Ucigasii de copii (Beslan)
Infamy: Pearl Harbor, 911 and the Coming Outrage
Three years after 911, we still have no real clarity about "whodunit" let alone "whatdunit" - and if history is any indication, it could be decades before the truth is finally revealed.
But the Armageddon dreams of our nation's leaders mandate a more urgent timeframe.
Were 19 hijackers armed with box cutters really responsible for the WTC/Pentagon carnage? Seems increasingly implausible, as does the administration's claim of no prior knowledge. Remember Bush's comment about watching the first airplane hit the WTC before the second airplane even made impact? What video feed does he have anyway? The rest of us sure didn't see that live on our TVs.
As sick as it seems, it wouldn't be the first time a US administration has furthered its own political ambitions through attacks on American citizens.
Take Pearl Harbor. The official story (long ago discredited, yet still touted in Hollywood B-movies) was that Japanese forces caught the US totally off guard when they brutally attacked on December 7, 1941.
It was probably a lie. Many historians believe that members of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration actually knew about the impending assault, and just let the carnage roll in order to get the US public primed for war with Japan.
In his 1982 book Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, Pulitzer-prize winner John Toland reveals that almost everything the Japanese were planning to do "was known to the United States" on the morning of the attack, via intercepted messages never communicated to commanders at Pearl Harbor. He cites the case of US counterintelligence translator Dorothy Edgers who uncovered critical Japanese messages days before the assault, including "a scheme of signals regarding the movement and exact position of warships and carriers in Pearl Harbor." But Edgers' boss, Alwin Kramer, seemed "more annoyed than electrified" at the discovery and ordered her to "run along home." Unbeknownst to Edgers, Kramer was part of the subterfuge.
We all know what happened next. Japanese bombs rained down on the US naval vessels and aircraft poised like sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor, and the ensuing bloodbath left over 2,400 US service members and civilians dead. The following day, Congress voted overwhelmingly to give FDR all of the resources he wanted to wage war with Japan.
The parallels with 911 are stunning.
Today's Edgers is Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in March 2002 after exposing corruption at a critical FBI counterintelligence unit. Among Edmonds' charges: supervisors covered for a colleague who was smuggling sensitive documents out of FBI headquarters in order to protect contacts in "semi-legit" organizations. When Edmonds started speaking out about this stunning breach of national security, Attorney General John Ashcroft slapped her with a gag order.
Even worse, Bush's 911 Commission didn't address any of Edmonds' accusations, including her closed-door testimony that in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant had revealed "Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States, targeting 4-5 major cities," and that "the attack was going to involve airplanes."
You've got to wonder - if the 911 Commission left out that crucial tidbit, then what else did it fail to mention?
But the whole inquiry was a farce from the start. Appointing Henry Kissinger (notorious for covering up US involvement with murderous South American dictatorships) as chairman was the first clue. Replacing him with former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean was the second.
According to Fortune magazine (Jan. 22 2003), "Kean appears to have a bizarre link to the very terror network he's investigating - al Qaeda &ldots; Kean is a director of petroleum giant Amerada Hess, which in 1998 formed a joint venture - known as Delta Hess - with Delta Oil, a Saudi Arabian company, to develop oil fields in Azerbaijan. One of Delta's backers is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a shadowy Saudi patriarch married to one of Osama bin Laden's sisters. Mahfouz, who is suspected of funding charities linked to al Qaeda, is even named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims."
For the record, bin Mahfouz denies bin Laden is his brother-in-law and also denies ever having had ownership interest in Delta Oil. Interesting coincidence though that Hess severed ties with Delta just three weeks before Kean was appointed to the 911 Commission.
Another interesting coincidence: 28 pages of the inquiry's final report, covering "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," were blanked out. According to an official quoted in The New Republic (Aug. 1 2003), "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money &ldots; We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
Very murky indeed. And a third interesting coincidence surrounds the deadly anthrax-laced letters that hit the nation within weeks of 911. While "shocked" administration members were quick to blame Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein, they failed to mention one intriguing point: claims that Bush's staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, weeks before the attacks occurred.
According to the public-interest group Judicial Watch: "In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks." Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman notes, "One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew."
While the anthrax attacks remain unsolved, there were some clear outcomes for the Bush administration: increased justification to reduce civil liberties, to rev up biodefense spending and to create more hysteria around the need to invade Iraq.
The idea of using civilian casualties for political gain was codified in Operation Northwoods, a 1960's plan by top US military brass to orchestrate terrorism in American cities and blame it on Castro, thereby creating public support for a war with Cuba. More recently, the September 2000 neocon guidebook, Rebuilding America's Defenses, claims "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force."
So it's no surprise that over the past four years, we've learned to pay attention when the Bush administration and its minions in the press start dropping hints about the next big attack. They've most recently floated the idea of a catastrophic October Surprise assault, which they suggest could necessitate postponing the election. One official warned, "I can tell you one thing, we won't be like Spain," in an apparent reference to the conservative ruling party's having lost power days after the Madrid train bombings.
But Spain's election was a high-turnout, democratic contest in which voters fair and square booted an unpopular, lying, war-mongering administration. Why can't US voters have the same chance?
Another apparent option is a strike on Iran, maybe preceded by a stateside assault blamed on Tehran. A raving Washington Post column (July 23 2004) summed it up with:
"Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to transit and is today harboring al Qaeda leaders &ldots; If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."
Of course, the recent Pentagon spy scandal (in which top-secret presidential policy papers on Iran were reportedly leaked to Israeli officials) may put a damper on this alternative. The scandal highlights the neocons' power struggle with other administration members, and until that battle is decided, there won't be consensus enough to invade Iran. But if Israel does decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, then chances are strong Bush will jump in too, and we could be looking at WWIII.
As a sidelight, there's an interesting connection between the Pentagon spy scandal and September 11th: allegations that Israeli intelligence may have known about the 911 attacks in advance and not told the United States. In December 2001, Fox News ran a four-part series suggesting that Israeli intelligence may have had prior knowledge of the attack, through its spying on Arabs in the United States. The series was quickly yanked from the Fox web site, although a spokesman said, "We stand by the story."
So where does all of this leave us as the third anniversary of 911 approaches? With more questions than answers. Whodunnit? Should we blame Osama and the hijackers, Saudi funders, Israeli intelligence agents, the Bush administration or some combination? And Whatdunnit? Was it airplanes, bombs, missiles, or some combination? And when will we ever learn the truth?
Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing cover-up, the Army's Chief of Staff reportedly told other officers, "Gentlemen, this goes to the grave with us."
Unfortunately, today it seems that the president and his staff are busily digging our graves in order to satisfy their own grandiose power grabs.
This outrage must stop.
Three years after 911, we still have no real clarity about "whodunit" let alone "whatdunit" - and if history is any indication, it could be decades before the truth is finally revealed.
But the Armageddon dreams of our nation's leaders mandate a more urgent timeframe.
Were 19 hijackers armed with box cutters really responsible for the WTC/Pentagon carnage? Seems increasingly implausible, as does the administration's claim of no prior knowledge. Remember Bush's comment about watching the first airplane hit the WTC before the second airplane even made impact? What video feed does he have anyway? The rest of us sure didn't see that live on our TVs.
As sick as it seems, it wouldn't be the first time a US administration has furthered its own political ambitions through attacks on American citizens.
Take Pearl Harbor. The official story (long ago discredited, yet still touted in Hollywood B-movies) was that Japanese forces caught the US totally off guard when they brutally attacked on December 7, 1941.
It was probably a lie. Many historians believe that members of Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration actually knew about the impending assault, and just let the carnage roll in order to get the US public primed for war with Japan.
In his 1982 book Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, Pulitzer-prize winner John Toland reveals that almost everything the Japanese were planning to do "was known to the United States" on the morning of the attack, via intercepted messages never communicated to commanders at Pearl Harbor. He cites the case of US counterintelligence translator Dorothy Edgers who uncovered critical Japanese messages days before the assault, including "a scheme of signals regarding the movement and exact position of warships and carriers in Pearl Harbor." But Edgers' boss, Alwin Kramer, seemed "more annoyed than electrified" at the discovery and ordered her to "run along home." Unbeknownst to Edgers, Kramer was part of the subterfuge.
We all know what happened next. Japanese bombs rained down on the US naval vessels and aircraft poised like sitting ducks at Pearl Harbor, and the ensuing bloodbath left over 2,400 US service members and civilians dead. The following day, Congress voted overwhelmingly to give FDR all of the resources he wanted to wage war with Japan.
The parallels with 911 are stunning.
Today's Edgers is Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in March 2002 after exposing corruption at a critical FBI counterintelligence unit. Among Edmonds' charges: supervisors covered for a colleague who was smuggling sensitive documents out of FBI headquarters in order to protect contacts in "semi-legit" organizations. When Edmonds started speaking out about this stunning breach of national security, Attorney General John Ashcroft slapped her with a gag order.
Even worse, Bush's 911 Commission didn't address any of Edmonds' accusations, including her closed-door testimony that in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant had revealed "Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States, targeting 4-5 major cities," and that "the attack was going to involve airplanes."
You've got to wonder - if the 911 Commission left out that crucial tidbit, then what else did it fail to mention?
But the whole inquiry was a farce from the start. Appointing Henry Kissinger (notorious for covering up US involvement with murderous South American dictatorships) as chairman was the first clue. Replacing him with former New Jersey governor Thomas Kean was the second.
According to Fortune magazine (Jan. 22 2003), "Kean appears to have a bizarre link to the very terror network he's investigating - al Qaeda &ldots; Kean is a director of petroleum giant Amerada Hess, which in 1998 formed a joint venture - known as Delta Hess - with Delta Oil, a Saudi Arabian company, to develop oil fields in Azerbaijan. One of Delta's backers is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a shadowy Saudi patriarch married to one of Osama bin Laden's sisters. Mahfouz, who is suspected of funding charities linked to al Qaeda, is even named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims."
For the record, bin Mahfouz denies bin Laden is his brother-in-law and also denies ever having had ownership interest in Delta Oil. Interesting coincidence though that Hess severed ties with Delta just three weeks before Kean was appointed to the 911 Commission.
Another interesting coincidence: 28 pages of the inquiry's final report, covering "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," were blanked out. According to an official quoted in The New Republic (Aug. 1 2003), "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money &ldots; We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."
Very murky indeed. And a third interesting coincidence surrounds the deadly anthrax-laced letters that hit the nation within weeks of 911. While "shocked" administration members were quick to blame Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein, they failed to mention one intriguing point: claims that Bush's staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, weeks before the attacks occurred.
According to the public-interest group Judicial Watch: "In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks." Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman notes, "One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew."
While the anthrax attacks remain unsolved, there were some clear outcomes for the Bush administration: increased justification to reduce civil liberties, to rev up biodefense spending and to create more hysteria around the need to invade Iraq.
The idea of using civilian casualties for political gain was codified in Operation Northwoods, a 1960's plan by top US military brass to orchestrate terrorism in American cities and blame it on Castro, thereby creating public support for a war with Cuba. More recently, the September 2000 neocon guidebook, Rebuilding America's Defenses, claims "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up the process of transforming the US into "tomorrow's dominant force."
So it's no surprise that over the past four years, we've learned to pay attention when the Bush administration and its minions in the press start dropping hints about the next big attack. They've most recently floated the idea of a catastrophic October Surprise assault, which they suggest could necessitate postponing the election. One official warned, "I can tell you one thing, we won't be like Spain," in an apparent reference to the conservative ruling party's having lost power days after the Madrid train bombings.
But Spain's election was a high-turnout, democratic contest in which voters fair and square booted an unpopular, lying, war-mongering administration. Why can't US voters have the same chance?
Another apparent option is a strike on Iran, maybe preceded by a stateside assault blamed on Tehran. A raving Washington Post column (July 23 2004) summed it up with:
"Did we invade the wrong country? One of the lessons being drawn from the Sept. 11 report is that Iran was the real threat. It had links to al Qaeda, allowed some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to transit and is today harboring al Qaeda leaders &ldots; If nothing is done, a fanatical terrorist regime openly dedicated to the destruction of the 'Great Satan' will have both nuclear weapons and the terrorists and missiles to deliver them. All that stands between us and that is either revolution or preemptive strike."
Of course, the recent Pentagon spy scandal (in which top-secret presidential policy papers on Iran were reportedly leaked to Israeli officials) may put a damper on this alternative. The scandal highlights the neocons' power struggle with other administration members, and until that battle is decided, there won't be consensus enough to invade Iran. But if Israel does decide to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, then chances are strong Bush will jump in too, and we could be looking at WWIII.
As a sidelight, there's an interesting connection between the Pentagon spy scandal and September 11th: allegations that Israeli intelligence may have known about the 911 attacks in advance and not told the United States. In December 2001, Fox News ran a four-part series suggesting that Israeli intelligence may have had prior knowledge of the attack, through its spying on Arabs in the United States. The series was quickly yanked from the Fox web site, although a spokesman said, "We stand by the story."
So where does all of this leave us as the third anniversary of 911 approaches? With more questions than answers. Whodunnit? Should we blame Osama and the hijackers, Saudi funders, Israeli intelligence agents, the Bush administration or some combination? And Whatdunnit? Was it airplanes, bombs, missiles, or some combination? And when will we ever learn the truth?
Following the 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor and the ensuing cover-up, the Army's Chief of Staff reportedly told other officers, "Gentlemen, this goes to the grave with us."
Unfortunately, today it seems that the president and his staff are busily digging our graves in order to satisfy their own grandiose power grabs.
This outrage must stop.
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
[quote="silviuc"]Ma uit la voi si nu-mi vine sa cred: inca mai impartiti oamenii in americani, rusi, afgani, irakieni, osetini.. Poate ca si acasa la voi sunt “ aia de la C2, aia de la E2â€Â
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
ma uameni buni, 911 e unu dintre evenimentele cusute cu atza cea mai alba. chiar credetz ca americanii s-au nascut ieri si n-au 10 mii de supracontroale la controlorii de trafic aerian? chiar credetz ca in momentu in care un avion e deturnat nu se afla apruape instant? si ca fapt divers chiar nu se vede, la o analiza mai atenta a imaginilor, ca blocurile alea au fost daramate intentionat? cum se explica-ca wtc7 (parca), aflat la doo strazi distanta s-a daramat pe la 5pm "din cauza atentatului" in timp ce cladirile aflate intre turnuri si ala n-au avut nici pe dracu?
dar sa zicem ca-s relative treburile astea, cineva a remarcat fuarte bine treaba cu expunerea media (de preferat cu victime minime..sa nu uitam ca s-a intamplat la inceputu zilei si nu la o ora de maxim treaba), pai, cine se bazeaza pe mass-media cand e vorba de vreo strategie, de orice tip ar fi ea? cate scandaluri au fost in state (droguri, deturnaride fonduri) si de fiecare data cand opinia publica tragea cia de urechi astia o dadeau cotita?
zicea migu de "atentatu" de la madrid. a fost chiar un thread dedicat subiectului. tot americanii s-au ocupat de asta, vizata fiind ue, mai precis moneda.
legat de israel tre sa studiez indeaproape problema ca n-am destule date.
silviuc oi avea tu dreptate, dar uamenii care conduc sua is americani, ca urmare "americanii" trimit trupe americane in diverse zone. eu zic ca-i corect sa-i numim "americani" mai ales ca-s originari din sua. la fel de adevarat e ca si o groaza de "americani" nu sunt de-acord cu politica dusa de guvernu american, si la "americani" se vorbeste destul de mult despre prostiile facute de "americani" de-a lungul timpului. get my point?
supermouse eu stiam de 60-70% resurse petroliere, china + sua, ma rog, ideea e ca consuma mult americanii si consuma mult din resurse neregenerabile. da, uitasem de halliburton (a lu dick cheney) si exxon, halliburton is aia cu conducta de transport nu? corporate takeover...
dar sa zicem ca-s relative treburile astea, cineva a remarcat fuarte bine treaba cu expunerea media (de preferat cu victime minime..sa nu uitam ca s-a intamplat la inceputu zilei si nu la o ora de maxim treaba), pai, cine se bazeaza pe mass-media cand e vorba de vreo strategie, de orice tip ar fi ea? cate scandaluri au fost in state (droguri, deturnaride fonduri) si de fiecare data cand opinia publica tragea cia de urechi astia o dadeau cotita?
zicea migu de "atentatu" de la madrid. a fost chiar un thread dedicat subiectului. tot americanii s-au ocupat de asta, vizata fiind ue, mai precis moneda.
legat de israel tre sa studiez indeaproape problema ca n-am destule date.
silviuc oi avea tu dreptate, dar uamenii care conduc sua is americani, ca urmare "americanii" trimit trupe americane in diverse zone. eu zic ca-i corect sa-i numim "americani" mai ales ca-s originari din sua. la fel de adevarat e ca si o groaza de "americani" nu sunt de-acord cu politica dusa de guvernu american, si la "americani" se vorbeste destul de mult despre prostiile facute de "americani" de-a lungul timpului. get my point?
supermouse eu stiam de 60-70% resurse petroliere, china + sua, ma rog, ideea e ca consuma mult americanii si consuma mult din resurse neregenerabile. da, uitasem de halliburton (a lu dick cheney) si exxon, halliburton is aia cu conducta de transport nu? corporate takeover...
" it's the end of the world as we know it ''
-
tre - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 1598
- Membru din: Mar Mai 14, 2002 11:00 pm
stand shi judecand, eu nu exclud posibilitatea sa fi fost ceva servicii secrete americane in spatele atentatului de la Madrid- shi tare prost le-a ieshit...
cu WTC-ul- acu nishte multa vreme, cam 2 ani, iera un nene care era inginer destructuri shi care a facut o demonstratzie cu desene ca aviuanele alea au izbit turnurile exact acolo unde trebuia ca sa cada de tot. Gigelu ala, care lucra pentru RossBryan, zicea ca un ietaj mai sus sa fi lovit hale aviuane, cadea numa partea de deasupra zonei de impact, nu tot blocu- shi asta pentru amandoo turnurile. Acu io de asha o coinsidentza mai rar.
Pa urma havionu ala de cazu pa Pentagon: io dau cu un havion in cea mai mare cladire din lume shi sa vezi ce ghiionu' dracului, dau exact intr-o aripa cu magazii...
coincidentzele aistea is un pic cam cusute cu atza portocalie mi se pare mie
cu WTC-ul- acu nishte multa vreme, cam 2 ani, iera un nene care era inginer destructuri shi care a facut o demonstratzie cu desene ca aviuanele alea au izbit turnurile exact acolo unde trebuia ca sa cada de tot. Gigelu ala, care lucra pentru RossBryan, zicea ca un ietaj mai sus sa fi lovit hale aviuane, cadea numa partea de deasupra zonei de impact, nu tot blocu- shi asta pentru amandoo turnurile. Acu io de asha o coinsidentza mai rar.
Pa urma havionu ala de cazu pa Pentagon: io dau cu un havion in cea mai mare cladire din lume shi sa vezi ce ghiionu' dracului, dau exact intr-o aripa cu magazii...
coincidentzele aistea is un pic cam cusute cu atza portocalie mi se pare mie
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
bre nu fitzi paranoici.e destul de greu(chiar al dracu de greu) sa nimerejti cu ditai boeingu iecsact unde trebe ca sa cada turnu,mai ales atunci cand singura ta pregatire de sbor ie nejte ore pe ms flight simulator.la faza cu madridu asta deja mi-se pare paranoia d-aia dusa la ecstrem.cine crede ca americanii au fost in spatele atentatului nu ie zdravan.iar la pentacon,tu cresi ca jtia careva din afara ca acolo ie magazii?crez ca planurile pentagonului se distribuie la metrou odata cu biletu de calatorie si harta dc-ului?
da ma mir ca nu sice nimenea ca de fapt fsb-u la ordinu lu putin a pregatit luarile de ostateci de la dubrovka si beslan.
da ma mir ca nu sice nimenea ca de fapt fsb-u la ordinu lu putin a pregatit luarile de ostateci de la dubrovka si beslan.
The Earth is full.GO HOME!
-
MiG29 - Mesaje: 7104
- Membru din: Dum Apr 14, 2002 11:00 pm
iote ca zic eu, ce-mi faci??da ma mir ca nu sice nimenea ca de fapt fsb-u la ordinu lu putin a pregatit luarile de ostateci de la dubrovka si beslan
acuma lasand gluma deoparte, deshi este atat de amuzant sa le citeshti, toate aste conspiracy theories intra la categoria nubiru shi-a piramidelor din ferentari. nimeni nu zice ca ar fi imposibil insa e foarte improbabil. ceea ce e cert ca lumea moare. iar motivele nu sunt atat de complicate. involva o persoana care o arma in mana shi o persoana care sta la capatul opus. (bine, fie el shi boeing). shi din pacate florile de pe tzeava sunt numai in desenele pe care le vand cei de la unesco
iar realitatea, ca de obicei, tzine cu ursu'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/14/1094927549647.html
what is freedom of expression? without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist - salman rushdie
-
theOffender - Mesaje: 2094
- Membru din: Lun Iul 19, 2004 11:00 pm
ca tot suntem la capitolul terorism, am vazut ca nr. de soldatzi americani mortzi in Irak tocmai a trecut de 1000 (cel putzin astea sunt cifrele oficiale). S-ar putea ca nenea Bush sa se zgarie pe fatza in cele din urma pt. intervetzia din Irak, mai ales ca nu s-a gasit nici urma de armament de distrugere in masa acolo.
-
Panzer6 - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 103
- Membru din: Joi Sep 02, 2004 11:00 pm
nenea bush e prea prost pentru acest scop da io zic ca aia de l-o impins o sa se
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
sincer sa fiu nu am o parere prea buna despre nenea Bush. mie mi se pare un tip care crede ca fortza ofera raspunsul la orice problema, poate e chiar obsedat de idea asta. Daca nu ar fi fost preshedintele SUA ci al unei tzari mai mici shi-ar fi luat-o pe cocoasha urat de tot
-
Panzer6 - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 103
- Membru din: Joi Sep 02, 2004 11:00 pm
deci in sfarsit supscriu la ideea lu supermaus ca bush ie prost.da eo zic ca s-a scos den punct de vedere financiar cat pentru 3 mandate cu interventia militara den iraq shi cu contractele de reconstructie ce au urmat,asa ca daca perde alegerile(ceea ce o sa sentample)n-o sal duara asa de tare.
The Earth is full.GO HOME!
-
MiG29 - Mesaje: 7104
- Membru din: Dum Apr 14, 2002 11:00 pm
um,
povestirile alea cu teoria constipatiei in geenral is lipsite de logica si orcum n-au formatu povestirilor cu bushi si binladeni. orcum, ideea e sa citim mai mult asa, din surse cat mai variate si p-orma sa lom manualu de logica (nu stiu daca se mai scuate, da-n fine) si sa analizam faptele.
deci migule tu cum ai esplica faptu ca wtc7 a picat? dar imaginile alea, difuzate-n prime time de prea putine ori, cu fumei irakiene zbierand chestii legate de macerarit si d-astea? bine, acu ala de-o fi realizat traducerea din araba sa fi fost... din tabara adversa. dar faptu ca-n anii 70-80 bush sr. si harabii erau pretini la catarama? dar gafa lu bush de la shcuala aia cu faptu c-a vazut inregistrari cu primu avion intrand in turn? etc.
iti dai seama ca legat de madrid muritoru de rand n-are cum sa stie daca e sau nu e mana americanului sau daca intr-adevar e de la teroristi. tot ce se sustine, printre altele, e ca atentatu se potrivea cel mai bine cu hinteresele americanilor.
ideea e ca-s multe chestii care nu se leaga, sau se leaga mult prea putin, daca iei in considerare varianta oficiala. cel putin aia cu irakienii ca ba au arme de distrugere-n masa ba n-au e chiar o insulta la inteligenta mediei. nu zic acu ca tot ce-i de rau de americani e musai adevarat, da nici variantele oficiale care devin din ce in ce mai sf-uri. eu nu-tz zic sa ma crezi pe mine sau pe supermausu, zic duar sa nu accepti chiar tot ce se tuarna de dragu confortului moral.
supermaus da-m si mie vreo sursa daca ai despre epsperimentu cu wtc-u. eu am vazut pe http://www.whatreallyhappened.com analiza pe imagini cu treaba asta. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake2.html)
povestirile alea cu teoria constipatiei in geenral is lipsite de logica si orcum n-au formatu povestirilor cu bushi si binladeni. orcum, ideea e sa citim mai mult asa, din surse cat mai variate si p-orma sa lom manualu de logica (nu stiu daca se mai scuate, da-n fine) si sa analizam faptele.
deci migule tu cum ai esplica faptu ca wtc7 a picat? dar imaginile alea, difuzate-n prime time de prea putine ori, cu fumei irakiene zbierand chestii legate de macerarit si d-astea? bine, acu ala de-o fi realizat traducerea din araba sa fi fost... din tabara adversa. dar faptu ca-n anii 70-80 bush sr. si harabii erau pretini la catarama? dar gafa lu bush de la shcuala aia cu faptu c-a vazut inregistrari cu primu avion intrand in turn? etc.
iti dai seama ca legat de madrid muritoru de rand n-are cum sa stie daca e sau nu e mana americanului sau daca intr-adevar e de la teroristi. tot ce se sustine, printre altele, e ca atentatu se potrivea cel mai bine cu hinteresele americanilor.
ideea e ca-s multe chestii care nu se leaga, sau se leaga mult prea putin, daca iei in considerare varianta oficiala. cel putin aia cu irakienii ca ba au arme de distrugere-n masa ba n-au e chiar o insulta la inteligenta mediei. nu zic acu ca tot ce-i de rau de americani e musai adevarat, da nici variantele oficiale care devin din ce in ce mai sf-uri. eu nu-tz zic sa ma crezi pe mine sau pe supermausu, zic duar sa nu accepti chiar tot ce se tuarna de dragu confortului moral.
supermaus da-m si mie vreo sursa daca ai despre epsperimentu cu wtc-u. eu am vazut pe http://www.whatreallyhappened.com analiza pe imagini cu treaba asta. (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/shake2.html)
" it's the end of the world as we know it ''
-
tre - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 1598
- Membru din: Mar Mai 14, 2002 11:00 pm
tre- io am vazt o gramada de teorii a propos de caderea turnurilor alora. Tot ce vreau io sa zic ie ca explicatzia oficiala e cam tot atat de inteligenta ca aia cu un singur glontz care l-a omorat pe Kennedy. O implozie dirijata ar explica caderea lu' wtc 7 shi inca fo cateva chestii. Shtii cand o sa aflam ce d-a intamplat? Cand o sa intre careva sa bage un ochi pa tuate tranzactziile pietzei de captal sin perioada aia shi o sa se vada cin a facut bani din catastrofa. Asta una.
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
itr-adevar, daca ar fi sa gandim logic ar trebui sa ne uitam cine a avut si are de castigat de pe urma acestui atac terorist care creaza o situtie foarte asemanatoare cu cea de la Pearl Harbour cand americanii stiau de atac si nu numai atat dar l-au si provocat prin embargoul foarte dur impus Japoniei. Nu stiu daca ati observat dar SUA e implicata cel putin inr-un conflict armat la fiecare 10 ani. Sa fie o coincideta...
-
Panzer6 - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 103
- Membru din: Joi Sep 02, 2004 11:00 pm
rady scrie:tre,
exista inregistrare cu primul avion intrand in turn
da da bush a vazut-o inainte sa se intample
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
Va zic de la inceput ca nu sunt pro-american sau pro-irakian...
Da' nu inteleg de ce majoritatea oamenilor sunt de acord cu radierea irakienilor...astia saracii sunt ca vai de ei si s-au simtit amenintati de cand se stiu si de aia s-au nascut si cu mitraliera in mana...ca sa se apere...mor mii de irakieni degeaba, nu ma refer la rebelii care s-au saturat de viata, ma refer la cei care mor din cauza natiei lor, pai va mai zic eu un lucru. Daca poporul irakian nu va fi lichidat de pe suprafata pamantului nu se stie niciodata cand le vor mai face cate o surpriza americanilor. Ar trebui sa se gandeasca americanii si la cladirile lor, de milioane sau miliarde de dolari, ar fi cazul sa le blindeze ...
... oricum faptul ca ei au pornit acest razboi impotriva irakienilor, sau cum zic ei contra terorismului, ar trebui sa deschida lumea mai bine ochii si sa vada ca teroristi nu sunt numai in Irak sunt cam peste tot asta pentru ca se pot fabrica foarte usor avand in vedere puterea banului si inegalitatea dintre popoare din punct de vedere economic si social. Ar fi mai multe de zis...da' ma abtin, pentru ca copiii oricum vor fi ucisi in continuare...din greseala...pentru ca nu se afla la locul potrivit...cum mai subliniaza unii analisti politici.
Da' nu inteleg de ce majoritatea oamenilor sunt de acord cu radierea irakienilor...astia saracii sunt ca vai de ei si s-au simtit amenintati de cand se stiu si de aia s-au nascut si cu mitraliera in mana...ca sa se apere...mor mii de irakieni degeaba, nu ma refer la rebelii care s-au saturat de viata, ma refer la cei care mor din cauza natiei lor, pai va mai zic eu un lucru. Daca poporul irakian nu va fi lichidat de pe suprafata pamantului nu se stie niciodata cand le vor mai face cate o surpriza americanilor. Ar trebui sa se gandeasca americanii si la cladirile lor, de milioane sau miliarde de dolari, ar fi cazul sa le blindeze ...

- Serban
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 51
- Membru din: Sâm Sep 11, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: PE LUNA
shi ce-mi place mie, a propos de irakieni, este ca nimeni nu zice nimica de iradierile alea cu depleted uranium care s-au facut acolosha shi in 91 shi acuma, ca parca armele hastea ierau ilegale.
Nimeni nu vrea desfiintzarea irakienilor, Serbane, iar in ce priveshte cazutu cladirilor, nu e nevoie de terorishti ca le darama iei americanii inshishi daca le iasa ceva la faza asta
Nimeni nu vrea desfiintzarea irakienilor, Serbane, iar in ce priveshte cazutu cladirilor, nu e nevoie de terorishti ca le darama iei americanii inshishi daca le iasa ceva la faza asta
riiiiiiiiiight................
- supermouse
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 3586
- Membru din: Vin Apr 16, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: in padure
Eu daca l-as avea in fata pe nenea Bush l-as intreba de unde atata ostilitate pt soldatii americani din Irak si nu ma refer la teroristi ci la populatia civila care trebuia sa-i intampine cu bratele deschise pt. ca i-a scapat de Saddam. Ori din cate am vazut eu, oricat de cosmetizate erau imaginile, populatia civila nu se prea ighesuie sa-i intampine cu flori. O fi de vina comportamentul cel putin neadecvat al sodatilor americani fata de localnici, comportament incurajat se pare chiar de cadrele din conducerea armatei? Mie, care sunt novice intr-ale politicii, i-mi pare ca situtia cam seamana cu cea din Vietnam (sper sa nu am dreptate).
-
Panzer6 - Junior Member
- Mesaje: 103
- Membru din: Joi Sep 02, 2004 11:00 pm
Nu cred ca si-ar darama ei cladirile, chiar daca le-ar iesi ceva, pentru ca ar dura o perioada de timp pana si ar scoate banii de la societatile de asigurari si reasigurari...iti dai seama...cat dureaza anchetele...
Da' un lucru e sigur...Bush se joaca cu viata americanilor, ca asta ia o decizie si pune tot poporul american in pericol. Faza este ca lor le convine sa genereze razboi atata timp cat nu e pe continentul lor. Oricum e nevoie de un presedinte cu cap in SUA. Da' ar trebui sa se ia masuri la nivel international in vederea uciderii celor nevinovati si mai ales a copiilor...numai ca ... nimeni nu se baga pentru ca nu si permit sa fie contra SUA...nu va dati seama ca, comertul cu SUA reprezinta un plus pentru fiecare stat ? Si asa ca... copiii raman la mana mitralierelor...nu conteaza varsta...important e sa se apere, sa si apere apropiatii si sa si razbune parintii...e mentalitate de loialitate fata de semenii lor... nu ce spun altii , mentalitate de primitivi. M-a secat un analist politic, nu stiu cum naiba ii zice, care are un creier absolut epuizat, parca s-a nascut in neolitic si ne face diferenta dintre mentalitatea omului primitiv si a celui "evoluat". (sa va mai zic ceva, la un moment dat spunea ca nici oamenii din Romania nu se afla departe de aceasta mentalitate). Imi pare rau ca nu stiu cum il chema pe cretinu' ala de analist politic, oricum era un papagal anonim, cred ca de aia nici nu i am retinut numele.
Da' un lucru e sigur...Bush se joaca cu viata americanilor, ca asta ia o decizie si pune tot poporul american in pericol. Faza este ca lor le convine sa genereze razboi atata timp cat nu e pe continentul lor. Oricum e nevoie de un presedinte cu cap in SUA. Da' ar trebui sa se ia masuri la nivel international in vederea uciderii celor nevinovati si mai ales a copiilor...numai ca ... nimeni nu se baga pentru ca nu si permit sa fie contra SUA...nu va dati seama ca, comertul cu SUA reprezinta un plus pentru fiecare stat ? Si asa ca... copiii raman la mana mitralierelor...nu conteaza varsta...important e sa se apere, sa si apere apropiatii si sa si razbune parintii...e mentalitate de loialitate fata de semenii lor... nu ce spun altii , mentalitate de primitivi. M-a secat un analist politic, nu stiu cum naiba ii zice, care are un creier absolut epuizat, parca s-a nascut in neolitic si ne face diferenta dintre mentalitatea omului primitiv si a celui "evoluat". (sa va mai zic ceva, la un moment dat spunea ca nici oamenii din Romania nu se afla departe de aceasta mentalitate). Imi pare rau ca nu stiu cum il chema pe cretinu' ala de analist politic, oricum era un papagal anonim, cred ca de aia nici nu i am retinut numele.
- Serban
- Junior Member
- Mesaje: 51
- Membru din: Sâm Sep 11, 2004 11:00 am
- Localitate: PE LUNA
Cine este conectat
Utilizatorii ce navighează pe acest forum: Niciun utilizator înregistrat şi 1 vizitator