that pattern, even if not any logical one.

    And yes, the US does have a huge unused industrial base. Why? Well, it isn't because we're inefficient. It is because we're big. The factories are still there, but the work is being done cheaper elsewhere, or the company went out of business, and because the US is quite large, it may be a long time before anyone finds it worthwhile to do anything with that land again. Routinely, old factories will sit for decades before someone finds a use for either the buildings or at least the land that's economically sensible. BUT, in a wartime rationing environment, economic sensibility is irrelevant; you operate your factories to survive, rather than to be profitable.

    Redistribution of wealth through taxes has no inefficiencies? Have you ever heard of bureaucrats? Have you ever actually witnessed the procurement processes in your country? Roughly a dime out of every dollar of government money actually goes to its intended purpose in the US, and the US very nearly leads the world in government spending efficiency. (It'll stroke your European sentiment to learn that a couple of European nations beat us on this one - but France isn't one of them!)

    The CAP consists of sheer protectionism and nothing more. First, all imported foods are subjected to HUGE taxes, because if they weren't European farming would cease to exist. Second, all European foods are subsidized out the ass(not as much as in the US? True, but this is only ONE part of the CAP.) Third, when those foods are sold overseas, accounting tricks are used so that they can be sold at less than their cost of production because the subsidies aren't counted in the cost. The result is that European goods are driving indigenous farmers in much of the world out of business. Of course, if anyone ELSE sells goods below the cost of production, the EU countries go screaming about dumping and unfair trade and we're going to scream at you until your eardrums burst. :)

    If you think forced industrialization made the USSR the equal of the US, then you have completely misunderstood the 20th century, and should go back to grade school. The rest of your comments on various nations aren't worth discussing; WE BUILT most of those economies.

    Your quote regarding French deterrence seems to me to look more like the US position than you want to admit; it says "agress" without particularly specifying what is counted, what procedures will be followed, and so on. In other words, it leaves the nuclear option open without mandating its use.

    As for the US military, why don't you go ask some troops from Europe who have fought along side us in the last ten years what they think? You'll find that in general, it is becoming harder and harder for them to operate alongside the US, because the US has gone so far past them. Yes, many nations have substantial nuclear arsenals. That hardly makes them invincible; the USSR government was brought down, after all.

    Incidentally, keep an eye out for the future. The EU will make a move for military power, and I think China might end up being more peaceful than you'd guess, at least for a few more decades. The Chinese seem rather comfortable with their stockpile of nukes and their huge military, but Europe is still irked by US military dominance, for whatever reason, even though there's not much they could do with a big military except send it to die in the same sort of things the US does.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Well, (none / 1) (#312)
    by trhurler on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 07:48:39 PM EST

    At this point, you're quoting an old report from the days when submarine operations of the USSR were still a big secret and the US didn't publicly disclose anything about its capabilities in that area at all, whereas all more modern sources that are even remotely credible reach drastically different conclusions. I'm not going to argue any further, because if we're going to selectively quote old literature, either of us can "prove" anything we want, and none of it means anything at all.

    --
    'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

    [ Parent ]
    Capitalist crysis? Why dont we call it by its name (none / 3) (#167)
    by chanio on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 06:55:59 PM EST

    Do you sence a sort of crysis that is outside of your real concerns?

    Why is it?

    There are human beings that are being sacrificed!

    We might be the next, I know (I am unemployed too).

    So, why not calling it by it's name so that we might help?

    I feel that there is something that has changed all the status quo.

    Hypocresy has never been so direct, agression and lies are very evident.

    I envision a very possitive future because reality cannot drag me more down. And I am still alive!
    ________________
    Farenheit Binman:
    This worlds culture is throwing away-burning thousands of useful concepts because they don't fit in their commercial frame.
    My chance of becoming intelligent!

    Wow (none / 1) (#172)
    by melia on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 09:39:19 PM EST

    Highly entertaining, a bit like a horror movie. Whether you're correct or not, you should go into the movie business.

    So i'm reading all this, and i'm thinking "well fair enough, but say all this was true, what are we all supposed to do about it?"

    and also, i'm wondering if "Allan for Hallam" (my local Sheffield Hallam MP) is in on the big conspiracy, and if I vote in someone else, is he also part of the big conspiracy? I'm a bit confused about how it would all work, if it was true. "Allan for Hallam" seems pretty genuine.

    For those of you who are interested, here's a great link from NTK where you can find out how your MP votes
    Disclaimer: All of the above is probably wrong

    Good Lord (1.37 / 8) (#173)
    by lordDogma on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:32:12 PM EST

    Fantastic Lad,

    Your conspiracy theories are over the top.

    I started reading your article. It started out ok. Then you suggested that we conveniently picked Bin Laden's name out of thin air after 9/11. Then you linked to a story at the World Socialist Web Site, which is full of America-haters, expecting it to present accurate, unbiased news.

    I skimmed the rest of the way down and saw your comment about a war between the US and Europe. At this point I checked who the author was and as soon as I saw it was Fantastic Lad, I said "No wonder".

    Get a grip, man.

    -- Lord Dogma

    What's your problem? (2.00 / 4) (#183)
    by Azmeen on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:59:25 AM EST

    This Fantastic Lad guy may have his own motives for the story... but brushing off his statements with personal attacks only prove your blindness to the outside world (there's more than a hundred other countries in this world other than good old US of A).

    Yes, America still matters to most of us... but at the rate of all the cockups that the good old president have done to the world (especially the middle east), I (and like millions of others whether you believe it or not) just can't wait until the bastard is impeached, chased out of the White House or just disappear.

    And what's your beef with this guy? This is the second comment you made on this article which amounts to nothing more than a personal attack on the submitter? Got life?


    HTNet | Blings.info
    [ Parent ]
    My problem (1.80 / 5) (#184)
    by lordDogma on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:25:09 AM EST

    Have you ever read Fantastic Lad's comments? Every one of them is totally insane. Then he has the nerve to tell others that they are ignorant and snotty, and implies that anyone who believes anything the US Govt says is a sheep.

    Fantastic Lad has a history of outrageous lunatic comments, which is why I rolled my eyes once I realized it was him who wubmitted this insane article.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    sanity is in the mind of the beholder. (2.20 / 5) (#218)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 02:05:55 AM EST

    And you keep demonstrating a small and petty mind.

    The thing I find most telling is the almost violent zeal with which you attack. Such attack always, always stems ultimately from fear. If you truly believed that I was insane, you wouldn't really care. The fact that you care enough to spit and fume means that you hold a heavy investment in your belief system, which because you defend it with such vigor means, I can only presume, that you recognize on some level just how fragile it is. --To even start looking at the questions I ask might cause your delicate illusion of reality to crumble and leave you in terrifying new lands. And you should be scared, because thar be monsters.

    The problem, however, is that you can only truly be enslaved and ruined when you are ignorant. It confuses me endlessly that people would rather choose oblivion rather than awareness and the ability to defend themselves.

    But that's all just crazy talk.

    You may now return to your video game system of preference. Please ignore the man behind the curtain.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    I'll field this one (2.80 / 5) (#253)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 07:53:02 PM EST

    I'll venture an answer because I think this article struck me similarly.

    I fealt angry because this is just one more example of the kind of propaganda we see in the media and by writers on the internet who are left leaning every day (the right engages in this sort of thing to)

    Some people actualy believe in the propaganda they put out and others simply use it as a tool to selfishly push thier own agenda regardless of the truth.

    I'm not sure which catagory you happen to fall into but it is quite clear that you have a particular world view and that you are quite willing to twist reality in order to meet that world view.

    Your article contains no evidence merely unsubstantiated conjecture and innuendo. Furthermore you engage in many allegations which are patently false and which can be shown to be false by anyone who is willing to invest the time to research them. Furthermore you must realize that you are engaging in such duplicity because (at least in one case) the reports which you provide as links to support your allegations quite clearly contradict what you say they report. This must have been quite evident to you if you even bothered to read your own sources.

    None of this would anger me at all except that people will read your article (and others of it's ilk) and accept what it says at face value simply because you have an effective style of presentation. They will not bother to research the facts for themselves and therefore will believe what is said is the truth regardless of the facts. They will read other pieces of exactly the same vein and this will reinforce thier beliefs in these falsehoods until they, themselves regurgitate this vile ichor and honestly believe it is truth.... and this belief will, of course, effect thier actions.

    Now the truely maddening part of all this is that properly debunking such a work of innuendo requires FAR more effort then creating it. This is because the debunker is burdened by having to accurately research  and present FACT rather then fiction or half-truth.

    Furthermore, once one has expended the effort to debunk such a work it is inevitable that one merely need wait a few days and like a many headed hydra a similar piece of propaganda (using many but not all of the same claims as the first piece) will rear its ugly head to waylay the incautious.

    Unfortunately propagandists, such as yourself seemed to have learned a valuable lesson (caution obligatory nazi reference) from Hitler in that if you repeat something often enough people will begin to believe it regardless of the facts. That perhaps is the most depressing part of all.

    I hope this explains why your article evokes such strong reactions.

    If you think that I am unfairly characterizing your piece as propaganda I would be happy to go over it with you point by point to illustrate why I believe it is. It will take considerable time to do so.... but if you are patient and willing to invest the time we can have such a discussion

    [ Parent ]

    No, this article is doing exactly as it was meant. (none / 2) (#261)
    by Fantastic Lad on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:28:12 PM EST

    Learning. Networking. Hashing out the details.

    I wrote it with honest intent, and was being accurate to the best of my abilities at the time. I clearly made several errors. (Bin Laden was not named until a few days later. Ships were not sent to Afghanistan the day of 9-11. The soldiers involved in the 'Convoy of Death' were not regular U.S. soldiers, but U.S. special forces.)

    I am not perfect. Indeed, I am learning all the time.

    But I am willing to learn, moreover I think it has been demonstrated that much of what I have said is NOT fraudulent or wrong. (And in any case, the evidence against Bin Laden is still nowhere nearly strong enough to justify a war. And a massacre by proxy is still a massacre.)

    Indeed, I have learned several items through this project which have caused me to learn in great detail that which I only understood in incomplete ways earlier. For instance, reading a whole white paper on DU was most useful. --If the World Health Organization is to be trusted, then I now know the specific extents to which DU is toxic; that which is government spin and that which is hysteria. But for people to simply point to a few inaccuracies and declare me and the entire vast subject invalid and not worth examining critically. . , well that is just deliberate ignorance and foolishness. --Because the only alternative is to believe CNN and FoxNews and Bush and his cabinet of liars and criminals.

    I do not subscribe to 'Left' and 'Right' version of reality. I think these are labels designed to divide and distract populations rather than simply quantify them. My ideas are my own.

    --And I present my ideas precisely so that they can be examined, so that they can encourage others to think outside the restrictive parameters of the 'official story'. But the whole project is rendered useless if, when errors are inevitably found, the exercise of seeking knowledge is abandoned.

    You and I detest the same things; Falsehoods being accepted by the public to the detriment of humanity. The difference is that my 'falsehoods' are not deliberate attempts to decieve, but rather are stepping stones to true knowledge; they are designed to be left behind for more accurate as they are discovered. Always in the direction of greater accuracy. The U.S. government, however, choses to fortify its falsehoods, drag their feet on them, and more often than not, trade them for other falsehoods.

    Iraq and 9-11 and Afghanistan are not what Bush or the network news tells us they are. I want to know what is really going on. Don't you?

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    In the interests of accuracy (none / 2) (#266)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 11:24:28 PM EST

    "The soldiers involved in the 'Convoy of Death' were not regular U.S. soldiers, but U.S. special forces."

    - Nope, try again. The article which YOU provide as a source said no such thing. Try reading it again. It said (alleged) that U.S. Special Forces MAY HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE about the incident. Nowhere did it say that U.S. Special Forces participated in the incident. In fact, it specficaly stated (alleged) that Afghan troops under command of an Afghan general carried out the incident.

    "Iraq and 9-11 and Afghanistan are not what Bush or the network news tells us they are. I want to know what is really going on. Don't you?"

    I'm glad that you are so prescient that you can determine "THE TRUTH" with so little evidence available to you.

    Look, with events of this magnitude and complexity it's likely that not even the major players who have direct personal knowledge have a firm handle on the entirety of what's goin on.
    The rest of us are in even worse shape.

    What this translates to is that a person who honestly has an open mind is not going to jump to the conculsion that "Iraq and 9-11 and Afghanistan are not what Bush or the network news tells us they are." anymore then they will jump to the conclusion that "Iraq and 9-11 and Afghanistan ARE what Bush and the network news tells us they are." Got it?

    [ Parent ]

    Involved (none / 1) (#317)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 08:11:48 PM EST

    - Nope, try again. The article which YOU provide as a source said no such thing. Try reading it again. It said (alleged) that U.S. Special Forces MAY HAVE HAD KNOWLEDGE about the incident. Nowhere did it say that U.S. Special Forces participated in the incident.

    Uh, that's fine, but I think you want to tilt a little to the side there, cuz you're missing me and hitting that straw man of yours.

    Please re-read the article again yourself. And then re-read the quote you are taking exception to. I said, "The soldiers involved in the 'Convoy of Death' were not regular U.S. soldiers, but U.S. special forces." I used the word, 'Involved' for a reason.

    From the article:

    From the Article:

    "But there is now substantial evidence that the worst atrocity of last year's war in Afghanistan took place here; most controversially, during an operation masterminded by US special forces.

    [. . .]

    "A 10-minute drive away is Shiberghan prison, where about 800 Taliban fighters who surrendered late last November at the town of Kunduz are held. The Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum controls the prison; his mansion is nearby.

    "It was his commanders who transported the Taliban captives to Shiberghan.

    [. . .]

    "The general has been on the US payroll for nearly a year. According to Newsweek magazine, an elite team from the Fifth Special Forces Group first met up with Gen Dostum last October, when its members were dropped by Chinook helicopter at his mountain base."

    The whole point is that there was indeed evidence of collusion. The U.S. Special Forces wouldn't be concerned with PR spin otherwise.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    By that token (none / 1) (#323)
    by CENGEL3 on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 02:07:19 PM EST

    YOU were "Involved" in the "Convoy of Death" too.

    Because you happaned to read about it.

    Look what you wrote clearly attempted to imply that U.S. Special Forces were responsible for the death of those prisoners. This is NOT born out by the Article which YOU supplied as a supporting source (which is of questionable reliability itself). Either you were purposfully attempting to misconstrue the article (which is what I believe) or you need to learn how to phrase your statements more carefully.

    Even reading the statements that you pulled out of the article the only conclusion that ANY objective person can draw from them is that U.S. Special Forces may have had knowledge of the incident AFTER the fact. If that is the measure by which you count "involved" then YOU were equally involved with the incident.

    By any objective persons measure for the statement you made to be reasonable ALL of the following would have to be true:

    1) The death of the prisoners was purposefull rather then accidental (while this is probable it is definately not certain)

    2) The death of the prisoners was ordered by General Dostum himself rather then one of his sub-commanders on the scene or simply spontanious action by the guarding troops themselves (There is absolutely no evidence about this one way or another)

    3) That General Dostum had informed the Special Forces of his intentions before hand (no evidence).

    4) That the U.S. Special Forces team had authority over General Dostum to prevent him from carrying out his intentions (verifiably false if you know anything about the capacity in which Special Forces teams operate).

    5) That the U.S. Special Forces approved of General Dostum plan (which would be directly against thier interests)

    6) That the Special Forces team either suggested the plan to Dostum (no evidence and against thier interests) or participated in it directly (contradicted by the evidence that does exist and highly unlikely given the type of operations they are suited for).

    The absolute worst you can say here is that the U.S. gave some money to a General who had Taliban prisoners die while under control of troops in his command. U.S. Special Forces MAY have had some knowledge of the incident.

    I find it higly unlikely that the Special Forces had any foreknowledge of the incident let alone the ability to do something about it if they had.
    Not only is it against U.S. millitary doctrine and training to treat prisoners like that....it is counterproductive to the interests the Special Forces had. They want LIVE prisoners for interrogation purposes and they don't want to do anything which would strengthen the resolve of the remaining Taliban to keep fighting or discourage them from surrendering.

    The bottom line is you did a blatant hatchet piece, disregarding both the facts and common reason.

    Learn something about how the millitary actualy operates before you decide to spout of drivel like this again.

    [ Parent ]

    Dogma, (none / 3) (#232)
    by phlux on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 06:54:24 PM EST

    Although you may believe that FL is over the top in his beliefs, do you throw out his entire article just because it was his - or just because one link was the Socialst site.

    I posted on this story regarding the Afghanistan pipeline and the connections between Oil companies, the Bush administration and the pipeline project.

    There was a link that I made - regarding the appointment of an afghan born Unocal employee to US special envoy to the country of afghanistan.

    This link, when searched for on google returns the article hosted at the World Socialist Web site first... it is only after some digging that you come to the announcement made by the actual US Stave Department (which is the link that I actually linked to in my post) - however the point I am making here is that the article is identicle, so it shows that just because a point may have been brought to light on the world socialist website does not mean that the story is invalid immediately.

    [ Parent ]

    Proof. (2.60 / 10) (#175)
    by eberkut on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 10:39:43 PM EST

    I'm really tired of constantly correcting some conspiracy fans (who certainly make up such theories to look smart and wise woooooo phear).

    Just do some research about the Penttbomb FBI investigation. I can give you some of the evidences published by the local press (not US, so may be less emotionnaly tight to these events, and thus - no offense - more rationnal).

    Now, what really are the links with Bin Laden ?

    First, Mohammed Atta (main hijacker), was, during his stay in Hamburg, in touch with syrian businessman Mamoun Darkanzali and Mohamed Heidar Z. They were both watched by the german police after Mamdouh Mahmud Salim (a known Bin Laden banker) was arrested in 1998.

    Besides, hijackers Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hamzi were also recognized on CCTV records from a Kuala Lumpur's hotel in december 1999. On these records, they were talking with Tawfiq ben Atish which is connected to Bin Laden and supposed the be the man behind the attack of the USS Cole in 2000 (this one was asserted by Al Qaeda).

    There's also the financial link. Just before the attack, several hijackers sent 5000 dollars back to the United Arabs Emirates. These were the money left from the 100k dollars Mohammed Atta received a year earlier. The man who sent this money is supposed to be Cheikh Said, one of the main "financial agent" of Bin Laden, and known to be involved in the attacks against US ambassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, as well as the one against the USS Cole in Yemen.

    A lot of evidences were left behind by the terrorists probably because they knew they were about to die. Also the US government received a lot of information from foreign intelligence services much better informed (as, for instance, FRANCE which is dealing with islamic terrorism since the 80s...).

    I think the real question is this : 2 years after the attacks the last official assessment is less than 2000 dead or missing people. But, the twins were said to host more than 40000 workers, without mentioning the visitors. So, at 8:30 AM, they're so few people at work in the US ?? :)

    PS : this story sucks like hell.

    "you can tune a file system but you can't tune a fish" (man 8 tunefs, BUGS)

    2000 people (none / 2) (#182)
    by DoorFrame on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 10:43:33 AM EST

    "I think the real question is this : 2 years after the attacks the last official assessment is less than 2000 dead or missing people. But, the twins were said to host more than 40000 workers, without mentioning the visitors. So, at 8:30 AM, they're so few people at work in the US ?? :)" Sure, not everybody was at work at 8:30, it's still a little bit early, but more importantly it seemed that pretty much everyone who was BELOW the point of impact for each building was able to evacuate. There was enough time between the explosions and the collapse for people below 94th and 78th floors (depending on the tower) to make it to the ground. If you think about it, at 8:30 in the morning, there aren't going to be all that many people above the 94th and 78th floors.

    [ Parent ]
    FL has lost all credibility (2.30 / 10) (#177)
    by lordDogma on Sat Oct 11, 2003 at 11:48:47 PM EST

    Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true. Few cared.

    This is why I take everything the European America-haters say with a grain of salt. Fantastic Lad, can you please cite where it says anywhere in the article that the dead Taliban were buried by American troops? At best the article suggests that a handful of special forces were in the vicinity and *may* have been informed by Dotsum's men of the screw-up. So fucking what?

    Why are the america-haters so intent on finding US soldiers guilty of war crimes that they feel the need to lie, exaggerate, and take everything out of context?

    You know people, if you have a problem with America, if you think we have ulterior motives, if you think we secretly want to conquer the world, if you think we are war-mongers, if you think we are brutal lying war-criminals, then FINE! But expose the truth, don't fucking make it up! If you fabricate stories then how are you any better than those who you accuse of lying and conspiring?

    Sheesh!

    -- Lord Dogma

    One Possibility (none / 3) (#212)
    by losthalo on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:14:22 PM EST

    Why are the america-haters so intent on finding US soldiers guilty of war crimes that they feel the need to lie, exaggerate, and take everything out of context?

    Perhaps because our government is so %$^&% afraid of our troops being charged with war crimes?

    I myself do wonder why our government worries so much about an international court on war crimes, but then I think: burning villages in Vietnam... The CIA overthrowing democratic governments for US economic gain... The US' subsidizing Israel's military strong-arm sabre-rattling...

    HTH.

    (Losthalo|too tired to put down the whole list)

    [ Parent ]
    Prehaps because (none / 3) (#246)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:22:50 PM EST

    the VERY REAL probability that such a court would be used as an instrument of politics rather then an instrument of justice.

    I can certainly site instances where that has been the case in international war crimes trials (including ones the U.S. was involved with).

    Furthermore the most likely body to organize and influence such a court, the U.N., demonstrates it's high regard for justice by such actions as allowing Libya to chair it's Committee on Human Rights.  

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps. (none / 1) (#252)
    by losthalo on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 07:48:18 PM EST

    But does the US point out these things, bring the UN to face them and deal with them? No, it just uses the UN when it is convenient, and pushes its obligations to the UN and the world aside as it is convenient. Perhaps if the US answered to someone once in a while our leaders would be a little more restrained and helpful to the world community.

    In other words: blah blah blah.

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    True (none / 0) (#254)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 07:59:16 PM EST

    We do use the UN, the way almost EVERY OTHER NATION ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET uses the UN (or attempts to).

    Perhaps we are just a little more noticable when we do this because we have greater capabilities and tend to get more press (and have a press which is allowed to be critical toward it's government unlike many nations).

    [ Parent ]

    True, true. (none / 2) (#262)
    by losthalo on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:36:27 PM EST

    (and have a press which is allowed to be critical toward it's government unlike many nations)

    How sure of this are you now? Me, I'd like to see them exercising that option a little more vigorously, myself. (If an option never gets used, does it really exist?)

    (Losthalo)

    "Chance favors the prepared mind."
    (Louis Pasteur)

    [ Parent ]
    You don't think so? (none / 1) (#265)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:58:59 PM EST

    From what I read half the press look like they are practicaly pushing for Bush's impeachment right now.... just how much more critical do you want..... throwing rocks through his window???

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder just what you're reading then. (none / 2) (#291)
    by losthalo on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 06:32:05 PM EST

    While I have seen some attention given to Bush' failures so far in Iraq, the economy, etc., they don't press him on it in press conferences. And how much of the $87billion is for actual Iraq rebuilding, and how much for other military spending? Et cetera. The press aren't going for Bush like they could, like they ought to in a society who trusts the press to inform them.

    I'd love for some reporter to ask Bush' administration whether the citizenship-revocation in Patriot II is Constitutional, and why it is considered necessary (or even useful) to defending us against terrorism. I'd like to hear why this administration is setting up to increase our nuclear arsenal. I want to know what this administration plans to do with all of the power it is busy accruing, and why the tak cuts mostly only benefit the wealthy, when the citizens would spend it - the wealthy merely accumulate more wealth. I want to hear the plan for eventually paying for all of this defecit spending (and how the wealthy are going to pay back the lion's share they're gaining from the tax cuts).

    That's the sort of stuff that bloodthirsty reporters might be made of. IMO.

    (Losthalo)

    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: Prehaps because (none / 1) (#327)
    by wastl on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 04:28:02 PM EST

    the VERY REAL probability that such a court would be used as an instrument of politics rather then an instrument of justice.

    So what? Why do you have courts at all in the US then? They are all abused for political reasons.

    The important thing is that a court speaks justice. The US should rely on this justice and not worry about political cases, if it doesn't have anything to hide. The fact that the US government does NOT have this trust convinces me that the US in fact must have something to hide.

    Furthermore the most likely body to organize and influence such a court, the U.N., demonstrates it's high regard for justice by such actions as allowing Libya to chair it's Committee on Human Rights.

    You mean, that same organisation that is giving a country like the US veto power? Which that country has abused -- at least 2 times (probably more, those two I remember) since wining about France's threat of veto in spring -- to block Israel-critic resolutions, despite the fact that 144 of 148 countries were in favor of such resolutions? That is what makes me really worry for the UN. I really don't care if Libya (which has a much better government than those the US instituted in many South American countries) presides some Committee for 2 years or so, but I get really sick about this pathetic, un-democratic US behaviour.

    Call me a US-bashing European if you like, but I liked your country some years ago and US behaviour changed my mind completely.

    Sebastian

    [ Parent ]

    OK, Here's some truth for you. (none / 0) (#223)
    by gordonjcp on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 07:20:03 AM EST

    America funded terrorism in the UK for over forty years. Organisations such as Nor-Aid, supported by the US Government, pumped money into Irish republican terrorists, and supplied them with weapons, training, equipment and even intelligence.

    The American Government is evil.

    Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll bore you rigid with fishing stories for the rest of your life.


    [ Parent ]
    It's articles like these (none / 1) (#179)
    by slaida1 on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 06:12:20 AM EST

    that force spooks flood the 'net with more conspiration theories so that meaningful or too-close-to-truth ones get lost in the jungle of misinformation and genuine crackpots. ;)

    Really, this is excellent sum-up for so many things and reminder for the possibility of inside terrorism what powers-that-be use to manipulate their own citizens. This is what conspiration theories are made of, just keep that in mind and do not rule any possibilities out permanently. In many times, the masses are last to know when something goes terribly wrong.

    Our enemies are not so much the subjects of our writings but these readers who flame and mock telling us to close our eyes, live happily, do our job as little parts of greater machine and Believe What We're Told.

    In some sense, this kind of writing might be seen as revolutionary, confusing people and rising doubts against anything authoritative but that's what we wanted, equality and same rights for all even for gullible fools.

    I'm personally interested looking which and how replies and articles are either constructive making conclusions, summing and clarifying up things, or destructive raising doubts, discrediting sources and blanding arguments without replacing them with other, more sensible arguments.

    Funny thing (2.14 / 7) (#180)
    by levsen on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 07:38:10 AM EST

    that this article appears on the same day I bought (and read, yes) Michael Moore's new book, Dude Where's My Country, but very convenient since I can make some comments about the book here.

    a) The guy is a genius. Because of points b) to g).

    b) It deals with a lot of the things touched in this article, September 11th especially.

    c) It is a lot scarier in terms of the questions and concerns raised than this article and at the same time a lot more precise and down to the point.

    d) Especially the connections of Bush to the Bin Laden family and the evidence provided are absoutely hair-raising.

    e) It also addresses points addressed by some of the comments here such as the ever-ranting critics of liberalism etc.

    f) It's logical, rational and funny. I'm again amazed how this guy manages to do that.

    g) It's not all negative as opposed to the article above, very constructive criticism.

    h) If you live in Melbourne, Australia, email me for the cheapest place to get it. (Aus$ 23 or even for free)

    i) Of course, if you haven't read the book, you are not invited to discuss it.


    This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.

    Yawn (none / 2) (#279)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:55:59 AM EST

    d) Especially the connections of Bush to the Bin Laden family and the evidence provided are absoutely hair-raising.

    Did you find it absolutely hair-raising when that nutty DuPont guy, a member of the wealthy DuPont family, murdered his friend a few years ago? Did you find it absolutely hair-raising when Andrew Luster, a member of the Max Factor family, was convicted of all those rapes? Did you find it absolutely hair-raising that millions of Americans watched and loved "Cheers" in spite of the fact that one of the principle stars was in the family of a convicted murderer?

    Did you find it absolutely hair-raising when Usama Bin Laden was disowned by his family because of his nutty beliefs?

    [ Parent ]
    The answer is no .... (none / 0) (#282)
    by levsen on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 12:34:26 PM EST

    to all of your questions, but I don't see the connection to mine. Surely I should care more about who the American president (that starts wars and stuff) is connected to than some guy on Cheers? You are kidding right.


    This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
    [ Parent ]

    The simple point is not (none / 3) (#283)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 12:46:47 PM EST

    the President. The point is the family. The Bin Laden family is a very large business organization in Saudi Arabia. The fact that one of their sons turned nutty and was disowned does not relate in any way to the business the rest of the family does with people and companies around the world, and more than those who deal with the Duponts, the Max Factors, and the Harrelsons are tarnished by the black sheep in those families.

    [ Parent ]
    ANY more, dammit, ANY more than those who.. (none / 1) (#284)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 01:14:27 PM EST

    Sheesh.

    [ Parent ]
    oh hey, I'm in melbourne (none / 0) (#322)
    by ddraig on Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 12:46:01 PM EST

    but have no idea how to email you via this. kurospam? so is it kuro@ or kurospam@? so, um, yeah, I'm interested.

    [ Parent ]
    Kudos (none / 5) (#181)
    by Wafel on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 08:40:24 AM EST

    Ok even if some of the facts are dubious, I think this contribution is sharp, and a very good reflection of the feelings of most of the people who do not happen to live in the US and aren't neo-liberal..

    That in itself is worth a good rating, and even if the predictions might be a bit risky, for the most part, I don't think he's far of the mark.

    PS In reaction to some of the posts here.. Being critical towards the US and it's allies, is NOT the same as being anti-US, nor anti-Israel etc etc. It would be nice to respect other people's opinions for a change and try to rebutt rationally..
    -- Wafel

    your predictions. (1.75 / 4) (#185)
    by /dev/trash on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 11:44:30 AM EST

    3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out.

    What do you call Yugoslavia?


    4. I think we are going to see the Semites, (both Jew and Arab), having a hard, hard time over the next decade. Like, WWII hard. This worries me more than anything else.

    How can it get any worse than it is?  People are killing each other left and right, ain't anything worse than killing.

    ---
    Updated 07/20/2003!!
    Summer Tour!

    predictions... (none / 4) (#189)
    by Technix on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 01:12:01 PM EST

    First, let me say... Brilliant article. Right on the money.

    There are so many loose threads in the US that it's becoming difficult to keep track of them when trying to correct the common layman. The sheep who say, "wot? but I luv the guberment.", and just go about their day, peacefully ignorant of what's really happening.

    But I digress. I wanted to post a link to some interesting reading:

    http://www.johntitor.com

    Read through all of his postings from beginning to end and then think about what has happened in the past 2 years. I think the predictions on the JT site frame perfectly the main points of your conclusion, namely that the US is heading for a major breakdown of control, freedom, and economic stability.

    Another point. Look at the euro. I can't remember a time when the US dollar fell so sharply against any other country in the world as it has with the euro. Changing the face of the $20 won't help stimulate growth either, despite media spin.

    Anyhow.. Thanks for a great article, FL. Keep writing.
    -Chris Simmons,
    Haiku News http://haikunews.org

    dollar (none / 1) (#207)
    by jjayson on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 05:25:06 PM EST

    When will Internet kooks shut up about the dollar falling sharply? Look at the gold charts, the best proxy for determining the value of the dollar.

    From 1996 to 1999 the dollars value grew at a staggering rate from the economic growth of the country as the spot price of gold went from $390 to $250. The economic problems the States encountered where from this dollar strength as the measuring stick of the dollar went from 12-inches to 7-1/2-inches.

    In 2001, it started to return some of that value, the dollar going from 1/250th of an ounce of gold to 1/350th now. This drop is value was needed to prevent the full weight of deflation from continueing to pound on the economy. The dollar actually fell slower than its meteroric rise, and it is still stonger than it was in 1996.

    Shut up about the dollar, okay? The only way American can get out of the economic problems is to let the deflation unwind and try to find a good resting spot for the value of the dollar. And it still might be a couple years away from doing that.

    _______
    Smile =)
    This does not mean casting (my mother's) principles aside but rather it is building to meet my present needs on a foundatio
    [ Parent ]

    link to round out the commentary (none / 0) (#191)
    by axxad on Sun Oct 12, 2003 at 02:42:38 PM EST

    here
    __________________________________________________

    I'M WAITING! They've denied me posting for a while, you knwo: rule of too many posts. The diaries section should be converted to free-form art entity. I could research AI code for it. WhatDOyouThink?

    Israel (3.00 / 5) (#197)
    by the wanderer on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:21:56 AM EST

    But what of Israel?
    When Baghdad was taken by U.S. forces, Israel launched a conveniently timed campaign of its own.

    Israel did the same thing only days after 9/11. On the 11th and the 12th you might remember statements from many presidents, leaders, etc - including Sharon - commenting on how horrible it all was and how there should be peace. While the eye of the world was still fixed on NY however, Sharon and his crew laid siege on several villages (including jericho) in the west bank and the gaza strip.
    While this wasn't as mayor as the campaign they launched now, it illustrates the way of thinking in Israel's top military (possibly even political) ranks.


    david, the Lost Boy
    the Written Pixel

    Valid reasons for invading another country (none / 5) (#198)
    by Ted Briderider on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:34:43 AM EST

    There is only one reason. Genocide, and that's with International backing. America is in a unique position and should lead by example. Choices of this gravity should be made rationally and based on verifiable evidence from multiple sources. They should have the consensus of the international community and be debated over a suitable period of time. An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind.

    So ... (none / 2) (#247)
    by sonovel on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:48:55 PM EST

    The allied invasion of France during WWII was a bad thing then? After all, the government of France at the time wasn't the one doing the killing of Jews, Gypsies, etc.

    Italy? It was allied with Germany but again, it wasn't the one committing genocide.

    North Africa? Similar deal as France.

    Japan? It committed attrocities during the war but did these really meet the standard of genocide? Genocide is not the only crime against humanity.

    All those little islands in the Pacific? What was the rightful ruling nation of them? Even though occupied by Japan, they weren't invaded to stop genocide.

    [ Parent ]

    Fair comment (none / 0) (#310)
    by Ted Briderider on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 08:15:38 AM EST

    Maybe I should have added who haven't invaded any one else. Other wise some countries might sit there and watch as another takes over the world.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh and ... (none / 0) (#248)
    by sonovel on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 04:50:12 PM EST

    Was Saddam's acts against the Kurds attempted genocide? What about his acts against the Marsh Arabs?

    [ Parent ]
    I agree, but... (none / 1) (#324)
    by MikeRoy on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 05:55:07 AM EST

    I agree, and in fact have written on this subject in response to other K5 stories. War isn't worth any price except the lives of innocent people.

    But... while you need consensus and orgainization (which is probably why the UN should have its own independant military orgainization), a "suitable period of time" should be no more then 1 week. Remember, in Rwanda, when Cdn General Romeo Dalaire was sending in detailed reports of the genocide (and the US was vetoing sending troops), no one did anything until it was over. And that was only 100 days. In 3 months, an estimated 800,000 people were slaughtered. That was the fastest rate of murder in world history. And that was 1994.

    -Michael Roy
    [ Parent ]
    Pathetic (2.85 / 7) (#199)
    by bgarcia on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 08:51:09 AM EST

    Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true. Few cared.
    Wow.

    I just read the article that you linked to, and it talks about US-backed Afghans treating prisoners of war like this, but nowhere does it say that US troops were committing these atrocities. It makes feeble and completely unsubstantiated attempts to say that US special forces may have known what was going on, or may have been in the area, but that was all.

    So of course, now I have to wonder how many of the other "facts" in this article are as completely made-up?

    My guess (none / 1) (#211)
    by losthalo on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:26:37 PM EST

    He was speaking of metaphorical 'burying in the desert' by US soldiers, rather than literal burying which was performed by the Afghans.

    (Losthalo)

    [ Parent ]
    What a pathetic excuse. (1.20 / 5) (#217)
    by lordDogma on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:41:16 AM EST

    Losthalo, you are a total and absolute moron.

    But I don't mean that literally. I'm speaking in a descarterian, metaphorical sense. So don't take it personally my friend.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    Shouldn't that be 'Descartian'? ;-) (none / 0) (#228)
    by losthalo on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:23:23 PM EST

    Tho' sometimes you find sarcasm and exasperation with the topical drift which is bereft of smileys and 'emoticons'.

    (Losthalo)

    "You're very clever, young man, but it's no use --
    it's turtles all the way down."

    [ Parent ]
    Er, my bad. (none / 0) (#250)
    by lordDogma on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:39:55 PM EST

    Descartes, Day-car, whatever. Its that guy!

    [ Parent ]
    More Information (none / 1) (#222)
    by Alfie on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:38:52 AM EST

    There is a BuzzFlash interview with Jamie Doran here. You can find a copy of the documentary online at afctv.

    I can't watch the documentary because of the file formats in which it is encoded. So I can't comment on the documentary. However, in the BuzzFlash interview, Mister Doran seems fairly confident that there is sufficient evidence to convict the U.S. soldiers of war crimes in a U.S. military court. The hard part is getting an open investigation started.



    [ Parent ]
    This is a somewhat fair complaint. (none / 2) (#274)
    by Fantastic Lad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:52:11 AM EST

    To be honest, I was under the impression that U.S. GIs were involved. I didn't realize it was limited to U.S. special forces.

    The point, however, as you said yourself, is that the U.S. backed Afghans were U.S. backed Afghans!!

    In for a penny, in for a pound.

    That is, when invading a country and toppling the resident power structure, blaming atrocities on others who could not have acted without your consent and backing is pathetic.

    I do not believe for a single instant that 3000+ Taliban were rounded up without the knowlege or direction of the U.S. invading forces.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Reenactment of the problem (2.25 / 16) (#200)
    by K5 ASCII reenactment players on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 12:22:54 PM EST

    Yeee haw, spineless liberal, how much do
    you approve of my Presidential pole now?
    \
     _n_    (I'm either with him or I'm with the terrorists)
      O    ; 
     <|\  ;
      8=O 
      \ V\
      /\ |_


    Wooot! (none / 0) (#225)
    by Russell Dovey on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:59:35 AM EST

    They're back!

    "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan
    [ Parent ]

    Utter Rubbish (2.50 / 12) (#202)
    by CENGEL3 on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 01:19:55 PM EST

    I can't begin to desribe how much utter rubbish this article contains.

    But lets just start with one small point shall we?

    "A few hours later, Bin Laden was blamed"

    Bin Laden was DEFINATELY NOT blamed a few hours after the attack. I know because I was pretty well glued to the news that day. In fact, the first day the administration explicity said - We don't know who did this and we don't care to speculate but we will find out and they will be punished. Check any official statement from the government or Bush on the 11th and that's how it reads.

    If my memory is correct it was not until a number of DAYS later that Bin Laden was named as being responsible for the attack (i.e. enough time to do some Intel work). That is a fact that is easy enough to check out.... I invite you to quote as a source ANY official government document dated from the 11th which names Bin Laden as the one responsible. In fact, find the earliest government document/statement which places the blame for the attacks and lets see what the date is on it.

    Secondly, Bin Laden's name was NOT just pulled out "thin air". The fact of the matter is that he, himself made public statements that he would attack American targets and would not restrict such activities to millitary targets prior to the 11th. Furthermore he was already wanted in connection with the '93 bombing of the WTC, the attack on the U.S.S. Cole and previous embessay bombings. That must meet your definition of "thin air", eh?

    Thirdly, after we decided to go after him, the guy publicaly BRAGGED about being responsible for the attacks and THREATENED additional attacks if we didn't back off. The fact that the guy essentialy said "I did it, I'm glad I did it and I'll do it again" might actualy be an indication that the administration might be barking up the right tree this time...don't you think?

    I'm not going to even continue with the rest of this rubbish.

    FL, I swear you must have been a writer for Pravda in the 50's.

    Brag? (none / 1) (#236)
    by cykix on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 01:41:29 AM EST

    Bin Laden never actually bragged about being behind September 11. That's a manipulation of his statements. Infact, in the beginning, he had denied any such involvement. What he did was praise the attacks, but yet again apparently so did the five Israeli spooks who were arrested giving each other high fives within line of sight of the event.

    Most of the Hijackers named have turned up alive.

    And, by invading sovreign nations with no justifiable cause, they have given more ammo to the fundamentalists to preach "Look, if we don't get them, they will destroy us all." As the saying goes: "With great power, comes great responsibilities" and unfortunately, in the eyes of the world, the US has disappointed us all.

    [ Parent ]

    Evidence (none / 0) (#240)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 01:02:15 PM EST

    I'm sorry but you are going to have to provide credible evidence to back up those claims if you want me to take you seriously.

    I can claim that the planet Mars was behind the attacks but unless I can back up my claims with evidence I am just wagging my tongue.

    [ Parent ]

    Credible Evidence (none / 0) (#257)
    by cykix on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 09:15:59 PM EST

    Fair enough..

    OBL Denying his involvement

    Hijackers  appear alive and well

    Israelis giving high fives


    [ Parent ]
    Fair Enought But... (none / 2) (#264)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:55:18 PM EST

    On OBL....

    That was before the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Take a look at what he had to say once he no longer had anything to loose.... for example (http://www.kimsoft.com/2001/bin1014.htm)

    On the "highjackers appear alive and well" ....

    Could you provide links to a site that doesn't also feature a;
    - "THIS MONTH IN UFO HISTORY" section
    - "CHUPACABRA RESOURCE" section
    - "BIGFOOT RESOURCE" section

    and such scintalating stories as

    - "THE REAL DEAL? Foot Of The YETI Or Some Other Unknown Species?"
    - "ABDUCTED The Pascagoula River Abductions - 30 Years Later"
    - "AT HOME WITH HITLER"

    As far as the Israeli's giving high fives....

     I read the link you provided and it said that after an extensive investigation of these men (including a 2 month detention and multiple polygraphs) the FBI and CIA concluded that they had "no pre-knowledge of the events of 9/11."  They couldn't even determine whether any of the men were "Israeli intelligence". Nor was thier any indication that they arived at West Side Hwy any earlier then any of the other spectators there.

    As for them being happy.... well care to guess how many British citizens smiled and flashed the V for Victory sign on Dec 7, 1941? Does that mean you believe those were really Spitfires and Hawker Hurricanes above Pearl Harbor and not Japanese Zero's?


    [ Parent ]

    Final Post in Thread (I hope) (none / 0) (#269)
    by cykix on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:20:25 AM EST

    That's a common propaganda tactic in the Middle East. If you are being stuffed, try to make yourself look bigger. Saddam's spokesman used similar tactics. But these guys are notorious for producing alot of FUD.

    The rense article was a summarized point of reference, from there it links to mainstream news sites indicating individuals named in the attack have turned up alive. The site's credibility may be dodgy, it's references in this case are mostly not.

    Mueller's speech:
    That the Sept. 11 hijackers left no paper trail for law enforcers to pick up on. "We have not yet uncovered a single piece of information, either here or in the treasure-trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere, that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot"

    The Israeli thing was in regards to "Praising the attack". That OBL was not necessarily the only one. Whole bunch of sadomachocistic nutcases out there who would praise something like this.

    Well that ends this thread, thanks for the stimulation.

    [ Parent ]

    Spiderman quote. (none / 0) (#238)
    by Sesquipundalian on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 11:22:38 AM EST

    "With great power, comes great responsibilities"

    Nope, it's responsibility, not responsibilities. And that's the spiderman quote, from when Peter Parker learns that if he doesn't "get involved", he cannot master his own destiny.


    Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
    [ Parent ]
    With Great Responsibility. . . (none / 3) (#273)
    by Fantastic Lad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:41:51 AM EST

    Nope, it's responsibility, not responsibilities. And that's the spiderman quote, from when Peter Parker learns that if he doesn't "get involved", he cannot master his own destiny.

    Too bad so many Americans take this amazing Stan Lee quote and mistake it for something it is not.

    I can't remember the film except that I seem to recall things were modified in a way which I found unsettling. But in the original 1960's comic, Peter is asked by a policeman to stop a criminal who pushes past him. Peter knows the man is a criminal, has been asked to help in stopping him, and is in the perfect position to do so. He refuses.

    The difference between this and the situation in Iraq is that, the U.S. was NOT asked for help.

    Moreover, Peter Parker does not milk the public tax chest in order to dole out juicy reconstruction contracts to his friends, nor does he take the victims' purse, (oil) in payment for a rescue.

    If America had even half the moral decency demonstrated by Spiderman, then America would be living up to the 'Responsibility' part of the equation.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Watch what you say (none / 0) (#325)
    by Sesquipundalian on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 06:04:14 AM EST

    punk, or Spiderman'll get ya!


    Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
    [ Parent ]
    Bin Laden was named within hours of 11/9 (none / 0) (#302)
    by irrevenant on Sat Oct 18, 2003 at 01:24:17 AM EST

    I was watching the news footage at the time, and they definitely named Bin Laden as the #1 suspect within hours of the 11/9 tragedy.

    Unfortunately, I can't remember for sure whether this was an official statement or media speculation...

    [ Parent ]

    Christ you're all a bunch of wankers (2.00 / 5) (#208)
    by 23fnords on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 06:24:35 PM EST

    http://www.copvcia.com

    For all your posturing at being more intelligent and more informed than the rest of the people, I'm surprised none of you halfwits have even mentioned Michael Ruppert, or his lecture captured on film 'The Truth and Lies of 9-11.'

    The games being played at the highest level of government have been laid out for years in the writings of the elites. Government and oil company collusion isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a bloody well known fact. Connections between bin Laden and the Bush family are documented. That people knew it was going to happen is evident by the number of people who were trying to capitalize on the event in the stock market.

    Restoring any kind of justice to the world will be nigh impossible with you ignorant fucks leading the charge. Just like the 60s hippies, you'll be co-opted by the establishment and led where they want you to go. Idiots.

    Peak Oil. (none / 1) (#210)
    by phlux on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 07:22:49 PM EST

    Here is something that i thought of a while ago - and it makes more and more sense now that I read and find out more facts with regard to peak oil

    I have had this theory. People are quick to put me in the conspiracy theory arena to mock and laugh at my comments when i begin to talk about the link between Iraq and Afghanistan and oil... see my other K5 post on this link here:

    But - the main theory is this.

    Peak Oil: This is a concept that the Oil industry would have known for many decades - although they may not have had any idea when we would find the actual quantity of oil left - and would not have been able to predict (or maybe the did just that) when we would run out or pass Peak.

    In order to protect the interests of their profits - they choose a primary source of oil. Iraw is apparently the 2nd largest oil reserve in the world. So, in order to ensure that profits will be maintained for many years - this reserve was needed.

    Obviously the political arrangments would impede claiming the 1st place holder of oil - suadi arabia, so there needed to be put into motion efforts to claim the rights to oil in number 2.

    I will not speculate on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait - for arguments sake, we will jsut assume that it was absolute and utter pure luck that Iraq was stupid or misfortunate enough to invade.

    This gave us the green light - not for claiming the oil - but STOPPING production.

    By stopping production of oil in this country we in effect protect the oil supply. This keeps their production at a minimum. Prices will increase (as they did) as the supply is taken up by other countries. This drains their resources faster... but we protect the reserves in Iraq for later use.

    Now all we need is a way to claim the production rights. but as long as we have the embargos in place - our investment is protected. As we move closer to Peak Point - the reserves become more and more valuable.

    so - it is in our interest to keep those wells dormant for a good amount of time.

    Eventually we will get the wells back online - but it will be under a new regime, and the profits will be ours to reap.

    This, if played out correctly - could make the Iraqi oil reserves the most valuable on the planet so long as we embargo them long enough to get many other fields to "dead" status.

    With a large number of fields at dead - we can still pump our oil at a low cost - but sell it at the inflated cost that the otehr fields are required to do. Additionally - national use by the regime in place would be at a great discount. Of course we cant just have any Government in charge of the oils flow - so we put in place a good company to keep things honest. How about a local Oil company, they would still need to charge us for the oil that we require, of course - which means that the US would be paying a private company (albeit discounted) for the oil we, as a nation (or military, rather) would need in order to protect our Interests.

    I am sure you get the picture.

    [ Parent ]

    About that Ruppert fellow. (none / 0) (#214)
    by Apuleius on Mon Oct 13, 2003 at 10:00:20 PM EST

    See here, mate. And here. The bloke's a tosser.


    There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
    [ Parent ]
    Yes, 2 blogs > Zbigniew Brzezinski alright (none / 0) (#216)
    by 23fnords on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:33:41 AM EST

    Nonsense, and 'leftist' nonsense at that. Sorry, but anyone that hasn't the brains to figure out that the 2 parties aren't really 2 parties isn't quite prepared to handle the political reality since 1900.

    [ Parent ]
    Poor Article - Kuro5hin should do better (1.75 / 4) (#215)
    by CoolName on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 12:14:27 AM EST

    This paranoid article lacks a paranoid plot. This article correctly suggests paranoia is in order today but nowhere in the article are valid reasons given for a current justified paranoia about the world situation. There are many, many valid reasons for paranoid suspicious today. An informed individual reading this article would tend to come away with the wrong impression paranoid suspicious are absent foundation. Though, of course, the writer would disagree with this conclusion this is the impression the article might give to a a somewhat informed intelligent individual.

    "What does your conscience say? -- 'You shall become the person you are.'" Friedrich Nietzsche


    paranoia (none / 0) (#234)
    by burntfriedman on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 08:21:36 PM EST

    the word itself assumes a lack of focus, whereas intuition would be proper usage of suspicion, showing clarity of thought. If america had gone to afganistan and simply caught bin laden, that would be representative of intuition. Instead we have an america which wildly points the finger at whomever isn't falling in line.

    [ Parent ]
    BLARG!? (1.00 / 13) (#221)
    by GfreshMofo on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 05:20:46 AM EST

    Waste of my f*%&$#@ time. F*%& you.

    He also took from American books ... Shakespeare ... Classic

    Interview with US soldier. . . (1.85 / 7) (#235)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 14, 2003 at 09:30:20 PM EST

    Ran across this interview. The interviewer is clearly biased, but the piece is still revealing.

    ~~

    US Soldiers to America: Bring Us Home Now
    Monday, 13 October 2003, 10:29 am
    Article: Jay Shaft

    US Soldiers to America: ''Bring us home now; we're dying for oil and corporate greed!''

    Part 1 in a 5 part series
    Interviews by Jay Shaft
    Coalition For Free Thought In Media
    12th October 2003

    I had the unique opportunity to interview five US military servicemen who just got back from Iraq, or in the case of two men, corresponded with their wives so that I could ask questions of these soldiers by mail. When the two I corresponded with came back just last week, I was able to complete the interviews I started several months ago with some new details on how the war is actually going.

    I was shocked and angered when I found out how many of the service men hate being in Iraq and want nothing to do with rebuilding and policing the devastated nation. From the conversations I had, many soldiers never wanted to go over to Iraq and fight, and the ones who had were now convinced of the awful crime that had been committed against Iraq and our own troops. I was told very few soldiers now believe in staying in Iraq, or want to stay in the country and serve any more days.

    The following interview was with an enlisted man, but someone very high up in the enlisted ranks, with over 20 years of military service. I have promised not to reveal his identity for reasons that he has a family and has been told not to speak to journalists. He told me the Army had put a gag order on him while he was home, and told him they would give him twenty years in prison if he spoke out in any manner against the US or the government.

    I took several weeks to finish this interview because of not being able to safely be seen with this individual out of his fears of being caught speaking out.

    He asked me to call him USA in all the transcripts of these interviews. I have followed his wishes and tried to write what he said in the manner it was said so as not to lose any impact. At times the interview was very rough and the grammar is not perfect, but I tried to write this in his voice so that he can tell the world how bad it is in Iraq. I truly want you to feel what he has experienced in some way if possible.

    CFTM-- "How are you today? Resting I hope?"

    USA-- "Can't sleep for sh..t and I have horrible nightmares when I do sleep. I might be lucky to catch an hour at a time before the nightmares wake me up. I slept easier in the combat then now that I'm away from there. Most awful place I've ever been or served duty and I didn't want to leave my guys. That was the hardest part was leaving the guys I had been leading around and trying to keep out of trouble and alive."

    CFTM-- "Did you see a lot of your buddies get killed? How did it affect you?"

    USA-- "How the hell do you think it affected me? I saw over 30 of the men I had to keep safe die, and over 100 get wounded and not come back. I still don't know if some of the wounded men made it or not. I was never told before I came back home."

    CFTM-- "So it really was awful and as bad as some returning troops have claimed?"

    USA-- "It was like a long trip to hell that you knew you might return from. Of course it is as bad as the soldiers say it is. Hell it's even worse if the truth has to come out. It's a constant fu..ing nightmare trying to figure out where the guerillas are going to hit, how to keep the civilians calm, and also getting enough water and food to eat. That is one thing the media never really told the Americans about, how bad it was when our convoys weren't getting through. We had to go to some Iraqi people and trade socks and underwear for some food and a little water."

    CFTM-- "You really did get that desperate because I saw it in the foreign media that the Iraqi civilians had stepped in and fed a whole bunch of troops that had been days without food."

    USA-- -"Yeah, that ain't no joke about getting help from the civilians right after the invasion. We had a pretty good laugh about that and how the army owed them some money for reimbursement. We would not have starved probably, but when we got the food from the people it made sure we could still operate as a functioning unit. It was a near thing that several guys almost died of dehydration because we ran out of clean water for a few days."

    CFTM-- "Just keep going, I want to hear more about the hardships the military and Bush made you go through. I want the American people to know what a nightmare this war has become and what it's doing to our service men over there."

    USA-- "Okay, well I can bitch about the problems like food being short and water going bad, but I want to tell people about how bad the attacks on US and coalition forces have gotten in the last month. In the last two weeks I was there we were attacked at least 20 times a day if you count all the shots we heard from random sniper or opportunity attacks. We were losing at least five men a day to injuries and there was at least one of our unit killed every twenty four hours."

    CFTM-- -"So you were getting one a day killed and at least five injured? Did you know many of the guys killed?"

    USA-- -"That's a real dumb fu..ing question to ask me. You know what my rank is, of course I knew them, I was the head NCO for years in our unit. I knew most of the guys who died and I held a lot of hands as they were dying. You tell me that's not gonna to give you nightmares!"

    "I had one guy tell me all he wanted was to see his little daughter; she was born three days after the war started. He died in the sand holding my hand and crying because his daughter would never know him. Tell me that's fu..ing right. Where was George Bush when this kid was gasping for air and spitting his blood on foreign soil?"

    CFTM-- -"I talked to you about this the other day. Do you think George Bush is the wrong man to order troops into battle when he ducked it himself?"

    USA-- -"That asshole went AWOL and never showed up for duty and then he has the nerve to take us into two different wars that will be going on for years. I do not believe he should be president of this country, he's a complete idiot and he's controlled by madmen with a drive for only profits and getting oil."

    CFTM-- -"I just have to get this straight for the public, you are well educated are you not? I mean you have had years of leadership training and schools right? You sound very well informed and aware of the current lies and manipulations, which I have not found in some other soldiers."

    USA-- -"I have a four year degree in the economics field and I am not a soldier all the time. I am Reservist who just keeps getting caught on long duty assignments. Believe it or not I read authors like Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal, and Jim Hightower, and went through three copies of `Stupid White Men' by Michael Moore while I was over there. I let people read parts of Mike's book and they were irate that Bush had screwed us so hard. I had parts of `Best Democracy Money Can Buy' mailed to me because I knew if I had the whole book it would get stolen in a heartbeat."

    CFTM-- -"So you might be quite a bit more aware and well informed about the real reasons for the war that others did not know. I don't know of many line soldiers reading Greg Palast or Noam Chomsky."

    USA-- -"I guess you're right and that might be why I am trying to speak out and let the Americans know that they are sending us to be slaughtered. If you don't mind I am going to cut through all the niceties and get down to why I am going against every oath I took and giving you this interview. I am doing it for the guys still over there and for the ones who are going. If I'm not careful I'll end up back there for another six months."

    CFTM-- -"Alright tell me what it was really like and don't skip the gory details. I want people to be shocked and offended enough to realize why you spoke out and what it is doing to our military by sending them over there with blind flag waving and cheers of false victory"

    USA-- -"Well the first thing I would like to thank Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Congress for is that nice huge cut they made to Veterans Benefits as soon as the war started. I am in the Reserves after years of active duty and now I cannot get PTSD counseling or many medical benefits I used to take for granted. I knew I would have the benefits because I was laying my life down for my country. Now my benefits are cut by around 2/3 and I have to go to either group therapy or pay for a private counselor out of my own pocket. What happens when someone like me has been through enormous battle stress and combat fatigue and then comes home to no counseling?"

    "I'll tell you what is going to happen, he will either kill himself or take a bunch of people with him. Some of the guys coming back are going to have gone through the worst time of their lives with their buddies dying and getting hurt, and then they'll find out they got screwed out of any counseling. It is the greatest disservice America is committing against soldiers who fought for this country and may come back wounded or horribly scarred. Medical services, school aid to dependents, school aid for the vets, all slashed to the bare bones; mental health and drug and alcohol counseling are being eliminated or the waiting lists will be years long for whatever services manage to survive."

    "That is one thing the American people still have not really caught on to is the fact that while they were screaming out `Support Our Troops' the current regime makers were fu..ing the military and veterans out of almost every social program and non essential service that would make life easier."

    "Bush really fu..ked us while we were gone. We found out about after being in the middle of heavy fighting for several weeks. It was one of the first things I read in Stars and Stripes, and I thought it was a joke because it was just to hard to believe Congress and our leaders would screw us that bad while we were fighting and dying."

    CFTM-- -"Glad you brought that up about counseling because I wasn't even aware of it. Are you alright to talk about some of the civilian casualties you witnessed and some of the horrifying images you told me about when we first started talking?"

    USA-- -"I want to talk about some of the children I saw killed for no reason, maybe it will wake someone up who doesn't believe it was happening, or that it was very bad. I can tell you I will never forget the screams of the wounded or orphaned kids, or the wailing of the parents who lost their kids. The Iraqis and most Muslims have a very vocal way of mourning the dead by lamenting and wailing for the dead. There is no mistaking a mother or father crying out in pain for the loss of a child. They don't cry like that unless there has been a death. Sometimes after a bombing raid or an artillery attack you could here hundreds of people wiling and weeping."

    "I have several grown children with grand kids about the age of most of the dead children I saw in Iraq. I also have several kids who are about half grown and I saw a lot of Iraqi children that age wandering around in charge of three or four little ones because their parents were dead."

    "Let me tell you about the cluster bomb raid we saw wipe out a whole bunch of little kids. It looked like they had already lost their parents and were trying to salvage food from a destroyed Iraqi convoy by the side of the road we were on. The kids were way off to the side about half a mile away by then when we got the word that the Iraqi column was going to be hit with cluster bombs and we had to clear the area. We got on the radio and tried to get the air strike stopped but we were told it was too late to get it stopped."

    "We could see the body parts flying up into the air after the bombs hit. It was terrible and we could not do a damn thing but watch it happen and scream into the radio at the dumb sh.t pilot that was dropping the bombs. After the strike was over we went to see if there were any survivors and all we found was bits and pieces of little kids and here and there an arm or leg you could still identify."

    CFTM-- -"Pretty rough stuff to have to see. Did that kind of thing happen a lot?"

    USA-- -"More than you can imagine until you've seen it over and over again. Man I don't want to talk about this sh.t anymore. It doesn't help to talk about it because it just makes me think about it again. I can't even get any counseling without having to pay for it."

    "Let all those people who support our troops in on that nice surprise that Bush gave us. That's how much we really mean to Bush, the Department of Defense and all those other stupid assholes who keep saying how good we're doing over there. Let those patriotic morons go and fight and die for our country. Let them leave their families behind for months and maybe come back home in a box. I'll be the first one to salute them or honor them when they die."

    "It's just like Nam was in the beginning. I was twelve when my dad got back and I'll never forget the pain and agony he lived with the rest of his life. Its kind of what I feel now, I suppose. I never thought I would ever serve in some stuff that's so much like Nam it isn't funny. Now I really see what my pop went through, and if I could I would go back in the past a few months, I would go AWOL or turn conscientious objector on them, but it's too late for that now."

    "I damn sure will not go back over there even if they throw me in Leavenworth. I never could understand how a guy could be a conscientious objector until what I just went through. I wish more guys would stand up and tell Bush and the Pentagon they will not fight their war for oil. We should not have to die for these rich bastards profits and enrichment."

    CFTM-- -"Thank you for taking the risk and talking to me. I know there will be other soldiers who can't speak out who will thank you for having the courage."

    USA-- -"It isn't about courage it's a matter of what's right. This war is killing the poor or middle class American men and women who went in the armed forces to have college or some kind of better future. You don't see the rich kids joining up or any Senator's kid dying in Iraq. It's us little guys who are dying over there or getting disabled for life. Where are the leaders that are supposed to be looking out for the little man? They are elected to look after out interests not the interests of Cheney and Halliburton, or any of the rest of the fat cats piling up the profits while the blood of our soldiers flows over their hands."

    CFTM-- -"Anything else you want to say to America? Any final thoughts or words?"

    USA-- -"Yeah! Wake up America! Your sons and daughters are dying for nothing! This war is not about freedom or stopping terrorism. Bring us home now! We are dying for oil and corporate greed!"

    IF it isn't completely fabricated (n/t) (none / 2) (#245)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 03:40:43 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Probably Bullshit. (none / 2) (#249)
    by lordDogma on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:36:31 PM EST

    This story is almost certainly a crock of lies.

    Its full of left wing propaganda: The Big Oil / govt conspiracy; money being wasted on the military instead of education; Noam Chomsky books for gods sake!; Cheney and Haliburton; etc.

    Real military folks who are against the war give much less theoretical reasons for their opposition. Generally they complain about being away from family, not getting paid enough, express skepticism about finding WMD, etc. For example they might complain that Cheney should come over to Iraq to stand duty with them, not because they think that Cheney is conspiring with Big Oil to make money at their expense, but rather because they are fucking hot and tired and want their leaders to "feel some of the pain".

    Here is another hint that it is made up:
    Graphic details of kids being blown up is something that the media and peace activists love to spew out in torrents. Real soldiers don't like to talk about stuff like that unless you make a concerted effort to pull it out of them. Both my father and grandfather were infantrymen during WWII and Vietnam respectively. They never talk about their experiences, and if someone asks they respond with little detail and are quick to change the topic afterward. Another vietnam vet I know won't watch war movies because of all the blood and gore, which frankly took me by suprise because this guy is tough as nails. War vets generally (but not always) don't like to give nasty descriptions like that. I would expect him to admit the accidental bombing of children, but to talk about "body parts flying in the air" - somehow this sounds totally contrived.

    Even if the interview is true, this soldier is obviously *extremely* liberal minded (just take one look at his book selections) and therefore his opinions are very anti-war as I would expect, and wouldn't necessarily reflect the thoughts and feelings of other soldiers, although he might try to make it sound like that was the case.

    Well, hey I can't be sure its made up. Jay, you are the author and are the only one who knows if it is true. But *if* you made it up then shame on you; that would make you no better than the people in government that you hate so much.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    Propaganda (none / 3) (#263)
    by Fantastic Lad on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 10:52:30 PM EST

    Its full of left wing propaganda: The Big Oil / govt conspiracy; money being wasted on the military instead of education; Noam Chomsky books for gods sake!; Cheney and Haliburton; etc.

    Your point? This means the interviewer and subject are biased. It does not make the interview a fabrication. --Nor does it make those biases unfounded. (Have you looked at the Cheney-Haliburton story?)

    Real military folks who are against the war give much less theoretical reasons for their opposition. Generally they complain about being away from family, not getting paid enough, express skepticism about finding WMD, etc. For example they might complain that Cheney should come over to Iraq to stand duty with them, not because they think that Cheney is conspiring with Big Oil to make money at their expense, but rather because they are fucking hot and tired and want their leaders to "feel some of the pain".

    My brother is an officer in the Canadian military. He served in Bosnia and he is hoping hard that he will be able to avoid having to serve in Afghanistan. He came home from Bosnia a helluva lot smarter and better informed than when he left.

    Graphic details of kids being blown up is something that the media and peace activists love to spew out in torrents. Real soldiers don't like to talk about stuff like that unless you make a concerted effort to pull it out of them.

    The person being interviewed seemed quite reluctant to speak about these details, but did so because he felt it was important that people realize what is going on right now. -He is not a Viet Nam veteran who is trying not to dwell in horrors of the past. Did you read the interview properly or just skim?

    Is it possible that the interview is a fabrication? Yes. Is it possible that the facts are wrong about the health care benefits being cut to U.S. troops? Well, now that's different, isn't it?

    I have heard stories from my brother's friends who served in Afghanistan. Another stupid, evil war which is not going smoothly, to say the very least! Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that Iraq might be as difficult a place to serve as Vietnam? Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that the U.S. had immoral reasons for invading Iraq?

    Why? Is it that you are you a coward who is pretending to be a realist because he is not strong or brave enough to look at ugly possibilities square in the eyes?

    Tell me. I'm all ears.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    A dose of reality (none / 2) (#278)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:45:50 AM EST

    Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that Iraq might be as difficult a place to serve as Vietnam? Why is it so difficult for you to accept the possibility that the U.S. had immoral reasons for invading Iraq?

    Here are some excerpts from a note written to me by a friend who just returned from Iraq. While it doesn't counter point-for-point the obvious fabrication above (not yours...the parent), it is a sample of an account written by a real marine who was really there. The difference in tone is obvious. (bold emphasis is my own)

    The most important revelation I had while there was this: once you've seen a starving kid, standing in barbed wire, with no shoes and matted hair and infected eyes, begging for a meal of packaged military rations, WMD is blown away. It no longer has anything to do with why we are there. I talked to a hardened lifetime Marine who broke into tears when I asked him what he would most remember about Iraq. "The kids," he said. He said he'll teach his children and grandchildren to never take anything for granted again. Nobody I met over there cares about WMD - and after a couple of encounters, it was the same for me. Giving food to kids, seeing fathers bringing their dying kids to the gates begging for medical help, giving these people hope after so many years of daily fear - this goes on DAILY, while we here in the land of 24-hour sports channels and fast food drive to Starbucks in our SUVs and chat on our video cellphones about how bad our Iraq policy is. The policy for anyone who's been there, and those "in the know" (Bush, Powell, Rice) is to set these people free. I doubt many Americans reflect enough on freedom to adequately explain it to a society with absolutely no idea of how to think for itself at any level. Iraqis don't have a Western political or philosophical tradition - how do we communicate representative to them? This is vital, for we are teaching them to govern themselves their way, not the Saddam way or the American way or the Iranian way. I saw it myself.

    ...

    But often the news reports a protest about electricity, ignoring the substance of that protest or its outcome, or the fact that Iraqis often ask permission to protest (at least in the Marine sectors). They are happy to be able to protest, and often they come out simply because they can. In 1997, Saddam passed a decree that you could get your tongue cut out for making disparaging remarks. It's a whole different world now, and the Iraqis know it. One fellow came up and asked, quivering with fear, if we would bomb his house if he put up a satellite dish. Can you imagine? Speaking of fear: the news in the US dealt skeptically with the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, but over there it was like Mardi Gras and 4th of July combined. I talked to lifelong Marines who'd never experienced so much concentrated gunfire in their lives. When the cities went berserk with joy many Marines had to take cover because of the falling shells. Why didn't the news report this?


    There are certainly valid points for discussion on the situation and U.S. policy in Iraq, but the bogus interview in the parent badly misses the mark.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever.. (none / 3) (#285)
    by t0rment on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 02:08:30 PM EST

    Sigh. What did all of a sudden seeing things for him self make him realize the truth?

    Your friend had a moral, and civil duty to know what he was getting himself into.

    AND I CARE ABOUT WMD. I care because this is the reason we were given. I don't accept your friends deflection, oh now its about the "kids."

    What I want to know is why this happened? Who benefits?(really... I don't believe Iraq has benefited, more dead families, more devasted landscape, ruined infrastructure.)Why we let it get to this situation? And what we can do to stop this happening again in the future?

    And in order for "Democracy" to flourish, it has to be institutionalized, and that can only happen if the people do it themselves. Democracy is not something we can spoon feed to deprived countries.  To think that any civilzation needs saving, is sooo arrogant. The "Coalition" didn't save these people, they made them dependant. The first step in promoting democracy through out the world is education, and that means education of our own people. Criticle thinking is the single most important skill an individual can be taught. Bush could learn a lot.

    Every intelligent person knows that Iraq had it bad. Nobody will dispute that. But I think I'd rather visit hell right now.


    . - = [ t 0 r m e n t ] = - .

    Anyone can become angry--that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way; this is not easy.

    - Aristotle
    [ Parent ]

    No problem (none / 2) (#286)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:41:12 PM EST

    I don't particularly disagree with anything you said. I posted excerpts from my friend's note as a counter-demonstration to the ridiculous, faked interview with the "soldier" in Iraq. My friend painted quite a different picture.

    Your friend had a moral, and civil duty to know what he was getting himself into.

    Not that it is really pertinent to this discussion, but I find this statement puzzling. My friend is a professional, and he knew exactly what he was "getting into." And he gladly did so, along with the great majority of the other professionals serving over there.

    [ Parent ]
    I agree. (none / 0) (#296)
    by t0rment on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:45:09 PM EST

    I agree with you. I guess I should clarify what I meant by that.  That basically your friend should have asked those questions that I listed that I wanted answered. Not neccessarily question for question, because for me to assume that somebody will think like me is stupid, but basically have the same intentions of the questions that I asked.


    . - = [ t 0 r m e n t ] = - .

    Anyone can become angry--that is easy. But to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way; this is not easy.

    - Aristotle
    [ Parent ]
    I am speechless. . . (none / 1) (#298)
    by Fantastic Lad on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 05:10:26 AM EST

    Well, actually, that's not often the case. So let me get to the point. . .

    While I DO admire your friend's humanitarian leaning, I feel the painful need to point out a couple of things. . .

    1. U.N. Sanctions hurt the Iraqi population and created some degree of the starvation your friend was seeing. Those same sanctions, however, did not hurt Saddam, and the U.N. bloody well knew it.

    2. I think it is fair to assume that much of the hardship those kids are currently experiencing is a direct result of the invasion, bombing and mis-management of the U.S. effort.

    3. If the U.S. really wanted to get rid of Saddam, there were much more effective, inexpensive and clean ways of going about doing it other than bombing a civilian population into dust. But Bush did not want a clean method. He wanted to use the military and he wanted to flatten Baghdad because using the military makes Bush and Bush's friends rich. Reconstruction of Baghdad makes Bush's friends rich. Masses of cash are moving from taxpayer pockets to the pockets of those manning the military-industrial machine. Those children are the victims of this cash cow.

    4. America helped install Saddam in the first place. Nobody refers to the time Saddam was welcomed in the U.S. back in the 80's, presidential handshakes all around, weapons sold, including WMD gasses. Saddam was deliberately set up CIA asset designed to be pushed over when the time was right.

    Your friend sounds like a noble and good-hearted man. But he is just as much a pawn as those poor kids he is feeding.

    In any case, I don't see how any of this leads you to the conclusion that the interview must be false. The continuing, daily reports of dead and wounded Americans coming back from Iraq would certainly seem to offer validity to the interview subject's views as being genuine. I don't know for sure, but I don't think you can justify writing it off based on what you have offered here.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Well... (none / 2) (#301)
    by Scratch o matic on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 06:38:13 PM EST

    (first let me say that I don't like having to put in a 'subject' for simple back-and-forth comments...)

    In any case, I don't see how any of this leads you to the conclusion that the interview must be false.

    I try not to be one of those people who say "I just know...". But the military was my profession for 10 years. I worked with people from all the U.S. services and many from other nations. My bullshit flag remains at the top of the staff on this interview. It just does not sound at all genuine, regardless of whether the "soldier's" impressions match my own. It sounds like the military fantasy of a person who has never had contact with the real thing. My reaction is probably similar to what a doctor or lawyer might feel if someone came online and tried to impersonate one of those professions.

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough. (none / 1) (#304)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sun Oct 19, 2003 at 12:46:20 AM EST

    Always trust your instincts, (so long as you know which part of your gut they speak from!)

    I'll file your remarks in my head along with everything else and keep watching.

    Thanks for sharing!

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Low-quality fabrication... (none / 1) (#277)
    by Scratch o matic on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 10:10:36 AM EST

    I was the head NCO for years in our unit...
    It's just like Nam was in the beginning.


    The author of this crap has no idea how a real soldier talks.

    [ Parent ]
    Get this... (none / 2) (#237)
    by Sesquipundalian on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 08:53:26 AM EST

    So George Bush's key move when he took over the US goverment was by cheating in the Florida election. 'Bin Laden's best move was probably when he murdered someone at or near the top of the Taliban leadership infrastructure, and took their job.

    Does anyone else think that they might be going after each other (and that they might see each other as primal competitors) because they both have the same sorts of tactics?

    We all know that politicians lie and cheat like hell but most of them seem to have goals that relate directly to both themselves and the population that they lead. Canada has had a lot of politicians like that. We may not like it when they cheat like Pierre Elliot Trudeau did, but at least he was acting on behalf of Canadians.

    Both George Bush and Osama Bin seem to be entirely different sorts of beasties. They are both after goals that have little to do with themselves, or the populations that they claim to represent.I am accusing them here of acting as agents for some other organization, than the ones they claim to represent. In George Bush's case, he seems to represent a handful of business interests that have discovered a fantastic subsidy program to help them get some more oil and drugs to sell; I think Bin Laden represents people who actually do want to rule the world, although they do seem a tad outgunned, no?

    Thank about it!


    Did you know that gullible is not actually an english word?
    I hate America, (2.75 / 4) (#239)
    by Cackmobile on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 11:23:53 AM EST

    but I don't hate Americans. I have travelled widely and met many Americans and overall they are a great bunch. I have travelled through the US and its a great place. When I say I hate America, I mean the government. This is a distinction which I think that many Americans do not understand. The regular Joe does not get to influence US policy. Sure they can vote for one side or the other but there isn't much difference between the 2 major parties. US citizens need to stand up to their government and force changes, then people will like the people and the country (i know I will)

    You fail to make the distinction clear. (2.00 / 4) (#251)
    by lordDogma on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 05:53:24 PM EST

    If I said, "I hate Germany" or, "I hate France", then the citizens of those countries would think I was talking about the people and culture as well as the government, even if I only meant to say, "I hate the [F*/G*] government"

    This is only natural and I can't blame *them* for the misunderstanding. The misunderstanding is my fault for speaking in such an ambiguous way.

    Disclaimer: That said, I don't hate those countries or their governments. I just wish they would stop being such pricks sometimes.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    that "tinfoil hat" moment... (none / 3) (#242)
    by dash2 on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 02:52:36 PM EST

    It all seemed like a normal left-wing rant, the sort of thing I'd basically agree with, maybe a bit extreme and a bit simplistic. Then:

    All in retaliation to the endless Palestinian suicide bombings, (which, if truth be known, have been quietly questioned by a few as to just how 'Palestinian' some of them really are. 50 years of mind-programming experiments, you know. . . But this is fodder for another essay entirely!).

    At this point, I did a double-take. The idea that the Palestinians have been "mind-programmed" by the CIA or Mossad or the MIB or something into blowing themselves up puts the author firmly into nutter territory. Unfortunately, there seem to be lots of other nutters agreeing with him. "Great article! You should read this book on the real power behind the Bush family - the lizardmen from beneath Atlantis!"

    So anyway, can anyone recommend me a place on the web where I don't have to wade through this sort of idiocy? Life is too short for junk.
    ------------------------
    If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.

    How about here; (none / 3) (#258)
    by Fantastic Lad on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 09:35:49 PM EST

    The idea that the Palestinians have been "mind-programmed" by the CIA or Mossad or the MIB or something into blowing themselves up puts the author firmly into nutter territory.

    Why is that? When talking politics and sociology, always remember the cardinal rule: Be wary of an automatic emotional reaction. --And be doubly wary of somebody (like you) who seems to think that simply declaring something 'nutty' without telling us why is an adequate argument.

    So why? Why exactly is this idea 'nutty'?

    And why was this Israeli Jew making bombs in Jerusalem? The article stresses that the bombs were not made for terrorist use, but rather for sale to criminals. Now. . . follow with me if you will. . . But how exactly can criminal use a bomb without the result being looked upon as a Terrorist activity?

    But then I don't expect you to think, or look at the 50 years of solid evidence of covert actions and mind-control experiments carried out by numerous countries. Don't look up 'Greenbaum'. No, no. Don't think. Just pre-judge based on your own programming, of which you are clearly oblivious. Programming comes in all shapes and sizes. Everything from watching television and aping behaviors, to more harsh approaches.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Wait a second (1.50 / 4) (#243)
    by jfkominek on Wed Oct 15, 2003 at 02:52:54 PM EST

    2. I think there will be a draft in America

    These days, I'm pretty sure that starting up the draft would be political suicide for every politician who agreed to it, except, perhaps if the continental US was being invaded. I think it also requires congressional approval, so one nut job can't start it.

    3. I think there is a good chance that America is going to find herself at war with Europe before this decade is out.

    Now, this reads to me as though you're claiming Europe will attack America. So, Europeans, who as a whole seem to be pacifists, and who don't even like to execute convicted murders, are going to engage in a war of aggression with the US? Europeans won't involve themselves in a conflict with Iraq, when they'd be on the "safe" side (though perhaps not "good" or "morally superior" side), but they'd be willing to go to war with the US?

    I've heard others talk about what countries are going to attack the US because of its aggressive tendancies. But if nationalistic aggressive tendancies are something that ought to be prevented, why would other countries start getting aggressive, too?

    4. I think we are going to see the Semites, (both Jew and Arab), having a hard, hard time over the next decade. Like, WWII hard. This worries me more than anything else.

    WWII hard? Like they're going to have their own little miniature world war? Or perhaps someone will come along and start baking Jews and Arabs in ovens?

    Come on, you're just being silly at this point.



    Re: wait a second (2.66 / 6) (#292)
    by timme on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 07:26:23 PM EST

    In point 3, I think Fantastic Lad meant that the American warmongers will have found a reason for war with europe by the time the decade is over.

    Europe would never try to attack the US, because, as you said, they're pacifists. However, they represent an economic potential in this world while at the same time they are not following America's lead anymore, or not in the way they should (again, according to the US Righties).

    What might be the point here, is that the US is falling back into a kind of barbarism that says that anyone who is not with them, is against them (ring any bells ?). And subsequently, anyone who opposes them politically, should be brought to heel.

    But then again, when that time arrives, you'll probably believe the european leaders eat little children for breakfast, just like you did with Saddam.

    I'm sorry, but I still think there's no such thing as a justification for war. I still think the US is the world's aggressor, the rogue nation that should be stopped.

    [ Parent ]

    No, you wait a second... (1.00 / 13) (#294)
    by lordDogma on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 08:34:58 PM EST

    US is falling back into a kind of barbarism that says that anyone who is not with them, is against them (ring any bells ?).

    Yeah it rings this bell:
    You are either with us or you are with the terrorists. -- George Bush

    Great. Another liberal who thinks opposing terrorists is barbaric. I don't know if this is the ultimate irony or if I should just learn expect left-wingers to side with terrorists.

    But then again, when that time arrives, you'll probably believe the european leaders eat little children for breakfast, just like you did with Saddam.

    How predictable. Another saddam apologist on the left. Why is it that all these left-wingers, for all their protests against tyranny and screams about human rights, seem to confuse the bad guys for the good guys and the good guys for the bad guys?

    I'm sorry, but I still think there's no such thing as a justification for war.

    Yes, I agree. Bin Laden's war against the US is totally unjustified and seeing as how he started it, we're only right in trying to end it. Likewise, Saddam Hussein's war against Kuwait was unjustified and his total disregard for the peace treaty that he signed after getting his ass kicked in Gulf War I eventually led to him getting his ass kicked again. Will these brutal warmongers ever learn to stop starting wars?!?!

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    Note: (2.60 / 5) (#299)
    by silk on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 01:09:18 PM EST

    I rated this a 1 not because I disagree with you but because you are engaging in the fallacy of ad hominem attacks.  Please learn to properly use logic.

    [ Parent ]
    Fantastic Lad, here's a story for you. (1.60 / 5) (#267)
    by lordDogma on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 01:11:54 AM EST

    "I saw thousands killed and buried in mass graves. Some were lined up and machine- gunned before being covered with sand. Others were just buried alive. Saddam had a programme of telling villagers (Kurds) they were being relocated south. We would take trucks that would normally hold 12 to 15 people and put in 200 with no water or ventilation. Many would die on the way. Survivors were driven to Al Anbar or Tharthar and buried alive in vast holes dug in the ground. I saw thousands of people - men, women and children - die this way."
    -- Defecting colonel in Iraqi internal security service, Evening Standard (London), April 17, 2003

    Why don't I ever hear a peep from you left-wing America-haters about these war crimes? After all, you are always screaming about human rights. Explain that to me, Fantastic Lad.

    You know, just forget it. Don't even bother trying to explain because I already know the reason. For all your talk about human rights and war crimes, your hate for America is so great that you'd rather fabricate lies about US soldiers than expose real war crimes where they exist. How pathetic.

    -- Lord Dogma

    lessons. . . (2.25 / 4) (#271)
    by Fantastic Lad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:41:41 AM EST

    Why don't I ever hear a peep from you left-wing America-haters about these war crimes? After all, you are always screaming about human rights. Explain that to me, Fantastic Lad.

    You know, just forget it. Don't even bother trying to explain because I already know the reason. For all your talk about human rights and war crimes, your hate for America is so great that you'd rather fabricate lies about US soldiers than expose real war crimes where they exist.

    Well, since the reason you presume isn't correct, I would like to answer.

    First of all, I don't hate America.

    In fact, I don't 'hate', period. I've been there. I know strong, negative emotion quite well, and I long ago decided to understand that aspect of myself from a healthy distance.

    Second. . . Human Massacres are miserable things and it doesn't matter who is perpetrating them. The difference is that the one you wrote about was committed by people over whom you have no responsibility. The one I was writing about was committed in collusion with people from your country, paid for with your tax dollars, and therefore, by you. Big difference.

    Now I'm going to tell you something difficult, so I want you to listen. . .

    The very worst crime there is in this world is that of preventing people from exercising Free Choice. --Inflicting your will upon another in any form, either through murder or by simply restricting with deliberate intent a person's options.

    There are of course, many arguments against this; That of the parent and the child; A mother must be able to dictate behavior to her young. --And of the bandit jumping to murder another. Is it wrong to oppose the free will of the bandit?

    These common arguments are flawed arguments. 1. The souls who play child and parent all agree before being born here to either direct and to submit to direction for the duration of childhood. Thus the arrangement is agreed upon, and free choice is not violated. --Conversely, a bandit is not exercising 'free' choice. His choice has a cost; that of yours, and thus it is okay to fight back. --Or the matter is dictated by Karma; a previous offense in a past life has been committed, and thus to balance the scales, the murderer and victim must switch roles. This is also an arrangement agreed upon previous incarnation.

    (Of course, many choose to not believe in such forces as Karam and Reincarnation. This only makes the lessons more challenging.)

    Now in Iraq. . .

    The people of Iraq did not ask for the U.S. to help. They did not ask anybody. It was their fight, their lesson. To prevent somebody from learning a lesson, no matter how simple, is to take something away. --It may be incredibly frustrating to watch a young kid fight with his shoe laces, trying to tie them. But if we jump in and do it for him every time, he will never learn how to do it himself.

    Remember: To Give without being asked, is the same as Taking. --It pained and frustrated millions of Americans to think of the Iraqi people under Saddam's boot heel, and so without being asked, without permission to act, Americans rose up and crushed Saddam, interrupting the lesson. They did this, not because help was requested, but because they wanted their own feelings of pain and frustration to go away. Thus, the act was a service to themselves. And what a service! --To be the proud and victorious liberators rolling in on their wonderful, high-tech M1 Abrams tanks! To be loved and hailed. --Or so they thought.

    Funny how every time you interrupt a lesson, there is not just a lack of gratitude, but in fact annoyance and even rage for the favor, as America is now learning. Every time. Watch. You will see the patterns in your every day life.

    Like I said, this is difficult.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Lessons? Lessons you said?! My God you're MAD! (none / 2) (#290)
    by lordDogma on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 06:21:42 PM EST

    Human Massacres are miserable things and it doesn't matter who is perpetrating them. The difference is that the one you wrote about was committed by people over whom you have no responsibility. The one I was writing about was committed in collusion with people from your country, paid for with your tax dollars, and therefore, by you.

    Bzzzzt. Wrong on two points. (1) The act wasn't committed by or in collusion with US Troops - I see you are having a hard time understanding that dispite a total lack of evidence. (2) I'm not guilty by association and your attempt to assign guilt to me, even if only symbolically is rather fascist thinking. It reminds me of what the police do in North Korea ("So you are spreading rumors about our Dear Magnificent Leader eh? Well then, clearly your whole family must be guilty!")

    You never answered the question by the way. Essentially you stated that the iraqi war crime isn't worth examining because it wasn't committed under US auspices (e.g. US responsibility). As a Canadian(?) citizen, you have no control or over either of the two cases discussed, yet you choose to preoccupy yourself with the least credibile one on the basis that it involves the United States. I maintain that the reason you are so preoccupied with US "war crimes" and so dismissive of others is because it fits your agenda of debasing the US however you can, even if it means lying. Nice, fair double standards, FL.

    Now I'm going to tell you something difficult, so I want you to listen...

    There's nothing difficult about your follow-on statements about rights. Just because you are an elitist doesn't mean you have to assume everyone else is an idiot. In the case of mother and child, it doesn't take a PHD in philosophy to understand that children do not enjoy the same rights as adults. Nor are they held to the same level of responsibility in society. This is well established in law and is common sense. As for the bandit, your longwinded diatribe can be summed up like this: In a ideal free society you have the right to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others, but if you should infringe on another's rights then they have a limited right to defend themselves and their property. Duh. No need to go into past lives and Karma discussions for that one.

    The people of Iraq did not ask for the U.S. to help. They did not ask anybody.

    I like how you conveniently lump everyone in Iraq into one entity. So, you are saying that because Uday Hussein and his Baathist thug-run newspapers aren't asking for outside intervention then that means nobody is. Right. Secondly, if I lived in Iraq I wouldn't be screaming for help either if it meant risking having my tongue cut out.

    It was their fight, their lesson. To prevent somebody from learning a lesson, no matter how simple, is to take something away.

    Oh, I'm sorry. We interrupted Saddam's lessons of teaching people what happens to them when they express their opinions freely. We took away the torture, beatings and executions. What a terrible thing to do. I should get down on my hands and knees right now and beg forgiveness for interrupting such valuable lessons. I'm so ashamed. NOT!

    It pained and frustrated millions of Americans to think of the Iraqi people under Saddam's boot heel, and so... Americans rose up and crushed Saddam, interrupting the lesson.

    Oh dear! I give my sincerest apologies to the iraqi people! I didn't realize that the lessons Saddam was teaching them while stepping on their necks with his boot heel were of such grave importance to them and so dear to their hearts!

    Funny how every time you interrupt a lesson, there is not just a lack of gratitude, but in fact annoyance and even rage for the favor, as America is now learning. Every time. Watch.

    Funny how people like you denounce America every chance you get for our treatment of the ruthless killers in Guantanamo, but you label Saddam's firing squads and torture chambers a "lesson" to the iraqi people.

    FL, You are so screwed up in the head. No wonder terrorists and dictators feel justified in their slaughter.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    Sigh. One last time then. . . (none / 2) (#297)
    by Fantastic Lad on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 02:54:24 AM EST

    Christ, you sound as though you are a teenager with your fingers in your ears singing, 'La La La.'

    This, I suppose, is what they call 'Crapflooding'. Your arguments are little more than opinions padded out with faulty logic and personal attacks.

    I don't know if it is worth trying to discuss anything here. Have you admitted to even a single error since starting? You have made many, and I have made a few, but I admit to my errors. This is the difference between dogmatists and people who are trying to learn. (Perfect name you have chosen for yourself, by the way. I sincerely hope you are not deliberately trolling with these posts.)

    But like I said. . . One last attempt.

    (1) The act wasn't committed by or in collusion with US Troops - I see you are having a hard time understanding that dispite a total lack of evidence.

    From the Article:

    "But there is now substantial evidence that the worst atrocity of last year's war in Afghanistan took place here; most controversially, during an operation masterminded by US special forces.

    [. . .]

    "A 10-minute drive away is Shiberghan prison, where about 800 Taliban fighters who surrendered late last November at the town of Kunduz are held. The Afghan warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum controls the prison; his mansion is nearby.

    "It was his commanders who transported the Taliban captives to Shiberghan.

    [. . .]

    "The general has been on the US payroll for nearly a year. According to Newsweek magazine, an elite team from the Fifth Special Forces Group first met up with Gen Dostum last October, when its members were dropped by Chinook helicopter at his mountain base."

    The whole point is that there was indeed evidence of collusion. The U.S. Special Forces wouldn't be concerned with PR spin otherwise.

    Moving right along. . .

    I'm not guilty by association and your attempt to assign guilt to me, even if only symbolically is rather fascist thinking.

    Yes you are. We all are. This is what democracies are all about. We collectively put our cash into a large fund and then democratically agree on what projects those resources will go toward. --By your thinking, you are not responsible for ANY actions of your government, which is thoroughly ridiculous and irresponsible. And pardon me, but this is NOT fascist thinking. This is Democratic thinking. Very simply, if you vote and pay tax to the U.S. government, then those who act in the name of the U.S. are acting in YOUR name. Deal with it.

    Though, oddly enough, I do actually agree with you in part. The fact of the matter is that the voting system in the U.S. has been corrupted. There are things being done in YOUR name which you no longer have any control over. This is why I decry the U.S., and why I have such a high regard for those pilots in Israel who refused to fly against Palestinian targets when ordered. They are not hiding behind the old, "I was just following orders," line. They were taking direct responsibility for their actions. Similarly, you should be fighting against the government which takes your money but does whatever the hell it wants with it regardless of what your wishes happen may to be.

    You never answered the question by the way. Essentially you stated that the iraqi war crime isn't worth examining because it wasn't committed under US auspices (e.g. US responsibility). As a Canadian(?) citizen, you have no control or over either of the two cases discussed, yet you choose to preoccupy yourself with the least credibile one on the basis that it involves the United States. I maintain that the reason you are so preoccupied with US "war crimes" and so dismissive of others is because it fits your agenda of debasing the US however you can, even if it means lying. Nice, fair double standards, FL.

    This is paranoid nonsense. First off, what question are you referring to which I 'did not answer'? Second, I think it should be obvious to anybody reading my posts that I am clearly NOT dissuading people from examining the Iraqi war or any other; I think my posting speaks for itself, and whatever convoluted logic you used to reach this conclusion is quite meaningless.

    Yes, I am Canadian, but you will note that I and my people are NOT involved in killing Iraqis. Nor are we forcibly trying to prevent Americans from doing as they will. I am merely talking, and encouraging thought and debate. This is by no means a violation of anybody's free will. You can ignore me if you choose. Unlike your countrymen, I am not holding a gun to anybody's head if they do not think/behave/do as I tell them. And you call me a fascist? Please.

    There's nothing difficult about your follow-on statements about rights. Just because you are an elitist doesn't mean you have to assume everyone else is an idiot.

    Yeah, except you still didn't get it:

    Oh, I'm sorry. We interrupted Saddam's lessons of teaching people what happens to them when they express their opinions freely. We took away the torture, beatings and executions. What a terrible thing to do. I should get down on my hands and knees right now and beg forgiveness for interrupting such valuable lessons. I'm so ashamed. NOT!

    See? The thinking might very well be beyond you at this point, but do try re-reading the argument I laid out in the previous post. I hate to say it like this, but until you grasp this stuff, you will be doomed to repeat your current cycle until you either 'get it' or regress into nothing.

    Funny how people like you denounce America every chance you get for our treatment of the ruthless killers in Guantanamo, but you label Saddam's firing squads and torture chambers a "lesson" to the iraqi people.

    Quit acting like a child.

    You are deliberately misinterpreting me. But like I said, you'll either 'get it' or you will cease. The choice is yours. All there is are lessons.

    Best wishes to you.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    God please save me from your followers. (1.00 / 7) (#268)
    by joll on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:02:49 AM EST

    Youre right that we are about to live in the most interesting times ever.
    Listen up. Nothing we do will ever make peace with Islamic countries. If we pulled out of every mid east country today. If we gave Bin Laden everything he ever wanted, they would still try to kill westerners.

    Islamic cultures do not take into account individual responsibility. They have to have a scapegoat.

    If I wake up today, and think "my life sucks", I have only myself to blame. If a Muslim wakes up in WhatTheFuckiStan and thinks "my life sucks", they blame the west. And their Govt reinforces that. Dont blame the govt, blame the west.

    Look, im an american... but think about it. Suppose America was totally destroyed tommorrow? We consume the majority of the world's resources. We are like the world's best customer.

    So Bin Laden destroys the west. Yay! All of a sudden, oil is worthless, cause there is no customer anymore. But these guys dont think about that.

    A storm is a comin'. We should nuke all of the enemies of the west but get russia into our side.

    We don't have to worry about China cause they dont even have the balls to televise their own space missions.

    I wish I had the link but certain learned people give us a 50/50 chance of civilization existing another 100 years.

    There is no solution. "we're all dead meat"

    This is a well presented piece of propaganda (2.16 / 6) (#270)
    by Tux on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 03:26:24 AM EST

    This article is a well designed piece of propaganda.  This links Fantastic Lad uses don't even hold up his own conclusions.  Just look at this: Creepy stories about tractor trailers filled with asphyxiated Taliban soldiers being buried in the desert by American troops circulated on the fringes of the news. --A story which turned out to be true.  The link doesn't even claim that U.S. Soldiers did this.  It just said that U.S. Special Forces were in the area (which the article says was about 200 miles away from the U.S. Special Forces) and saw the Taliban prisoners moved into lorries.  This is weak for claiming that they knew about it.  Clearly, they didn't do it.  There is a thread below about this that covers this further.

    Then of course we have the Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi nonsense.  Godwin's law exists for a reason.

    However I think the best way to get a handle on what Fantastic Lad is saying is to look at his previous posts like this one:
    http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2003/8/19/14111/3435/190#190

    Quoted from that post:
    Well, you have to keep in mind that the directives for all military actions come from above, while those who actually pull the triggers are generally in their early twenties. Kids, really. The kids just do as they're told, and yes, they are all homesick and miserable, and uninformed, and yes, many of them probably even still believe that their cause is good. --I certainly knew zip when I was that age, and I was ten times more aware of things than most of the kids I was at school with. It's very, very easy to program kids with mis-directed ideals which are designed to serve the Masters of the Universe.

    Now the same goes for the Zionist activities; (young kids pulling the triggers, I mean). It's just that those kids have been programmed with a different and more violent flavor of propaganda. --They have been taught from birth that they are God's Chosen, that they are better than the rest of the world's population, and that on the scale of things, the Arab people rate just above 'Dog'.

    But the programming itself comes down from on high.

    Now as for my last paragraph. . .

    I was making reference to the propaganda itself; the lies told by the government and the media which are making everybody go out and kill everybody else. The lie of 9-11 (Which was certainly NOT what the media claimed; it was a deliberate attack invented within the Pentagon itself. This is not theory anymore. It's where All the evidence points. All of it.) So in that case, when say that conservatives are slowly realizing that have been, 'Duped', I meant specifically that people are realizing that Bush lied to people, (Terrorists hiding in Iraq, WMDs, Iraqi liberation), all in order to get them into a bad war which will certainly not be, as he claimed, over in a few weeks.

    It's also important to keep in mind that the illusion of different countries striving against one another is just that. An illusion. At the highest levels, there is only one 'government' directing the whole show, from China to the U.S. The overarching goal is to destroy certain ethnic groups, to carve down the world population to a few million, and (as the elite believe), to survive the coming catastrophes; comet, ice age, alien take-over and the reality shift.

    Then at the end Fantastic Lad links to his own post on slashdot to show how the world will be hit by a lots of asteroids soon.  Essentially, its the Nibiru/Planet X coming every 3600 year theory.  I recommend reading the replies on slashdot which describe better than I could why that's bunk.  I recommend this link to badastronomy which debunks this all:
    http://badastronomy.com/bad/misc/planetx/index.html

    I think trolls and goatse are a fresh outlet for news and lively debate, too.
    -An AC in response to the idea that slashdot is a fresh outlet for pertinent news and lively debate

    Nicely researched. However. . . (none / 3) (#272)
    by Fantastic Lad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 04:19:11 AM EST

    The Nibiru, Planet X thing is ridiculous. I have long argued against it because it is dis-info designed to be used exactly as this poster, 'Tux' is trying using it, namely to discredit legitimate argument by linking it to hysterical New Age nonesense.

    So yes, please do examine the threads on Slashdot. Anybody willing to go through them properly, will see various of the competing arguments laid quite bare, and I do stand by what I said in that forum.

    However, I didn't bother to respond to accusations of my being a New Age idiot. . . I will do that here:

    The Planet X, Nibiru thing tells us, (in short), that a hollow planet is passing through the solar system and that it is filled with good aliens who are coming to save us. I, of course, think this is nonsense.

    When 'Tux' tells us that, "Essentially, its the Nibiru/Planet X coming every 3600 year theory.", he is quite wrong and he is mixing quotations. --I was talking about the 'Nemesis' theory, which is based on legitimate Astronomical science. It discusses unexplained planetary wobble seen in all the planets of the solar system which suggests the existence of a large object orbiting on an eliptical path far beyond Pluto and which makes regular passages every 136,000 years through the Kuiper belt, where debris is disturbed and sent into lower orbits where said debris can affect the smaller planets, including Earth.

    This is real science, and to some, it is terrifying science becuase it means that the recent increase in meteorites and comet activity is only going to become more so, and may well threaten the existence of Humanity. This is exactly the kind of thing state-sponsered dis-information projects are employed to conceal.

    I do not find it coincidental that the word 'Nemesis' and 'Nibiru' sound similar or are so closely linked in both theme and timing.

    Classic dis-info technique.

    But please, judge for yourselves.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    The actual Nemesis theory (none / 2) (#308)
    by Tux on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 02:10:18 AM EST

    The actual Nemesis theory is explained here:
    http://exn.ca/stories/2000/08/09/52.asp

    It doesn't come around every 136,000 years, but every 26 million years.  The article points out that if Nemesis does exist it will be another 13 million years before Nemesis causes us any problems, way longer than the timeline you are talking about Fantastic Lad.

    I think trolls and goatse are a fresh outlet for news and lively debate, too.
    -An AC in response to the idea that slashdot is a fresh outlet for pertinent news and lively debate
    [ Parent ]

    Nice link! (none / 1) (#313)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 12:33:51 AM EST

    However. . .

    It doesn't come around every 136,000 years, but every 26 million years. The article points out that if Nemesis does exist it will be another 13 million years before Nemesis causes us any problems, way longer than the timeline you are talking about Fantastic Lad.

    Well, that's one version. I have heard others from sources I consdier somewhat more reliable than Jay Ingram's, "Snake oil and pentecostal science extravaganza," which suggest we're heading into the thick of it as we type.

    Still, I do hope your info is right and mine is wrong. I guess we'll just have to wait, watch and see what falls out of the sky.

    Cheers!

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Schwarzenegger (2.25 / 4) (#275)
    by Fantastic Lad on Thu Oct 16, 2003 at 05:07:33 AM EST

    Then of course we have the Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Nazi nonsense. Godwin's law exists for a reason.

    Godwin was an idiot. We live in an age where fascism is becoming frequent terrain. But of course, if some geek with a smarmy on-line dictionary of why it's 'un-cool' to discuss historical references to fascist activities, then by all means, we should shut our minds and 'Never talk about it again'. I can't believe people are so cowed by the threat of being 'un-cool' that they would actually fall for crap like that. You're not in Jr. High, bub. Start acting it.

    Further, I must ask you: When Arnold was quoted as saying he admired Hitler, what context should one take it in, exactly? I notice that rather than provide a proper argument, you simply employed the tried and true tactic of calling something 'nonsense' without offering a reason why. Are you hoping that everybody you are addressing is so afraid of being so 'un-cool' as to complain that they'll shut up and take your crap at face value?

    That kind of 'argument' only works on the spineless, which I am realizing, probably includes you.

    Now go away.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    This context (none / 3) (#307)
    by Tux on Mon Oct 20, 2003 at 02:01:18 AM EST

    Further, I must ask you: When Arnold was quoted as saying he admired Hitler, what context should one take it in, exactly?

    It should be taken in the context of a man who helped to break up Neo-Nazi rallies in Austria when he was a teenager:
    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/news/100403ap_nw_arnold_nazi.html

    Let's anaylize what Arnold said (assuming that he said it at all): "I admire Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education, up to power. I admire him for being such a good public speaker and for what he did with it."

    Hitler was certainly a good public speaker, and came up from nothing to being leader of Germany.  The only part that is questionable is the last phrase of "what he did with it".  However, what helps to explain it is something similar that was said on an episode of the original Star Trek series.  In the episode the Captain and a couple others were prasing Khan Nooneign Sing, a brutal tyrant during the eugenics wars.  Spock says something to the effect of how can you praise this man when he did all of these evil things.  Kirk explains it is still possible to admire some of his qualities while still being against Khan.

    Schwarzenegger was a friend of Kurt Waldheim.  At the time when Schwarzenegger toasted Waldheim at his wedding, the accusations had only been around for a month.  At the time they were only accusations, and it is very reasonable to assume that Schwarzenegger wouldn't believe it.  If a friend of mine was accused of being Nazi, I wouldn't believe it either at least not without massive evidence.  The same arguement to tie Schwarzenegger to being a Nazi through Waldheim can be used to implicate the entire UN since Waldheim was once the head of the UN.  Is the UN a Nazi organization?  No, the UN is many nasty things, but they aren't Nazis (although an arguement can be made for the Arab bloc due to their anti-semitism).

    Then we have Schwarzenegger's father.  Any implication there is blaiming Schwarzenegger for the sins of his father which is wrong, and this assumes that Schwarzenegger's father has any sins to begin with.  The Wiesenthal Center investigated Schwarzenegger's father and found that he was innocent of any war crimes.  This line from your article is ludicrous, "To cover himself, Schwarzenegger has made substantial donations to the Los Angeles-based Wiesenthal Center, which tracks down ex-Nazis."  Unless Schwarzenegger has been planning on being governor of California for the last 15 to 20 years when he made the donations to claim he was "covering" himself is absurd.

    The last thing about Schwarzenegger's father is "Arnold's father favored a Hitler-style mustache in photos."  I had no idea mustache styles could used to identify Nazis.

    This gets to the heart of my point in my last point.  Actual facts prove Schwarzenegger isn't a Nazi.  What we are left with are mustache styles and name calling which happens a lot.  "Schwarzenegger is a Nazi."  "Bush is a Nazi"  "Republicans are Nazis."  (When an acutal Nazi comes around no one is going to know since so many people have been called Nazis, an actual Nazi can hide and slip through the cracks.  If you want a conspiracy theory that makes sense, there you go.)  It is petty name calling, which you have engaged in as well calling me spineless and saying that I act like I'm still in Jr. High.

    We live in an age where fascism is becoming frequent terrain. But of course, if some geek with a smarmy on-line dictionary of why it's 'un-cool' to discuss historical references to fascist activities, then by all means, we should shut our minds and 'Never talk about it again'. I can't believe people are so cowed by the threat of being 'un-cool' that they would actually fall for crap like that.

    Discussing actual historical references to facism is neither cool nor uncool.  Of course to do that would require actual facts and not reading an article and adding nonsense like you did when you claimed that U.S. Special Forces were responsible for the war crime of burying trailers of Taliban in the desert which the article you link to doesn't claim that.

    You assert that facism is becoming frequent terrain, but you haven't proven that this idea is true beyond the inside of your skull when you can't read an article and accurately tell us what it says.

    Now go away.

    Sorry.  Not going to happen.  Someone has to point out facts and what the articles you link to actually say (although there are plenty who do this already, so I really don't have to.)

    I think trolls and goatse are a fresh outlet for news and lively debate, too.
    -An AC in response to the idea that slashdot is a fresh outlet for pertinent news and lively debate
    [ Parent ]

    In response. . . (none / 1) (#314)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 21, 2003 at 01:31:25 AM EST

    So. . , just to summerize your points, then. . .

    Arnie is like Spock, because he admires Hitler, 'the consumate leader', but not Hitler the mass-murdering, megalomaniacal psychopath who came to power through emotional appeals, lies, manipulations and violence via his indoctrinated ultra-violent brown shirts who intimidated and beat up civilians trying to engage in the democtratic process, the Night of Long Knives, brutal rounding up of the 'communist terrorists' and general hate mongering.

    Uh huh.

    The best I might be able to concede is that Arnold was simply an ignorant kid spouting off. But I doubt even that. . .

    Arnie, who's mom is married into Austrian politics and whose father was 'exhonorated' by the Wiesenthal Center, honest, didn't know that Waldheim had a past? Come on. I have had the opportunity to know well several people who come from ranking political families, and the first fucking thing you learn is that parents, in order to preserve their children in the world as it REALLY is, teach them what the hell is really going on. The simple fact that Arnold is hanging out at all with high profile political figures should be a dead give-away that he is by no means an ignorant/innocent bystander. Schwarzenegger, if nothing else, is not a stupid man.

    Now, it is true, 'Nazi' is a loaded term. But a rose by any other name. . , as they say. And I do certainly, "judge the tree by its fruit."

    Already, Arnold has perpetrated some serious bullshit which is certainly, to my thinking, not in the best interests of the public; (Moving to settle with the energy giants for a fraction of the 9 billion the previous CA governer was demanding in payment for their deliberately manipulating the state into a power crisis, is one such action. That Arnold was in meetings with Enron prior to his election as CA governer at all should say something!)

    It is petty name calling, which you have engaged in as well calling me spineless and saying that I act like I'm still in Jr. High.

    Only petty if unfounded. Please re-read your previous posts.

    Discussing actual historical references to facism is neither cool nor uncool. Of course to do that would require actual facts and not reading an article and adding nonsense like you did when you claimed that U.S. Special Forces were responsible for the war crime of burying trailers of Taliban in the desert which the article you link to doesn't claim that.

    Yes, I admit to over-stepping that one in the original post. But YOU are over-stepping in suggesting that the U.S. Special Forces were not responible.

    In any case, that was one point out of many, (interesting how the few slips erase all recollection of the many other points which were brought up.) Anyway. . . How does any of this take away from the fact that, "Godwin's Law" is a worthless piece of geek prattle which has no place in serious discussion?

    Someone has to point out facts and what the articles you link to actually say (although there are plenty who do this already, so I really don't have to.)

    Well, as long as you're up to handling the fall-out. --Which, to be honest, you seem to be doing better than I had expected thus far. You now know more than you did a week ago about the Nemesis Theory, you have an opposing opinion regarding Godwin, Arnold, Enron and energy politics. . . Most people have much more closed minds than you have demonstrated, rejecting all or even erasing new ideas upon receiving them. I have to respect your ability to adapt. Keep it up, and I might just start having to respect you.

    Got anything left with which to enrich this discussion further? If so, it's your move.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    i used to watch the news. (2.75 / 4) (#300)
    by naught on Fri Oct 17, 2003 at 04:59:10 PM EST

    i used to watch the news, and stroke my cock in time with the talking heads, and feel like an intellectual elitist because i thought i knew what was going on and this somehow made me better than everyone around me.  i'd jump online, and rub off one intellectual cumshot after another directed at the uninformed idiots who couldn't bother to get every detail right.  i concerned myself about the Fate of the World, just like all the high-minded intelligencia.  i was expecting my badge in the mail any day.

    you and i, we talk about all this world business, and this news business as though it's all real, like it all matters, and most importantly, like we can do a damn thing about it.  in truth, the media is an engine of propoganda that is the mouthpiece of an agenda.  the agendas change, the propoganda changes, but the fact that it's not remotely the truth never will.  once i'd stopped patting myself on the back for being such a highly-developed and civilized individual, i realized that national and international news rarely, if ever, affected my community or my day-to-day life.  

    oh, i said.  and promptly quit watching the news -- it was, at this point, a waste of time.

    then i moved across town.  there's a bus stop behind my house, and the people there threw their garbage down on the sidewalk before they got on the bus.  the area was completely trashed.  walking around, i though about how much that sucked, and how people shouldn't do that, and whatnot.  i had a good bitch session to one of my neighbors asking why people were such dicks.

    then it hit me.  being a dick is easy.  if we somehow made 'not being a dick' easy, that is, if we provided an alternative garbage receptacle for these dicks, they'd probably use it.  nobody likes to stand in garbage, right?

    i'm getting to the important bit .. wait for it.

    so after a frustrating morning on the phone with various city departments, each of which referred me to some other department which was responsible, i broke down and called my councilman.

    i didn't get to talk to him.  i talked to his secretary, and left a detailed message.

    the next morning, there was a city trash can next to the bus stop.  a new one.

    so here's the deal:  the reason that most otherwise smart people live in a shitty place is because they think of their place as being much larger than it actually is, and they're so busy solving the world's problems that they forget to solve their neighbor's.  it's much more noble and dramatic to solve the world's problems than it is joe's in 3691, right?  my neighbors don't think so.  they like having clean yards.

    yours would too.

    --
    "extension of knowledge is the root of all virtue" -- confucius.

    Draft (none / 1) (#318)
    by bovlb on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 03:40:43 PM EST

    I think there will be a draft in America

    Have a look at S.89 and H.R.163 - "To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes." Find the text at the Library of Congress.



    EXTRA EXTRA! Liberals re-instate draft! (none / 2) (#319)
    by lordDogma on Wed Oct 22, 2003 at 07:29:44 PM EST

    Ok, the subject line is exaggerated, but still. From the text of HR163:

    H. R. 163

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    January 7, 2003

    Mr. RANGEL (for himself, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. STARK, and Mr. ABERCROMBIE) introduced the following bill

    Before everyone starts bitching about the Bush and his "Nazi" Dept of Homeland Security taking away their freedoms and re-instituting the draft, notice who introduced this bill: congressmen RANGEL, MCDERMOTT, CONYERS, LEWIS, STARK, and ABERCROMBIE are ALL Democrats!

    This is so funny - all you anti-war, America-hating, hippy peacenicks are the ones who put these people into office and now they are trying to draft your ass into compulsive government service.

    -- Lord Dogma

    [ Parent ]

    Democrat/Republican = Good Cop/Bad Cop (none / 0) (#326)
    by Fantastic Lad on Sat Oct 25, 2003 at 06:27:24 AM EST

    Your vitriol towards 'Liberals' is misplaced. Seeing the world in Left and Right politics is a desired result of the social manipulations played upon us all. --To keep people engaged in a meaningless snow-ball fight reduces the chance of anyody breaking free.

    Mind you, there IS a left and right. Selfish and Non-Selfish are real roads one can take, but as many, many people have pointed out, (and as you have just done in your post), the labels of Republican and Democrat aren't particularly good indicators of Selfish and Non-Selfish behavior as both sides seem to indulge in negative behavior to some degree.

    The sooner you snap out of your spitting and fuming on command, the sooner you will have broken free of the flunky roll you are currently playing in somebody else's agenda. There is a lot more going on in the world to which you would be better served in paying your attention.

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    Hamlet's Mill (none / 0) (#328)
    by SimonTzu on Mon Oct 27, 2003 at 10:51:54 AM EST

    Hi Fl,

    Interesting article and some interesting commments.  Are you familiar with "Hamlet's Mill"?

    Simon
    --
    Simon Tzu
    Storyteller
    www.deeptalent.com
    [ Parent ]

    "Hamlet's Mill" (none / 0) (#329)
    by Fantastic Lad on Tue Oct 28, 2003 at 09:02:56 PM EST

    No, I've not heard of it. The name is quite evocotive though.

    Is it a book or a theory?

    Heck. I'll go look it up. "Internet powers, ACTIVATE!"

    -FL

    [ Parent ]

    The Story So Far. . . Since those two towers fell. | 329 comments (276 topical, 53 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!