Guess the October Surprise -
POSTED BY: Righteous9
UPDATED: Sunday, November 12, 2006 15:16
VIEWED: 11708
PAGE 8 of 11
I vote for Bin Laden's rotted corpse, if we're lucky...
Quote:
MISSION ACCOMPLICED AT ABU GHRAIB: US SOLDIERS ORDERED TO PACK IN ICE, STICK IV IN DEAD POW'S ARM, AND LOAD INTO AMBULANCE, TO PRETEND HE WASN'T TORTURED TO DEATH BY THE JR BUSH WHITE HOUSE
“On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, 202-324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said: 'The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11. Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11. The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11'”
—Ed Haas, Muckraker Report, "FBI says, 'No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11'," June 6, 2006
www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Question: "What did Iraq have to do with 9/11?"
George Bush Jr: "Nothing!"
—White House Press Conference
Tony Snow: "I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?"
Dick Cheney: "That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—WhiteHouse.gov, The Tony Snow Show, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html
"While the United States continues to scour Afghanistan for Osama bin Laden, an unidentified Taliban leader said the world's most wanted man is dead and buried, a news report said on Tuesday. Bin Laden died "a peaceful natural death" from serious lung complications in mid-December in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains, according to the unidentified Taliban member. Bin Laden was laid to rest with military honours with about 30 close al-Qaeda associates and Taliban friends attending the funeral."
—Sapa-DPA, "'I attended Osama Bin Laden's funeral,", December 25, 2001
www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=3&art_id=qw100928556223B212
"The Israeli sources said Israel and the United States assess that Bin Laden probably died in the U.S. military campaign in Afghanistan in December. They said the emergence of new messages by Bin Laden are probably fabrications, Middle East Newsline reported."
—World Tribune, "Israeli intelligence: Bin Laden is dead, heir has been chosen," October 16, 2002
http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/funeral/
"The US Federal Bureau of Investigation's counter-terrorism chief, Dale Watson, says he thinks Osama bin Laden is "probably" dead."
—BBC News, "Bin Laden 'probably' dead," 18 July 2002
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osama_dead.html
QUESTION: "Mr President, in your speeches, you rareNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're already seeing resistance to striking Iran from military folks and intelligence agencies. That's why the budget fiasco on Iraq, the report from 15 intelligence agencies saying Iraq was a mistake, and generals flat-out asking for Rummmie's head on a platter. They stuck to their remits on Iraq, and look where that got them. I think they're going as "all out" as a bureaucracy trained to obedience can go. (I trust I don't have to link this? If I do, let me know.)
There is deep internecine warfare going on between the CIA and the WH. The CIA has been basically dismantled. Why do you think "kneecapper" Armitage leaked Plame's name to the world? http://baltimorechronicle.com/2006/091406Parry.shtml Now the CIA is blind to Iran's plans. Armitage is NOT a bland bureaucrat. He was a point man in Vietnam and loved it. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2021640.cms He's been breaking kneecaps ever since- AFAIK most recently in Pakistan. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,215820,00.html
and was deeply involved in Iran Contra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage
Apparently the architects of this plan deeply believe that once Iran's nuclear program is destroyed, the population will rise up. Seriously. The guys at the top are so disconnected from reality that the lack of rose petal parades in Iraq haven't given them pause.
I think the question is how Cheney & Co will rationalize this to the world.
Oops, time's up. TTUL.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Their goal is to destroy anything resembling a reasonable debate, or sharing of opinions by reducing it to he-said-she-said flamefests, Rue.
Don't play into it - in thread after thread they demolish the thread's integrity, drive folk from the conversation, and more or less prevent us from discussing ANYTHING without devolving it to this - which is why I call them what they are.
Trolls.
The whole GOAL is to prevent any reasoned discussion of anything, thus preventing us from using this board at all, while banging their loud little drums and cranking out sock puppets so it looks like there's more than the puny two or three morons who hold, or even pretend to hold (cause they seem to change rather rapidly) certain beliefs, social, political, or religious.
So for every thread that devolves into nothing more that trollpost-response-trollpost-response and veers away from the topic into this garbage, it reduces our signal to noise ratio by just that much, which is their entire intent in the first place.
Just pay them no damn mind unless (and sometimes they do) they say something halfway intelligent, and every time they start playing games, just give em the verbal cold shoulder.
They WANT to drag folk into these back and forths because it destroys the original topic and all discussion more or less stops.
Treat them like the trolls they are.
If speaking my mind automatically makes me a troll then so be it.
I agree that My and Rue's discussion has veered from the original topic. But when someone calls me a name and dismisses my viewpoint out of hand, is it not reasonable for me to ask why?
Calling me nothing and refering to Auraptor as a used piece of toilet paper is IMHO a virtual spit in the face. You yourself just called me a moron. Tell me how, IYHO, these trollish insults further the threads topic? Why the double standard?
And do not attempt to attack my credibility without proof. Agree or disagree with me, I remain consistent in my social and political beliefs.
Posting to stir stuff up.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:It's the American Corporate Way.
Originally posted by SignyM:
The guys at the top are so disconnected from reality
The chain of command we all get beat with.
The model is broke, why do we still follow it?
Even the 'bottom line' is screaming now, why is even THAT not getting more attention?
Better to burn out than fade away?
The War on Corporations Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And now you're playing the innocent victim. I answered your multiple and shifting questions multiple times over two threads -
Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
If speaking my mind automatically makes me a troll then so be it.
....is it not reasonable for me to ask why?
