PDA

View Full Version : The "War On Terror"



Axiom
18-08-2006, 06:21 PM
Who else sees through this sham of the so called war on terror?

Have you noticed how terror scare after terror scare incident, actually produces little of any real substance?
- mi5 mi6 involvement, this latest "scare" involved an mi5 agent as the cell leader!...........why are the "suspects" often linked to intelligence agencies?
- why does the media hyper beat it up initially? yet days later just whisper out the news that there was little substance to the threat?

- why are so few charged/convicted in 5 yrs since 9/11?(even at guantanamo!)
- how real is al quaeda ?

Does history show that govts have in fact manipulated people by staging certain events?

Who is benefiting from this war beat up?

Can the motive for thousands of new "anti-terror" laws rushed thru uk,usa etc, be taken purely on face value?

is it just the nutjob conspiracy theorist that questions the "official" story?
-or are there professors,scientists,colonels,and respected writers that do so?

does the latest poll show most americans believe their govt is involved in some way ,engineering the war on terror?



A good starting point for the skeptics,who doubt that govts could inflict terror on their own ppl or stage attacks........i ask you to go to wikipedia - gulf of tonkin and wikipedia-operation northwood



i believe the latest series of "close call terror events" has been a conditioning exercise to prepare us for a major staged attack in usa or uk in next 2 moths
- this will further help accelerate the real agenda of tighter control,bullying the parts of the world that refuse to tow the global corporate line, and also tighter control over its own ppl(see rise of sedition laws,increasing police state,technology etc)

"A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny." Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The worst crimes were dared by a few, willed by more and tolerated by all.~Tacitus

...Violence as a way of gaining power...is being camouflaged under the guise of tradition, national honor [and] national security...~Alfred Adler

Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervor - with the cry of grave national emergency.~General Douglas MacArthur


When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader.~Plato

All warfare is based on deception.~Sun Tzu

There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.~Sun Tzu (interesting in light of the "neverending" war on terror!)

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.~William Pitt

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

~Voltaire

The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.

~Tacitus

The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.

~William Colby, former CIA director



i am researching the science and history of human manipulation and control...this "war on terror" is a treasure trove of insight into this nexus .and i will try to answer any questions you may have


PS..Wondering if there are similarities with the war on drugs!?!

antichrist
18-08-2006, 06:27 PM
I sympathise with your post but don't know how much of it holds up. I am more concerned with cause and effect. Top politicians and analysis have occasionally let the cat out of the bag that if not for the Palestine question the "terrorists" would not have an audience. There are other issues as Kashmir which I don't agree with the Muslims.

Sorry to divert sideways.

Axiom
18-08-2006, 07:27 PM
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=9554

Axiom
18-08-2006, 07:37 PM
Counter the propaganda mass media mind control,and listen,analyse,research and observe for yourselves........ http://www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm

qpawn
18-08-2006, 08:56 PM
Axiom, your thesis has some merit.

Last week David Wright Neville, a media commentator who once worked for Australian intelligence agencies, said that he is skeptoical of what he calls "alquedaism": a belief that al quaeda is responsible for many terrorist attacks when there is no real evidence for taht being so,.

But I admit that I find it difficult to believe that a naation state government would stage an attack as an excuse for introducing harsher laws . I agree that there are famous instances of this occurring, such as the burning of the Reichstag which was staged by Hitler so that he could tighten legal control of Germany. But for a government to stage the BALI BOMBINGS, 9/11 etc would be a huge risk. If one person found out and went to the newspapers etc he or she could get a million bucks for the story and then vanish into the sunny Maldives.

I have watched the documentaries of 9/11 supposedly being staged by the US governmnet. As cynical as I am towards all governmnets, the US especially, I do not find these conspiracy theories about 9/11 credible. One, they use circumstantial evidence. Yes, a woman running from the 2 towers said "there are no windows on the planes". But that doesn't PROVE the conclusion that there were military airplanes used to stage 9/11. That woman was under the stress of the moment; people often see things wrongly then. [ ask any perception psychologist.] And the 9/11 conspiracy would have to prove something else: if they were military planes then how were so many civillian passengers killed?

I am as open to conspiracy theories as anyone. But I just cannot be quite this cynical.

Axiom
18-08-2006, 11:27 PM
Axiom, your thesis has some merit.

Last week David Wright Neville, a media commentator who once worked for Australian intelligence agencies, said that he is skeptoical of what he calls "alquedaism": a belief that al quaeda is responsible for many terrorist attacks when there is no real evidence for taht being so,.

But I admit that I find it difficult to believe that a naation state government would stage an attack as an excuse for introducing harsher laws . I agree that there are famous instances of this occurring, such as the burning of the Reichstag which was staged by Hitler so that he could tighten legal control of Germany. But for a government to stage the BALI BOMBINGS, 9/11 etc would be a huge risk. If one person found out and went to the newspapers etc he or she could get a million bucks for the story and then vanish into the sunny Maldives.

I have watched the documentaries of 9/11 supposedly being staged by the US governmnet. As cynical as I am towards all governmnets, the US especially, I do not find these conspiracy theories about 9/11 credible. One, they use circumstantial evidence. Yes, a woman running from the 2 towers said "there are no windows on the planes". But that doesn't PROVE the conclusion that there were military airplanes used to stage 9/11. That woman was under the stress of the moment; people often see things wrongly then. [ ask any perception psychologist.] And the 9/11 conspiracy would have to prove something else: if they were military planes then how were so many civillian passengers killed?

I am as open to conspiracy theories as anyone. But I just cannot be quite this cynical.

qpawn- i commend you on your open mindedness re the subject, and implore you to simply research via google,cross referencing various sources,and objectively analysis the material available....if you do so, and keep the same conclusion..i will debate you

Cat
18-08-2006, 11:58 PM
We in the West depend upon the enslavement of the majority of the impoverished world. 2/3's of the world's population live on less than $2/day and 1/2 live on less than $1.

In order to protect material interests in the developed world, Western powers have deemed it to be increasingly necessary to use military force to control vital overseas interests, such as oil, etc.

The Pentagon report on Global warming predicts increasing warfare, bloodshed and migration as a result of water shortage and consequent food shortages. They predict a natural cull in human numbers, with Europe and America becoming virtual fortresses keeping populations out.

The management of populations and public perception is therefore essential to Western governments in order to generate acceptance and support domestically. By de-humanising and demonising undesirables it makes grotesque killing more palatable to domestic audiences. We should be grateful we're living on Air-Strip 1.

George Bush and Tony Blair announced their latest plans for the Middle East today from the Whitehouse;

Bush: We're going to kill 2 million Muslims and a dentist.

The press clamoured: A dentist? Why a dentist?

Blair pats Bush on the back and says: You see! I told you no one would ask about the muslims.

Axiom
19-08-2006, 12:41 AM
We in the West depend upon the enslavement of the majority of the impoverished world. 2/3's of the world's population live on less than $2/day and 1/2 live on less than $1.

In order to protect material interests in the developed world, Western powers have deemed it to be increasingly necessary to use military force to control vital overseas interests, such as oil, etc.

The Pentagon report on Global warming predicts increasing warfare, bloodshed and migration as a result of water shortage and consequent food shortages. They predict a natural cull in human numbers, with Europe and America becoming virtual fortresses keeping populations out.

The management of populations and public perception is therefore essential to Western governments in order to generate acceptance and support domestically. By de-humanising and demonising undesirables it makes grotesque killing more palatable to domestic audiences. We should be grateful we're living on Air-Strip 1.

George Bush and Tony Blair announced their latest plans for the Middle East today from the Whitehouse;

Bush: We're going to kill 2 million Muslims and a dentist.

The press clamoured: A dentist? Why a dentist?

Blair pats Bush on the back and says: You see! I told you no one would ask about the muslims.
OVERALL ,YOU ARE CORRECT!!, BUT,
"NATURAL CULL" !???.......YOU MEAN NATURAL, AS IN, MAN MADE?

Axiom
19-08-2006, 01:05 AM
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:xYjMZ6jlj3sJ:100777.com/faketerror/+fake+terror+war&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10

Desmond
19-08-2006, 08:09 AM
The word "terrorist" itself is a prejudicial one. One man's "terrorist" is another man's "freedom-fighter". The media and other parties should prefer to use the word "insurgents".

I'm not sure whether it is more disturbing that western governments or the media use the word "terrorism" so judgementally. Is it just a case of poor journalism, or something more sinister?

qpawn
19-08-2006, 09:04 AM
Boris
Go to the top
go to the source
the expert
on all terrorism
he is the expert: Dean Jones

:D :D

Axiom
20-08-2006, 01:29 AM
http://www.************.com/articles/august2006/190806shotdown.htm

CameronD
26-07-2008, 12:52 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/aviation-security/2008/Jul/01/want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/

US investigation for homeland security

Basil
26-07-2008, 02:14 PM
Can we have a "War On Dribble" thread?

Rincewind
26-07-2008, 02:17 PM
Can we have a "War On Dribble" thread?

I think that is likely to exacerbate the problem rather than fix it. ;)

Axiom
26-07-2008, 03:00 PM
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/aviation-security/2008/Jul/01/want-some-torture-with-your-peanuts/

US investigation for homeland security
I used to wonder why the germans during ww2 did nothing to stop the rise of the fascist police state.
I now know the answer.
Just look at the blind brainwashed programmed denial in the general population today , totally under the spell of government and media, just like 1930s germany .
Simply incapable of digesting real news , they cannot recognise tyranny.
So much have these people invested themselves in lies ,that is too traumatic to unravel their whole paradigm. Many know in their gut ,that "something is rotten in the state of denmark" but few bother to seek out the source of the problem, and face it head on.

Aaron Guthrie
26-07-2008, 03:28 PM
I used to wonder why the germans during ww2 did nothing to stop the rise of the fascist police state.
I now know the answer.
Just look at the blind brainwashed programmed denial in the general population today , totally under the spell of government and media, just like 1930s germany .
Simply incapable of digesting real news , they cannot recognise tyranny.
So much have these people invested themselves in lies ,that is too traumatic to unravel their whole paradigm. Many know in their gut ,that "something is rotten in the state of denmark" but few bother to seek out the source of the problem, and face it head on.Did you read the article? The comments at the bottom? How did you deduce this from the article, when it was published in a mainstream well respected source, and it was critical of the proposition? Further how did you deduce this when the comments at the bottom were, for the most part, also critical?

Sounds like the one that has trouble breaking out of their "paradigm" is you.

Axiom
26-07-2008, 04:00 PM
Did you read the article? The comments at the bottom? How did you deduce this from the article, when it was published in a mainstream well respected source, and it was critical of the proposition? Further how did you deduce this when the comments at the bottom were, for the most part, also critical?

Sounds like the one that has trouble breaking out of their "paradigm" is you.
Did you read my post ?
I was not talking about the article , i was talking about the people that view it ! in particular a reference to the knee jerk poo pooers ( eg. gunner :P ) of this world. You know the ones that just guffaw at something like naomi wolfe's - "america's 10 steps to fascism".
But i recognise your point that criticism exists , and i would argue that more and more people are waking up everyday to the rise of this 4th reich.

Aaron Guthrie
26-07-2008, 04:05 PM
Did you read my post ?Did you read your post? ;)

I was not talking about the article , i was talking about the people that view it !Then how did you deduce what you deduced in that post when the people that viewed the article and commented on it were, for the most part, critical?

Axiom
26-07-2008, 04:30 PM
Then how did you deduce what you deduced in that post when the people that viewed the article and commented on it were, for the most part, critical?
because i wasn't addressing them but the element that exists here.

Basil
26-07-2008, 04:51 PM
... in particular a reference to the knee jerk poo pooers ( eg. gunner :P ) of this world.
Oh yes, Gunner the big knee jerk poo-pooer! :lol:

I think it's fairly safe to have me at the other end of that spectrum; however I did do a Google on knee jerk and found the dictionary synonym was actually Axiom (with a cap 'A').

Zwischenzug
26-07-2008, 05:07 PM
Axiom, like many others here I too have difficulty accepting that 9/11 is an inside job. It's inconceivable that corrupt politicians are willing to go as far as committing mass murder to gain greater control of the populace. I've heard some crazy conspiracies, one for example: 9/11 is conducted by Jews, to entice America to do more about Islamic terrorists (particularly the Palestinian ones).

However, despite my disagreements over some of your conspiracy theories (especially the more colourful ones), there are many points on the War on Terror I'm uncomfortable about. One such point is, Bush declares that Islamic terrorists hate America simply because they "envy America's freedom and power". The fact that people believe this load of BS is infuriating. I agree with Ron Paul, the terrorists target America simply because American troops are present in their country and are involving themselves in things that have nothing to do with the US.

In the past, when war was declared, many industries were transformed in order to help with the war effort (e.g. weapons manufacturing). Civilians are drafted into the military, food becomes scarce at home (because it's all being sent to the front lines), civilians are given training in case they there is an invasion...etc. With the War on Terror, for the American populace, it's business as usual. Something is very odd here.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2008, 05:42 PM
Axiom, like many others here I too have difficulty accepting that 9/11 is an inside job.
As well as all the other reacons given, governments are usually too incompetent to organize big conspiracies. It's usually safe to think that many results are actually unintended consequences. The political Left on the other hand often want to claim that results are intended.


One such point is, Bush declares that Islamic terrorists hate America simply because they "envy America's freedom and power". The fact that people believe this load of BS is infuriating. I agree with Ron Paul, the terrorists target America simply because American troops are present in their country and are involving themselves in things that have nothing to do with the US.
Paul is great on domestic policy but loopy on international policy. He seems to remember nothing: evil people target the weak and need no excuse. Israel has given so much land to the "Palestinians" yet are attacked more than ever. America has actually saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait from non-Muslim aggressors, and same with Afghanistan. Australia was attacked in Bali, note.

Igor_Goldenberg
26-07-2008, 09:29 PM
War on drugs,
War on poverty,
War on terror,

I want be surprised if "war on climate" will be announced as well.
The first two are a complete failure and were so from the offset, as the whole concept is completely flawed.
Same applies to "war on terror".

eclectic
26-07-2008, 09:37 PM
not to mention the ...

war on conspiracy!!!

:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Axiom
26-07-2008, 09:38 PM
War on drugs,
War on poverty,
War on terror,

I want be surprised if "war on climate" will be announced as well.
The first two are a complete failure and were so from the offset, as the whole concept is completely flawed.
Same applies to "war on terror".
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Why can't more people see this ?

It wouldn't be because of the mal-informing media would it ?

Axiom
26-07-2008, 09:40 PM
not to mention the ...

war on conspiracy!!!

:uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:
That appears to be not much of a war as normally the mere mention of the word "conspiracy" ends the conflict stone dead ! :lol:

CameronD
26-07-2008, 09:41 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Why can't more people see this ?

It wouldn't be because of the mal-informing media would it ?

You cant win a war onan enemy you cant see. The best the US could hope for military wise is to minimise the damage.

Axiom
26-07-2008, 10:02 PM
Axiom, like many others here I too have difficulty accepting that 9/11 is an inside job. I also have difficulty in accepting 9/11 was an inside job , but i am far less apt to believe the official story which is riddled with gaping holes


It's inconceivable that corrupt politicians are willing to go as far as committing mass murder to gain greater control of the populace. you haven't heard of "sacrifice for the greater good" , sun tsu - all war is deception, nero's burning of rome(to blame on the christians), operation northwoods PLAN , pearl harbour prior knowledge,reichstag fire 1933, gulf of tonkin incident ?
History is the finest teacher . Research the history of secret societies that became our intelligence services of today , discover their modus operandi , it will then make sense.

, there are many points on the War on Terror I'm uncomfortable about. One such point is, Bush declares that Islamic terrorists hate America simply because they "envy America's freedom and power". yet the us govt is the very one taking away those freedoms , that the terrorists supposedly hate ! :lol: ... i mean ,you just cannot make this kind of stuff up (only the neo cons can !)


The fact that people believe this load of BS is infuriating. I agree with Ron Paul, the terrorists target America simply because American troops are present in their country and are involving themselves in things that have nothing to do with the US. yes, war crimes in fact.
if ron paul had big media backing he would be president , he simply is a threat to the standing oligarchy (and it's whore media)


In the past, when war was declared, many industries were transformed in order to help with the war effort (e.g. weapons manufacturing). Civilians are drafted into the military, food becomes scarce at home (because it's all being sent to the front lines), civilians are given training in case they there is an invasion...etc. With the War on Terror, for the American populace, it's business as usual. Something is very odd here.
also, where are all the convictions ?
where are all these terrifying terrorists?
working on a new exploding shoe , nicer smelling shampoo explosives??
note also the shift from arabs being the terrorists to the "home grown ,blue eyed " terrorist !
The open ended nature of the war allows for as far a wide a net as the gov deems fit ! ...and in the last 100 yrs of human history we have seen many govts behind wholesale destruction of it's peoples !

Zwischenzug
26-07-2008, 11:12 PM
Paul is great on domestic policy but loopy on international policy. He seems to remember nothing: evil people target the weak and need no excuse. Israel has given so much land to the "Palestinians" yet are attacked more than ever. America has actually saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait from non-Muslim aggressors, and same with Afghanistan. Australia was attacked in Bali, note.
I believe that domestic issues always trumps foreign policy. It's hard to be the global moral police when your own country is facing a recession. With the Bali bombers, Australians were targeted as a result of our government's support for America and the Iraqi war. As horrible as it was, it wouldn't have happened if Australia remained neutral. It also has nothing to do with terrorists being envious of the freedoms and the wealth of western nations (the usual rhetoric from the Bush administration). It's those countries that sends troops to the middle east that are at most risk to terrorism at home.

Zwischenzug
26-07-2008, 11:49 PM
you haven't heard of "sacrifice for the greater good"
What is good is subjective. What is considered good to the government might not be considered good by the public. Especially won't be considered good by those being sacrificed :D .

So many issues in America I don't know where to start. Though I do believe that some civil liberties are being removed, it's probably being removed from those of "middle eastern appearance" (note the abuses in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib). I don't believe that it affects white Americans as much compared to Arab Americans. Axiom, I believe you under-estimate the affect of racism in America. Racism is deeply entrenched in America but is only just one of the many issues.

In fact, what I liked about Obama is he tried to speak out against racism in American society. Though I respect him for this and admire his skill as an orator, I believe the economic issues raised by Ron Paul trumps them all. Ron Paul had it right when it comes to domestic issues and the War on Terror (Jono would think otherwise on the latter). Too bad attitudes that differ from Ron Paul is so entrenched in US politics.

Axiom
27-07-2008, 12:48 AM
What is good is subjective. What is considered good to the government might not be considered good by the public. exactly !


So many issues in America I don't know where to start. Though I do believe that some civil liberties are being removed, it's probably being removed from those of "middle eastern appearance" (note the abuses in Guantánamo Bay and Abu Ghraib). I don't believe that it affects white Americans as much compared to Arab Americans. Axiom, I believe you under-estimate the affect of racism in America. Racism is deeply entrenched in America but is only just one of the many issues. i dont think racism is behind the invasion of the middle east , just used to fuel the agenda.


In fact, what I liked about Obama is he tried to speak out against racism in American society. Though I respect him for this and admire his skill as an orator, I believe the economic issues raised by Ron Paul trumps them all. Ron Paul had it right when it comes to domestic issues and the War on Terror (Jono would think otherwise on the latter). Too bad attitudes that differ from Ron Paul is so entrenched in US politics.
i agree ! :clap:

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2008, 12:16 PM
What is good is subjective. What is considered good to the government might not be considered good by the public. Especially won't be considered good by those being sacrificed :D .
Good is objective, but government is run by self-interested people, just as much as private businesses are. The difference is that in the free market, businesses serve their own interests best by giving the public what it wants at a price they can afford; governments serve vested interests.


Axiom, I believe you under-estimate the affect of racism in America. Racism is deeply entrenched in America but is only just one of the many issues.

In fact, what I liked about Obama is he tried to speak out against racism in American society.
What racism?? He and his wife are doing very nicely, thank you. If Black America were a country, its economy would be about #15 in the world. Yet the Obamas attended a racist church for 20 years, and left only when the pastor pointed out that Obama was a typical politician--not when the pastor denounced America for causing AIDS and claiming that 11-9 was America's chickens coming home to roost.


Though I respect him for this and admire his skill as an orator,
But what has the junior senator of Illinois actually said? Hope and change are not enough. What has this former "community organizer" actually done? Two books about his favorite subject: himself.

[QUOTE=Zwischenzug]I believe the economic issues raised by Ron Paul trumps them all.
Paul's economics are by far the best of all the candidates, and he is the closest to the original meaning of the Constitution.

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2008, 02:46 PM
It's inconceivable that corrupt politicians are willing to go as far as committing mass murder to gain greater control of the populace.

Actually that's one aspect that I don't find inconceivable - but it's just about the only one.

Axiom
27-07-2008, 02:50 PM
Who Threatens You Most: The President, Congress, Fed--Or Iran?

http://www.strike-the-root.com/82/herman/herman1.html

Zwischenzug
27-07-2008, 03:10 PM
Actually that's one aspect that I don't find inconceivable - but it's just about the only one.
It's inconceivable in the context of "911 was an inside job". Of course, there were despots in the past that used mass murder to subjugate and oppress their own people.

Zwischenzug
27-07-2008, 03:39 PM
With Iran, Mahmoud Amadinajad threatened Israel and as an ally of Israel, America is obligated to declare Iran as it's enemy. America is Iran's enemy by association. As for securing Iraqi oil, the rationale would be to ensure that Iran (the enemy) does not grow into a serious threat by denying it Iraq oil. Is Iran a threat to the US? In my opinion, in the short term no and in the long term maybe. Also because it is unclear in my mind whether Iran is a potential threat, military action should be used sparingly. Again, I still believe that threats and attacks against America are repercussions to military action in the middle east.

America cannot make the middle east pro-US and pro-Israel through military force. As for nuclear weapons, a science teacher once told me that every country should have nukes, that way even America is forced to be diplomatic instead of using threats. How valid this last point is I don't know.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2008, 03:54 PM
With Iran, Mahmoud Amadinajad threatened Israel and as an ally of Israel, America is obligated to declare Iran as it's enemy. America is Iran's enemy by association.
Iran started that by invading what is legally American soil, i.e. the embassy hostaged. And America should back Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, against enemies that want to wipe that tiny country off the map.


Also because it is unclear in my mind whether Iran is a potential threat, military action should be used sparingly. Again, I still believe that threats and attacks against America are repercussions to military action in the middle east.
It's the other way round. Islamofacists have always been at everyone else's throats, and attack each other in the absence of a common enemy.


America cannot make the middle east pro-US and pro-Israel through military force.
It made Japan pro-US through nuclear attack, when it was previously anti-US to a suicidal degree. Israel should attack Teheran, with nukes if necessary, if Iran looks like completing a nuclear bomb, which they have made crystal clear would be used on Israel.


As for nuclear weapons, a science teacher once told me that every country should have nukes, that way even America is forced to be diplomatic instead of using threats. How valid this last point is I don't know.
It might have been valid when even despots valued self-preservation. But Islamofascists like Ahmadi-Nutjob don't care if his own country is obliterated, as long as he can destroy Israel.

Zwischenzug
27-07-2008, 04:01 PM
Most interesting debates I've been having. Though Jono has a far different opinion to mine in some areas (scratch that, most areas except economic policy and global warming), has given me much to think about.

Capablanca-Fan
27-07-2008, 04:13 PM
Most interesting debates I've been having. Though Jono has a far different opinion to mine in some areas (scratch that, most areas except economic policy and global warming), has given me much to think about.
Thanx. There are quite good debates among chess colleagues that would result in flame wars on many other forums.

Basil
27-07-2008, 04:20 PM
Actually that's one aspect that I don't find inconceivable - but it's just about the only one.
Would you care to suggest the names of say three western democratic leaders since 1900 who would be prepared to commit mass murder to gain greater control of the populace? Two?

Axiom
28-07-2008, 02:10 PM
Iran started that by invading what is legally American soil, i.e. the embassy hostaged. which had nothing of course to do with this :-
"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état deposed the elected government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and his cabinet, it was effected by SIS and CIA spies working with anti-Communist civilians and army officers. This coup d'état, Operation Ajax required CIA man Kermit Roosevelt, Jr.'s bribing government officials, the news media, and others, [1] to allow imposing retired Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi and Imperial Guard Col. Nematollah Nassiri as the government.[2]

This deposition of an elected civil government was "a critical event in post-war world history", because it re-installed the very unpopular Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, leading a pro-Western dictatorship, that, in the event, contributed to his deposition by the anti-Western Islamic Republic in 1979. [3]" -wiki

And America should back Israel, the only democracy in the middle east, against enemies that want to wipe that tiny country off the map. are you repeating the oft mis quote of ahmadinajad ?


""The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime.

This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem ).

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

A word by word translation: Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods ( Jerusalem ) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"?

The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel". " http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_07/Persia_220307.html


It's the other way round. Islamofacists have always been at everyone else's throats, and attack each other in the absence of a common enemy.
sorry, this is just more myopic propaganda rubbish
note uk,usa history of being at everyone else's throats for a start !


It made Japan pro-US through nuclear attack, when it was previously anti-US to a suicidal degree. Israel should attack Teheran, with nukes if necessary, if Iran looks like completing a nuclear bomb, which they have made crystal clear would be used on Israel.
more propaganda.
iran is at least 7 yrs away from a nuke , they are surrounded by nuclear armed countries , pakistan,india,russia ,china ,israel , they are hardly in a position to be a threat to anyone.
the iraq war was based on lies , and the same ruse is being tried with iran.


But Islamofascists like Ahmadi-Nutjob don't care if his own country is obliterated, as long as he can destroy Israel.
israel is more a threat to iran than vica versa

Zwischenzug
28-07-2008, 02:20 PM
Sounds like Amadinajad called for the collapse of the Israeli government. However he doesn't demand for Israelis to leave Israel. On one hand, Israel is completely surrounded by countries that oppose it. On the other hand, Israel is a military force in the middle east relative to it's neighbors and has the support of a world superpower. Both of these points tells me that this conflict isn't going to be resolved soon and has the potential to escalate.

Axiom
01-08-2008, 01:51 AM
Top Advisor Confirms War on Terror Is a Hoax: “There is No Battlefield Solution to Terrorism”

George Washington Blog | July 29, 2008

A leading advisor to the U.S. military, the Rand Corporation, just released a new study called “How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida”.




The report confirms what we have been saying for years: the war on terror is a hoax which is actually weakening national security (see this, this and this).

As today’s press release about the study states:

“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors, and our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”

Can we drop the “war on terror” charade now?

all supporting links here http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/07/top-advisor-to-us-military-confirms-war.html

Ian Murray
01-08-2008, 08:27 AM
... “Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors..."
So counter-terrorism is a matter which should be handled by civil police only?

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2008, 10:16 AM
Israel has given so much land to the "Palestinians" yet are attacked more than ever. America has actually saved Muslims in Bosnia and Kuwait from non-Muslim aggressors

Did they have to?
We can see now that those actions were pointless.

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2008, 10:29 AM
So counter-terrorism is a matter which should be handled by civil police only?
Generally speaking, yes. I also believe they would be much more efficient then various "special units".

Igor_Goldenberg
01-08-2008, 10:40 AM
Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel". "
Hmmm. So if instead of "wipe Iran of the map" we say "regime occupying Teheran must vanish from the page of time". would it be the same?

Probably not. When American politician says something like this, he usually means regime should be changed by another regime, preserving the same population and geographical borders.

Are you saying (seriously) ahmadinajad suggests another government (or another form of government) formed by Jewish people within the same geographical borders?

Do you agree that any other meaning is inherently racist, as it would deny to Jews the right to live in Israel and govern themselves?

Ian Murray
01-08-2008, 10:58 PM
Generally speaking, yes. I also believe they would be much more efficient then various "special units".
Generally speaking, the average copper is no match for terrorists/criminals with the sort of military training received in their training camps. Specialised training in military-style countermeasures is needed, whether by military units (e.g. SASR) or paramilitary police units (e.g. SWAT).

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2008, 11:45 AM
Did they have to?
We can see now that those actions were pointless.
Yeah. I was merely pointing out that the Islamofascists have not excuse to attack America, contra some of the other posters here, because America had actually gone out of its way to intervene to save Muslims.

Zwischenzug
02-08-2008, 11:54 AM
Yeah. I was merely pointing out that the Islamofascists have not excuse to attack America, contra some of the other posters here, because America had actually gone out of its way to intervene to save Muslims.

Jono, I'm slowly agreeing with your views. Islamic hardliners and Muslim terrorists needs to be at the very least, watched closely, in order to take preventative measures when mere rhetoric turns into violence. However, it's hard to do so without marginalizing moderate Muslims alongside the more extreme ones. But, military action, though it causes such people to rally against Israel/America, their violence actions/intentions can't be ignored.

Capablanca-Fan
02-08-2008, 12:33 PM
Jono, I'm slowly agreeing with your views. Islamic hardliners and Muslim terrorists needs to be at the very least, watched closely, in order to take preventative measures when mere rhetoric turns into violence. However, it's hard to do so without marginalizing moderate Muslims alongside the more extreme ones. But, military action, though it causes such people to rally against Israel/America, their violence actions/intentions can't be ignored.
Thanx ZZ. For example, the latest weakness by Israel, returning a convicted child-butchering terrorist in return for two Israeli corpses, will surely encourage more killing of Israelis. Conversely, the successful Entebbe rescue in 1976 (http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_entebbe.php), despite bleats about violating Uganda's sovereignty and of course killing the hijackers, helped stem further hijackings.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-08-2008, 12:15 PM
Generally speaking, the average copper is no match for terrorists/criminals with the sort of military training received in their training camps. Specialised training in military-style countermeasures is needed, whether by military units (e.g. SASR) or paramilitary police units (e.g. SWAT).

That's what I used to believe. But the popular movies showing secret agents as super heroes might be a bit misleading.

The secrecy surrounding those agencies lead to a lack of accountability, which also leads to a lack of competence. Paramilitary police units have enough training to match any criminal/terrorist, and police detectives have enough expertise and knowledge (in comparison to their "classified" counterparts) to investigate and even prevent crimes.

Capablanca-Fan
04-08-2008, 02:33 AM
One problem is that the police are trying to obtain evidence that would be admissable in a court of law to reach a conviction. The military and secret service countermeasures just need enough evidence to prevent a terrorist attack.

eclectic
04-08-2008, 04:03 PM
an article i came across today

http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2468135&title=Armies_Wont_Win_War_on.html

Axiom
04-08-2008, 04:24 PM
http://www.rense.com/general82/rats.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/02/AR2008080201632.html?hpid=topnews

eclectic
04-08-2008, 04:27 PM
be thankful it wasn't AXthrAX otherwise we may never have heard of you AX!!

:owned:

Axiom
04-08-2008, 06:41 PM
Evan Kohlmann behind Pentagon produced psyop being presented as evidence in Guantanamo trial

Steve Watson

Friday, August 1, 2008

A Pentagon produced documentary on Al Qaeda which was presented as evidence at the first Guantanamo war crimes trial was created by a terrorism consultant who has previously attempted to pass off Pentagon released propaganda as directly released by Al Qaeda.

“The Al-Qaida Plan” was shown to an audience of military jurors hearing evidence against a former driver for Osama bin Laden earlier this week. The movie essentially props up the official government version of events on 9/11 and asserts that there was a coordinated “overarching conspiracy” by operatives of Osama Bin Laden to carry out the attacks.

One interesting facet of this, beyond the ludicrous notion that a Pentagon produced film could be classed as neutral evidence, was revealed in an associated press article:

The title of the al-Qaida video is a tribute to “The Nazi Plan,” a film the U.S. used to help convict German officers during the Nuremberg war crimes trials after World War II, said Evan Kohlmann, a consultant and terrorism expert hired to create the new video for use at the Guantanamo tribunals.

Evan Kohlmann has worked for the FBI as well as other governmental organizations and think tanks. He runs Globalterroralert, a New York-based consulting firm whose clients include government and private businesses. However, *******s readers may remember him best as the consultant on NBC who attempted to pass off stage managed Pentagon released Al Qaeda footage as newly obtained and released by the terrorists themselves.

The footage in question showed Mohammed Atta and fellow alleged hijacker Ziad Jarrah laughing and joking. Clips of the two were crudely cut with an Osama Bin Laden rally.

We covered this back in October 2006 as part of our series on Al Qaeda Tapes in which we exposed direct links to military psyops and Donald Rumsfeld.

At the time we reported:

The NBC “US analysis” should be the focus of the latest tape… It is an astounding piece of psyop propaganda that attempts in a shoddy way to fill in the “gaps” in 9/11 intelligence. The analyst, Evan Coleman (sic), after admitting that the Pentagon has been “sitting on it” goes on to say:

“It is important for people to watch and realize that this video is conclusive proof that 9/11 was orchestrated by Al Qaeda at the most senior levels.”

He then makes a direct assault on the 9/11 truth movement by saying:

“This is the kind of video proof that is going to put a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists out in the cold and for good reason.”

Coleman contradicts himself throughout his own report by saying the Pentagon has had the video since 2001 whilst still towing the line that it was Al Qaeda that released the video.

We revealed that portions of the video Kohlmann was attempting to pass off as newly released Al Qaeda footage had been previously seen in a docudrama, The Road To Guantanamo, where it is shown to detainees at camp Delta as an intelligence surveillance tape.

Along with experts on Islamic terrorist groups who were baffled by the video and declared that it had come from a security agency, the very journalist who received the tape also announced that the source was not Al Qaeda.

This did not matter to Kohlmann who appeared on several news stations hyping the Pentagon released video, using it to bolster the government version of events on 9/11 and to attack anyone who questions it.

Now this man is creating Al Qaeda videos which are being used as evidence in the trials of so called terrorists.

*

Scorpio
05-08-2008, 04:26 PM
One problem is that the police are trying to obtain evidence that would be admissable in a court of law to reach a conviction. The military and secret service countermeasures just need enough evidence to prevent a terrorist attack.
I suppose it all depands on what the objective is. Preventing terrorism or punishing them.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-08-2008, 09:24 PM
One problem is that the police are trying to obtain evidence that would be admissable in a court of law to reach a conviction. The military and secret service countermeasures just need enough evidence to prevent a terrorist attack.

They often complain that existing legal framework is too restrictive and secret service needs extra power. IMHO, this is just to cover their lack of competence (and an extra excuse for the bureaucracy to increase a power grab).

Scorpio
07-08-2008, 05:02 PM
They often complain that existing legal framework is too restrictive and secret service needs extra power. IMHO, this is just to cover their lack of competence (and an extra excuse for the bureaucracy to increase a power grab).
I think the authorities are very competent even though they don't always show it.

Axiom
07-08-2008, 10:17 PM
BIG TERRORIST CONVICTION !! :-

GUILTY !!

......of driving a car !


omg ! - is there no rest from this incessant rampaging plague of terrorists ?!

AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH !! :doh: :doh: :doh: :wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wall: :doh: :wall: :rolleyes:

RUN FOR YOUR LIVES !
THEY'RE EVERYWHERE !


.......give me a break ...

Igor_Goldenberg
07-08-2008, 10:46 PM
I think the authorities are very competent even though they don't always show it.

That's a good one!!!!

Scorpio
08-08-2008, 04:49 PM
That's a good one!!!!

You don't sound convinced. :) Scotland Yard is impressive and well funded, I wasn't kidding.

Scorpio
08-08-2008, 04:50 PM
That's a good one!!!!
..

Axiom
08-08-2008, 04:52 PM
You don't sound convinced. :) Scotland Yard is impressive and well funded, I wasn't kidding.
scorpio - please expand on your view
you show some debating potential .

Scorpio
08-08-2008, 04:55 PM
scorpio - please expand on your view
you show some debating potential .

Thank you Mr Axiom. What would you like to debate? Also, can you please tell the moderator that I was unable to delete post # 65 above, but for some reason it wouldn't let me :(

Axiom
08-08-2008, 05:07 PM
I think the authorities are very competent even though they don't always show it.
could you expand on this with relation to the disappearing middle class
9/11, anthrax attacks , wmd lies led iraq war , the plunging us dollar , the man made global warming hoax , alex jones , the info war , wmd lies , fed reserve, globalism, conspiracy theory , the cfr , high level crime and corruption , ponerology, rogue states , aldous huxley , bertrand russell, 33 degree free masons , corporate media , propaganda , tyranny etc

Rincewind
08-08-2008, 05:09 PM
could you expand on this with relation to the disappearing middle class
9/11, anthrax attacks , wmd lies led iraq war , the plunging us dollar , the man made global warming hoax , alex jones , the info war , wmd lies , fed reserve, globalism, conspiracy theory , the cfr , high level crime and corruption , ponerology, rogue states , aldous huxley , bertrand russell, 33 degree free masons , corporate media , propaganda , tyranny etc

Some comment on the falling SNR on CC as a result of these sort of posts would also be enlightening.

Axiom
08-08-2008, 05:11 PM
Some comment on the falling SNR on CC as a result of these sort of posts would also be enlightening.
THE SOUND OF PEOPLE WAKING UP PERHAPS ?

Igor_Goldenberg
08-08-2008, 11:50 PM
You don't sound convinced. :) Scotland Yard is impressive and well funded, I wasn't kidding.
It's a police unit, AFAIK. They manage without secret service help. don't they?
I actually mentioned before that IMHO police has enough competence to deal with all security measures.

Scorpio
15-08-2008, 05:02 PM
could you expand on this with relation to the disappearing middle class
9/11, anthrax attacks , wmd lies led iraq war , the plunging us dollar , the man made global warming hoax , alex jones , the info war , wmd lies , fed reserve, globalism, conspiracy theory , the cfr , high level crime and corruption , ponerology, rogue states , aldous huxley , bertrand russell, 33 degree free masons , corporate media , propaganda , tyranny etc

Thank you for the invitation but I am not going to discuss all of these. Please choose one and then I will do my best on that subject.

Scorpio
18-08-2008, 05:26 PM
Thank you for the invitation but I am not going to discuss all of these. Please choose one and then I will do my best on that subject.
It seems Mr Axiom has lost interest. I guess that means I am off the hook.

Axiom
18-08-2008, 06:37 PM
It seems Mr Axiom has lost interest. I guess that means I am off the hook.
just pick one of the above !

or try and argue against this : the obviously biased western media towards its treatment of the current georgia-russia conflict !

MichaelBaron
19-08-2008, 12:08 AM
just pick one of the above !

or try and argue against this : the obviously biased western media towards its treatment of the current georgia-russia conflict !
:clap: True

Axiom
19-08-2008, 01:56 AM
http://www.rense.com/general83/Collateral_Damage_28062008.pdf

MichaelBaron
19-08-2008, 11:08 AM
http://www.rense.com/general83/Collateral_Damage_28062008.pdf

Axiom is turning into a Professor of Politics ;)

Scorpio
19-08-2008, 04:57 PM
just pick one of the above !

or try and argue against this : the obviously biased western media towards its treatment of the current georgia-russia conflict !

I don't think it is biased at all. Russia did the wrong thing by invading, they should leave. Its that simple.

Zwischenzug
19-08-2008, 05:30 PM
I don't think it is biased at all. Russia did the wrong thing by invading, they should leave. Its that simple.
Scorpio, this statement is going to upset a few people here, especially the Russian members. Fact is, Georgia attacked South Ossetia killing over 1400 people. What damage Russia has done to Georgia in retaliation I don't know but all I know is how it started and how biased western media (particularly the US media) really is. I saw a Russian American girl (12 years old) go on US television thanking the Russia troops for rescuing her, only to be cut off by the news anchor shortly after.

Axiom
19-08-2008, 05:34 PM
I don't think it is biased at all. Russia did the wrong thing by invading, they should leave. Its that simple.
You cannot possibly be serious. :wall:

Axiom
21-08-2008, 08:33 PM
not more false flags , surely not ??!! :wall:

Advisor to FBI in Anthrax Investigation Says Attack Was False Flag Terror

George Washington’s Blog
August 20, 2008

We all know that the bioweapons expert who actually drafted the current bioweapons law (the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989) - Francis Boyle - has said that he is convinced the October 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people were perpetrated and covered up by criminal elements of the U.S. government, and that the motive was to foment a police state by killing off and intimidating opposition to post-9/11 legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act and the later Military Commissions Act.

But a new article reveals an interesting fact: Professor Boyle "advised the FBI in its initial investigation of the anthrax letters."

In other words, an FBI advisor himself believes that the anthrax attack was a false flag operation.

http://www.*******s.com/?p=4053

Scorpio
22-08-2008, 04:49 PM
You cannot possibly be serious. :wall:

Its too early in the morning to debate heavy issues like this.

Axiom
02-09-2008, 07:46 PM
Its too early in the morning to debate heavy issues like this.
take YOUR TIME .

Axiom
02-09-2008, 07:50 PM
Anyone who does not at least question the events of 9/11 after watching this docu-video , is i'm afraid to say , by sheer definition , a mind controlled uncritically thinking unobjective , unclear thinking brainwashed zombie sheeple. .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&ei=Huy7SMfXG4Wu-wHAnIndDA&q=fabled+enemies

Kevin Bonham
02-09-2008, 10:03 PM
Anyone who does not at least question the events of 9/11 after watching this docu-video , is i'm afraid to say , by sheer definition , a mind controlled uncritically thinking unobjective , unclear thinking brainwashed zombie sheeple.

Then I shall escape that classification by refusing to watch it. :hand:

You asked me for ways to improve your argument. Here's one. Stop the "if you don't agree with me you're brainwashed/stupid" type of bluster. Nobody of any calibre believes something they would not otherwise believe just because somebody says they must be brainwashed and/or stupid if they don't.

The sort of person whose mind is changed by such tactics is, by sheer definition, a mind-controllable uncritically thinking unobjective, unclear-thinking brainwashable zombie sheeple. :D

Axiom
03-09-2008, 12:15 AM
Then I shall escape that classification by refusing to watch it. :hand:

You asked me for ways to improve your argument. Here's one. Stop the "if you don't agree with me you're brainwashed/stupid" type of bluster. Nobody of any calibre believes something they would not otherwise believe just because somebody says they must be brainwashed and/or stupid if they don't.

The sort of person whose mind is changed by such tactics is, by sheer definition, a mind-controllable uncritically thinking unobjective, unclear-thinking brainwashable zombie sheeple. :D
Dare i say that you are responding in the way i described by glossing over a critical part of my first sentence : "who does not at least question "
I clearly did not say anything of the type of "if you don't agree with me" but should at least question !
A significant difference i would have thought , to the clear, uncluttered thinker .

Now come on KB , settle back with a nice cuppa and enjoy the film.

Kevin Bonham
03-09-2008, 12:29 AM
Dare i say that you are responding in the way i described by glossing over a critical part of my first sentence : "who does not at least question "

You can dare say that if you like but I will refute it easily. I will point out that your implied attack had two necessary conditions: (i) "who does not at least question" and (ii) "after watching this doco-video". It therefore does not necessarily apply to anyone who has not yet watched the doco-video or who refuses to do so because of Axiom's poor debating tactics.


I clearly did not say anything of the type of "if you don't agree with me" but should at least question !
A significant difference i would have thought , to the clear, uncluttered thinker .

The clear uncluttered thinker believes that when you use "question" what you mean is actually more likely "find suspicious" than merely "enquire into". Be that as it may, there are two possibilities:

(i) That a clear uncluttered thinker on viewing the film might still see nothing needing further questioning. In this case your attack is bogus.

(ii) That a clear uncluttered thinker on viewing the film would think it raised valid questions. In this case your attack is unnecessary clutter.


Now come on KB , settle back with a nice cuppa and enjoy the film.

I'll settle for the first thanks; indeed I just did.

Igor_Goldenberg
03-09-2008, 09:14 AM
Official version of 9/11 does not stand up to a close scrutiny, there are too many contradiction and things that defy logic.

However, every "alternative version" I came across, including those promoted by some non-brainwashed members of this board, are much worse in terms of contradiction and lack of logic.

Why is it so? Recently I read a brilliant piece by Tomas Sowell (http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/08/26/random_thoughts) in which I took a liberty to highlight in bold a piece I liked most:

"The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer-- and they don't want explanations that do not give them that. "

Indeed, conspirologists cannot accept that incompetence and laziness (which bureaucrats try to cover up later by lies and deceit) account for 99,99% of all cock-ups, because it gives them no villain to hate and no hero (which is usually a conspirologist himself) to idolise.

MichaelBaron
03-09-2008, 03:23 PM
"The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer-- and they don't want explanations that do not give them that. "



Unfortunately, this is so true!

Trent Parker
03-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Anyone who does not at least question the events of 9/11 after watching this docu-video , is i'm afraid to say , by sheer definition , a mind controlled uncritically thinking unobjective , unclear thinking brainwashed zombie sheeple. .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2144933190875239407&ei=Huy7SMfXG4Wu-wHAnIndDA&q=fabled+enemies

Should i watch it? hmmm

Its Posted by Ax.......

Nah if Ax Posted it its rubbish! :D

No need to follow Ax's *******s crapola!

:lol: :lol: :owned: :P :P :P

Axiom
03-09-2008, 09:26 PM
Should i watch it? hmmm

Its Posted by Ax.......

Nah if Ax Posted it its rubbish! :D

No need to follow Ax's *******s crapola!

:lol: :lol: :owned: :P :P :P
Hope your analysis of a chess position is not as superficial ! :hand:

Axiom
16-09-2008, 11:46 PM
Listen once
Listen twice
and Listen again.

Pure
Succinct
Truth

QIrZuYd_85A

Axiom
17-09-2008, 12:45 PM
YouTube’s Version of the Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act

Kurt Nimmo

September 16, 2008

YouTube has implemented its very own version of H.R. 1955, entitled the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. 1955 is in the Senate and is not law as of this writing. For the millions of people who post on YouTube, however, it may as well be law.



Sen. Joseph Lieberman attempted to pressure YouTube into censoring videos earlier this year.


You may recall Sen. Joseph Lieberman earlier this year barking orders from on-high down at Google, the owner of YouTube, demanding the popular video site block content “depicting assassinations, death of US soldiers, as well as weapon training and speeches that encourage violence and could be used as a tool to create homegrown terrorists,” as Dee Chisamera writes for eFluxMedia.

At the time, YouTube called foul and said while “we respect and understand [Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view,” according to ABC News.

Four short months later, after media attention has long since shifted elsewhere, YouTube and Google have sent the Fist Amendment to the recycle bin.

YouTube has posted “a warning in its community guidelines meant to stop such videos from being uploaded on YouTube,” a move that apparently pleased the neocon Lieberman, at least somewhat. “Sen. Lieberman hailed YouTube’s decision to strengthen its standards, however, he also continued to urge Google, who owns YouTube, to remove all videos produced by Foreign Terrorist Organizations, not just those that violate community guidelines,” explains Chisamera.




Even so, Lieberman insists YouTube represents “a tool for Islamist terrorist organizations to recruit and train followers.”

That said, it is time to put all of this into perspective. First and foremost, the validity of al-Qaeda and other supposed terrorist videos that inevitably end up on YouTube must be challenged.

As researcher and computer security consultant Neal Krawetz demonstrated last year during a conference in Las Vegas, an IntelCenter video allegedly produced by al-Qaeda’s video unit, As-Sahab, appears to be a cobbled together fake. IntelCenter is directly related to U.S. intelligence, a fact admitted on Wikipedia. IntelCenter has released a number of supposed al-Qaeda videos featuring any number of CIA and intelligence assets, including the Muslim Brotherhood and intelligence asset Ayman al-Zawahiri, the patsy “20th hijacker” Fawaz al-Nashimi, the U.S. military operative Muhammad Atta (who attended the Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama), and fellow “hijacker” patsies Ziad Al-Jarrah and Waleed al-Shehri. IntelCenter seems to be in competition with another CIA contractor, the SITE Institute, an organization featuring a number of characters right out of the Mossad’s central casting.




In other words, Lieberman and Google should have banned the CIA and Mossad from posting fake videos — and a number of the videos are so obviously fake as to be a bad joke — and dispensed with the new standards.

rUn3gE4bncg

As Jason Rutberg notes in the above video, a number of activists and patriots have had their videos removed from YouTube under its newly implemented standards. Rutberg claims the removals — not of Islamic terrorist videos, but rather political activist videos — and YouTube’s Lieberman influenced standards are part of an implementation of H.R. 1955: Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, otherwise known as the Thought Crime bill because it would criminalize political thought and speech.

1955 targets American citizens, i.e., “homegrown terrorists,” for “violent radicalization,” described as “the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system… to advance political, religious, or social change.” According to the authors of 1955, the “Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the United States by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to United States citizens,” that is to say blogs and, if we follow Lieberman’s train of thought, YouTube and Google Video.

1955 “is just too awesomely obscene for words. It exceeds not only the scope of my vocabulary, but my imagination as well,” writes Jeff Knaebel. “The minions and hired agents of politicians are free to murder, rape and pillage on government hire using our money, but to imagine alternatives to them and the degraded, psychopathic political ‘leaders’ who design and perpetrate these atrocities is legislated as a thought crime!”

Of course, these psychopaths understand the viral power of YouTube and that is why they are attempting to scour it of activist video. For a couple years running now, Google and YouTube have sabotaged Alex Jones’ videos, removing the videos entirely or altering viewing statistics. In addition, Google has blocked Prison Planet and *******s search information, most notably in regard to Charlie Sheen’s 9/11 comments in 2006.

Now it appears Alex Jones’ videos and those of others at odds with the global elite will be removed from YouTube as the products of “homegrown terrorists” bent on “violent radicalization,” that is to say telling the truth contrary to the lies released daily by the government and the corporate media.

It will be interesting to see what happens if and when 1955 emerges from the Senate. Section 899D of the bill establishes a Center for the Study of Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States. “This will be an institution affiliated with the Department of Homeland Security,” notes Knaebel. “It will study and determine how to detain thought criminals,” including those posting on YouTube.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2008, 09:13 PM
Four short months later, after media attention has long since shifted elsewhere, YouTube and Google have sent the Fist Amendment to the recycle bin.

The mind boggles.

Axiom
17-09-2008, 09:27 PM
The mind boggles.
as it surely should.

Kevin Bonham
17-09-2008, 09:39 PM
Um, you did realise I was just laughing at a typo there, "the Fist Amendment", didn't you? :lol:

Axiom
17-09-2008, 09:51 PM
Um, you did realise I was just laughing at a typo there, "the Fist Amendment", didn't you? :lol:
YES ! :lol:

Paul
12-10-2008, 10:26 PM
sad very sad

Sad becouse it is true. 1,500,000 people killed in Iraq alone since "Desert Storm" and no one is asking about them

Igor_Goldenberg
21-10-2008, 12:45 PM
sad very sad

Sad becouse it is true. 1,500,000 people killed in Iraq alone since "Desert Storm" and no one is asking about them
Two questions:
1. How many people died in Iraq in 5 years before the war?
2. Who killed most of alleged 1,500,000 people in the last 5 years?

Miranda
21-10-2008, 12:49 PM
I think the entire future of this war depends on the outcome of the US presidential election.

Capablanca-Fan
21-10-2008, 01:06 PM
I think the entire future of this war depends on the outcome of the US presidential election.
Yes:

if McCain wins: victory;
if Obama wins: surrender.



1,500,000 people killed in Iraq alone since "Desert Storm" and no one is asking about them.
To continue from Igor's post, many were killed by Saddam and his sadistic sons, and by the (rorted) UN sanctions. Even back in 2000 (http://www.commondreams.org/views/102300-103.htm):


U.N. officials estimate more than 1 million Iraqis have died in the last decade as a direct result of the sanctions. ... UNICEF blames the sanctions for the deaths of more than 500,000 Iraqi children under 5 since 1991.

Miranda
21-10-2008, 01:24 PM
If Obama won and took the troops out, I wouldn't call it surrender. I would call it 'a rational retreat'

America's gone to Iraq and done what they needed to do - searched for weapons of mass destruction and captures Saddam Hussein.

Capablanca-Fan
21-10-2008, 01:51 PM
If Obama won and took the troops out, I wouldn't call it surrender. I would call it 'a rational retreat'
I would call it surrender if it's anything like Vietnam, leaving our allies at the mercy of butchers, and emboldening America's enemies that America will run if hurt enough. Osama is on record saying that Clinton's retreat from Somalia after the "Black Hawk down" fiasco made him think that America was a soft target. The main point is that America's enemies will think it's a surrender—which is why the terrorist organizationHamas (Hebrew for "violence") has endorsed Obama (http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas_Endorses_Obama/2008/04/17/88754.html).


America's gone to Iraq and done what they needed to do — searched for weapons of mass destruction and captures Saddam Hussein.
They also need to make sure the place is stable. McCain's "surge" was doing just that, although Obama predicted that it would fail.

pax
10-11-2008, 05:33 PM
6000 Islam clerics declare a fatwa on terrorism (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/11/08/Muslim_clerics_endorse_anti-terror_fatwa/UPI-38241226199440/).