Here:
I hear a lot of the major news sources also have weather forecasts.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24230
My point was that it didn't deserve to be front-page HEADLINED ... where did I say that? Oh yes, it was here: "The ONLY story headlined in every one was
Here:
Is it you are either with Rue or against Rue?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24230
There are only four to whom I have given my pet names. And not b/c I disagree with them.
Here:
Still dosen't answer my question, though you know that, don't you.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24230
there are only four to whom I have given my pet names. And not b/c I disagree with them
Here:
slight dig at SignyM
little quips
voicing my opinion
my original post to you did contain a certain amount of dry humor
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24154
the only debate I have here is how you call for civility in one thread when someone not you 'quips' or 'opines' or expresses 'dry humor', but set a different, and much lower, standard for yourself here.
Here;
My question was what I did to deserve the 'pet name'.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24154
"The other posters in this thread, in their earnestness, tolerance and CIVILITY actually attempted to interact with him - civilly and coherently, with facts and information. And for their pains they got mocked - by you. Now maybe you see why you are working your way into a pet name."
Here:
Now you quote yourself twice instead of answering my question.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24230
You wanted my thoughts, I gave them to you.
and
Here:
But where is your proof?
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=24230
I answered your questions. Your aim is to change the goal posts at every opportunity.
I can't help it if you can't or won't read the asnwers. They are plainly there for all to see.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There are 4 votes for an 'aggressor' strike at Iran (with maybe some flimsy 'intelligence' as an excuse). These votes come from people I generally agree with and people I generally disagree with. And my rule is to credit opinions that come from multiple independent sources. But I can't, CAN'T bring myself to think the administration people are so effin' nuts they'll do domething that stupid. How can so MANY people be so on-board with something so insane? (Evil I'll go along with b/c it's rational though often rooted in short-term avarice. But the downside here is bigger than the upside.)
Do you all think this is a folie a crowd?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It is my belief that bombing Iran is something the Adminstration really, really, really wants and they'll finagle it if at all possible. Nothing will actually persuade them to re-think the wisdom of their appraoch, but they MAY be dissuaded by world and internal pressure, and the impossibility of coming up with a scenario that mollifies world reaction.
In effect, they would either have to
1)Prove (beforehand or afterwards) that Iran was approaching nuclear weapons production... gin up some "sniffer" or humint evidence.
2) Prove that Iran was behind some god-awful terrorist attack. They tried peddling that line when Israel invaded Lebanon, and altho the Sunni states didn't object very loudly to the invasion it seemed as if not too many people were interested in taking up the anti-Iranian banner either.
2) Twist arms and pay offs some folks behind the scenes, like they did with Pakistan. (Pakistan was threatened with bombing, but at the same time they got to "keep" their top nuclear scientist who smuggled out nuclear technology to a whole host of rogue states and to expand their own nuclear program.) Given Musharref's book release, I don't think Pakistan would be open for that kind of "diplomacy" again. Saudi Arabia and some of the other major Sunni states wouldn't openly object to a bombing of Iran. China and Russia OTOH... ?
When you add up Iran's friends, they are few and far between. Russia prolly wouldn't mind seeing Iran's oil flow disrupted. China and the EU would HATE to see oil disrupted, but I'm not sure how much they're willing to buck the USA. Now that I think about it... it might not be all that difficult for the USA to pull off simply because we ARE the 800-lb gorilla and nobody wants to go toe-to-toe with us unless it's truly a matter of national survival.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I see where you're going with this. And I agree certain sections of the administration REALLY want it. Though I see Cheney, who is evil but rational, possibly pitted against the insane ideologues. And the evidence that certain sections of the administration REALLY want it is in the phonied-up reports about Iran, in its constant attempt to inflame the rest of the world against Iran, and yes, even in its earlier outing of Plame. (The way they operate, the groundwork is laid years before.)
But the US messed up with Iraq. (I believe they really thought that if they invaded they'd find sufficient justification later.) Now the whole world - including every former and current ally - is cynical about US motives and claims. It's not just the local countries who might or might not object to a US attack. It's not just Russia or China. It's the entire world. And while individual countries may not have enough internal motivation, as a group they do have an interest in bringing the US down. At a certain point you look around and think - you know, I don't have to do anything. All we have to do, as a group, is just kinda exclude the US from some deals and trade and deal with each other more. Oh, and move the world currency to the Euro. It is already happening, the feelers have been sent out, the connections are in place, agreements have already been reached.
"When you add up Iran's friends..." But if you are a RATIONAL person and looking at the US vs the rest of the entire world, IOW, looking at the anti-US contingent, you'd realize there is no profit to be had when they ALL join against you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Cheney &Co's entire response to the world is MILITARY, preferably Special Ops. Diplomacy? So what? Trade? Ho-hum. Sanctions? Yawn! Moral standing? Trade deficit? Busted budget? NOT A PROBLEM! I think that because they deal with the world almost exclusively militarily, nothing short of a military response would sway these guys. Even breaking the regular army is not considered a problem because what they REALLY want is to run everything Special Ops/black ops/ contract. So they would have to be facing loss of vital overseas military intallations, or a significant movement of hostile troops into areas of interest, or a complete intelligence/ military mutiny....
Of course this would make terrorist threat to the USA much worse. But a fearful population is a compliant population, and most would be too scared to look beyond a successful attack to the administration machinations that lay behind it.
---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I concede, though in my heart I can't truly believe it. It seems so blatantly boneheaded stoooopid. And crazy. I just can't imagine how at least some people in the administration don't see it as the disaster it would be. I just can't imagine they are ALL that nuts. But you've been right too often, and a lot of other people from different perspectives also believe this. So I will need to re-adjust my thinking until time tests our predictions out.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME