MUST READ!!: War in October

[Anonymous]

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has become the most outspoken opponent the Bush Administration has to its seemingly imminent invasion of Iraq. Ritter, who spent seven years in and out of Iraq, says everything we are being told about Saddam's weapons program is a lie. Others disagree (see an overview of analyses here). On a recent episode of the new PBS series Wide Angle, several men who purport to be Iraqi defectors claim Saddam is not only developing weapons of mass destruction, but is actively involved in international terrorism against the U.S. Is Ritter just a disgruntled bureaucrat pushing his own agenda? Or is a massive disinformation campaign leading us down the road to a conflagration that could threaten the stability of the entire region, and leave tens of thousands of innocents dead? Tell us what you think here.

Room 295 of the Suffolk Law School building in downtown Boston was filled to capacity on July 23rd with peace activists, aging Cambridge hippies and assorted freaks. One of the organizers for the gathering, United For Justice With Peace Coalition, handed out green pieces of paper that read, "We will not support war, no matter what reason or rhetoric is offered by politicians or the media. War in our time and in this context is indiscriminate, a war against innocents and against children." Judging from the crowd, and from the buzz in the room, that pretty much summed things up.


The contrast presented when Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, entered the room, could not have been more disparate. There at the lectern stood this tall lantern-jawed man, every inch the twelve-year Marine Corps veteran he was, who looked and spoke just exactly like a bulldogging high school football coach. A whistle on a string around his neck would have perfected the image.


"I need to say right out front," he said minutes into his speech, "I'm a card-carrying Republican in the conservative-moderate range who voted for George W. Bush for President. I'm not here with a political agenda. I'm not here to slam Republicans. I am one."


Yet this was a lie - Scott Ritter had come to Boston with a political agenda, one that impacts every single American citizen. Ritter was in the room that night to denounce, with roaring voice and burning eyes, the coming American war in Iraq. According to Ritter, this coming war is about nothing more or less than domestic American politics, based upon speculation and rhetoric entirely divorced from fact. According to Ritter, that war is just over the horizon.

"You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you better expect war in October."


"The Third Marine Expeditionary Force in California is preparing to have 20,000 Marines deployed in the (Iraq) region for ground combat operations by mid-October," he said. "The Air Force used the vast majority of its precision-guided munitions blowing up caves in Afghanistan. Congress just passed emergency appropriations money and told Boeing company to accelerate their production of the GPS satellite kits, that go on bombs that allow them to hit targets while the planes fly away, by September 30, 2002. Why? Because the Air Force has been told to have three air expeditionary wings ready for combat operations in Iraq by mid-October."


"As a guy who was part of the first Gulf War," said Ritter, who indeed served under Schwarzkopf in that conflict, "when you deploy that much military power forward - disrupting their training cycles, disrupting their operational cycles, disrupting everything, spending a lot of money - it is very difficult to pull them back without using them."


"You got 20,000 Marines forward deployed in October," said Ritter, "you better expect war in October."


His purpose for coming to that room was straightforward: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Democrat Joe Biden, plans to call a hearing beginning on Monday, July 29th. The Committee will call forth witnesses to describe the threat posed to America by Iraq. Ritter fears that much crucial information will not be discussed in that hearing, precipitating a war authorization by Congress based on political expediency and ignorance. Scott Ritter came to that Boston classroom to exhort all there to demand of the Senators on the Committee that he be allowed to stand as a witness.


Ritter began his comments by noting the interesting times we live in after September 11th. There has been much talk of war, and much talk of war with Iraq. Ritter was careful to note that there are no good wars - as a veteran, he described war as purely awful and something not to be trivialized - but that there is such a thing as a just war. He described America as a good place, filled with potential and worth fighting for. We go to just war, he said, when our national existence has been threatened.

“The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions.”

According to Ritter, there is no justification in fact, national security, international law or basic morality to justify this coming war with Iraq. In fact, when asked pointedly what the mid-October scheduling of this conflict has to do with the midterm Congressional elections that will follow a few weeks later, he replied, simply, "Everything."


“This is not about the security of the United States," said this card-carrying Republican while pounding the lectern. "This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have failed collectively as a nation."


Ritter was sledding up a pretty steep slope with all this. After all, Saddam Hussein has been demonized for twelve years by American politicians and the media. He gassed his own people, and America has already fought one war to keep him under control. Ritter's presence in Iraq was demanded in the first place by Hussein's pursuit of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, along with the ballistic missile technology that could deliver these weapons to all points on the compass.


According to the Bush administration, Hussein has ties to the same Al Qaeda terrorists that brought down the World Trade Center. It is certain that Hussein will use these terrorist links to deliver a lethal blow to America, using any number of the aforementioned weapons. The argument, propounded by Bush administration officials on any number of Sunday news talk shows, is that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, and the unseating of Saddam Hussein, is critical to American national security. Why wait for them to hit us first?


"If I were an American, uninformed on Iraq as we all are," said Ritter, "I would be concerned." Furthermore, continued Ritter, if an unquestionable case could be made that such weapons and terrorist connections existed, he would be all for a war in Iraq. It would be just, smart, and in the interest of national defense.

According to Ritter, Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism.


Therein lies the rub: According to Scott Ritter, who spent seven years in Iraq with the UNSCOM weapons inspection teams performing acidly detailed investigations into Iraq's weapons program, no such capability exists. Iraq simply does not have weapons of mass destruction, and does not have threatening ties to international terrorism. Therefore, no premise for a war in Iraq exists. Considering the American military lives and the Iraqi civilian lives that will be spent in such an endeavor, not to mention the deadly regional destabilization that will ensue, such a baseless war must be avoided at all costs.


"The Bush administration has provided the American public with little more than rhetorically laced speculation," said Ritter. "There has been nothing in the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of war."


Ritter regaled the crowd with stories of his time in Iraq with UNSCOM. The basis for the coming October war is the continued existence of a weapons program that threatens America. Ritter noted explicitly that Iraq, of course, had these weapons at one time - he spent seven years there tracking them down. At the outset, said Ritter, they lied about it. They failed to declare the existence of their biological and nuclear programs after the Gulf War, and declared less than 50% of their chemical and missile stockpiles. They hid everything they could, as cleverly as they could.


After the first lie, Ritter and his team refused to believe anything else they said. For the next seven years, the meticulously tracked down every bomb, every missile, every factory designed to produce chemical, biological and nuclear weaponry. They went to Europe and found the manufacturers who sold them the equipment. They got the invoices and shoved them into the faces of Iraqi officials. They tracked the shipping of these materials and cross-referenced this data against the invoices. They lifted the foundations of buildings destroyed in the Gulf War to find wrecked research and development labs, at great risk to their lives, and used the reams of paperwork there to cross-reference what they had already cross-referenced.


Everything they found was later destroyed in place.


After a while, the Iraqis knew Ritter and his people were robotically thorough. Fearing military retaliation if they hid anything, the Iraqis instituted a policy of full disclosure. Still, Ritter believed nothing they said and tracked everything down. By the time he was finished, Ritter was mortally sure that he and his UNSCOM investigators had stripped Iraq of 90-95% of all their weapons of mass destruction.


What of the missing 10%? Is this not still a threat? Ritter believes that the ravages of the Gulf War accounted for a great deal of the missing material, as did the governmental chaos caused by sanctions. The Iraqis' policy of full disclosure, also, was of a curious nature that deserved all of Ritter's mistrust. Fearing the aforementioned attacks, Iraq instituted a policy of destroying whatever Ritter's people had not yet found, and then pretending it never existed in the first place. Often, the dodge failed to fool UNSCOM. That some of it did also accounts for a portion of that missing 10%.


Ritter told a story about running down 98 missiles the Iraqis tried to pretend never existed. UNSCOM got hold of the documentation describing them, and demanded proof that they had, in fact, been destroyed. He was brought to a field where, according to Iraqi officials, the missiles had been blown up and then buried. At this point, Ritter and his team became "forensic archaeologists," digging up every single missile component they could find there.


After sifting through the bits and pieces to find parts bearing serial numbers, they went to Russia, who sold Iraq the weapons in the first place. They cross-referenced the serial numbers with the manufacturer's records, and confirmed the data with the shipping invoices. When finished, they had accounted for 96 of the missiles. Left over was a pile of metal with no identifying marks, which the Iraqis claimed were the other two missiles. Ritter didn't believe them, but could go no further with the investigation.


This story was telling in many ways. Americans mesmerized with stories of lying Iraqis who never told the weapons inspectors the truth about anything should take note of the fact that Ritter was led to exactly the place where the Iraqis themselves had destroyed their weapons without being ordered to. The pile of metal left over from this investigation that could not be identified means Iraq, technically, could not receive a 100% confirmation that all its weapons were destroyed. Along with the other mitigating factors described above, it seems clear that 100% compliance under the UNSCOM rules was impossible to achieve. 90-95%, however, is an impressive record.


The fact that chemical and biological weapons ever existed in the first place demands action, according to the Bush administration. After all, they could have managed to hide vast amounts of the stuff from Ritter's investigators. Iraq manufactured three kinds of these nerve agents: VX, Sarin and Tabou. Some alarmists who want war with Iraq describe 20,000 munitions filled with Sarin and Tabou nerve agents that could be used against Americans.


The facts, however, allay the fears. Sarin and Tabou have a shelf life of five years. Even if Iraq had somehow managed to hide this vast number of weapons from Ritter's people, what they are now storing is nothing more than useless and completely harmless goo.


The VX gas was of a greater concern to Ritter. It is harder to manufacture than the others, but once made stable, it can be kept for much longer. Ritter's people found the VX manufacturing facility that the Iraqis claimed never existed totally destroyed, hit by a Gulf War bomb on January 23, 1991. The field where the material they had manufactured was subsequently buried underwent more forensic archaeology to determine that whatever they had made had also been destroyed. All of this, again, was cross-referenced and meticulously researched.


“The research and development factory is destroyed," said Ritter. "The product of that factory is destroyed. The weapons they loaded up have been destroyed. More importantly, the equipment procured from Europe that was going to be used for their large-scale VX nerve agent factory was identified by the special commission - still packed in its crates in 1997 - and destroyed. Is there a VX nerve agent factory in Iraq today? Not on your life."


This is, in and of itself, a bold statement. Ritter himself and no weapons inspection team has set foot in Iraq since 1998. Ritter believed Iraq technically capable of restarting its weapons manufacturing capabilities within six months of his departure. That leaves some three and one half years to manufacture and weaponize all the horrors that has purportedly motivated the Bush administration to attack.


"Technically capable," however, is the important phrase here. If no one were watching, Iraq could do this. But they would have to start completely from scratch, having been deprived of all equipment, facilities and research because of Ritter's work. They would have to procure the complicated tools and technology required through front companies, which would be detected. The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits vented gasses that would have been detected by now if they existed. The manufacture of nuclear weapons emits gamma rays that would have been detected by now if they existed. We have been watching, via satellite and other means, and we have seen none of this.


"If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof," said Ritter, "plain and simple."


And yet we march to war, and soon. A chorus of voices was raised in the room asking why we are going. What motivates this, if not hard facts and true threats? According to Ritter, it comes down to opportunistic politics and a decade of hard anti-Hussein rhetoric that has boxed the Bush administration into a rhetorical corner.
Back in 1991, the UN Security Council mandated the destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions were placed upon Iraq to pressure them to comply. The first Bush administration signed on to this, but also issued a covert finding that mandated the removal of Saddam Hussein. Even if all the weapons were destroyed, Bush Sr. would not lift the sanctions until Hussein was gone.


Bush Sr., and Clinton after him, came to realize that talking about removing Hussein was far, far easier than achieving that goal. Hussein was, and remains, virtually coup-proof. No one could get close enough to put a bullet in him, and no viable intelligence existed to pinpoint his location from day to day. Rousing a complacent American populace to support the massive military engagement that would have been required to remove Hussein by force presented insurmountable political obstacles. The tough talk about confronting Hussein continued, but the Bush and Clinton administrations treaded water.


This lack of results became exponentially more complicated. Politicians began making a living off of demonizing Hussein, and lambasting Clinton for failing to have him removed. The roots of our current problem began to deepen at this point, for it became acceptable to encapsulate a nation of 20 million citizens in the visage of one man who was hated and reviled in bipartisan fashion. Before long, the American people knew the drill - Saddam is an evil threat and must be met with military force, period.


In 1998, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Iraqi Liberation Act. The weight of public American law now demanded the removal of Saddam Hussein. The American government went on to use data gathered by UNSCOM, narrowly meant to pinpoint possible areas of investigation, to choose bombing targets in an operation called Desert Fox. Confrontation, rather than resolution, continued to be the rule. By 1999, however, Hussein was still in power.


"An open letter was written to Bill Clinton in the fall of 1999," said Ritter, "condemning him for failing to fully implement the Iraqi Liberation Act. It demanded that he use the American military to facilitate the Iraqi opposition's operations inside Iraq, to put troops on the ground and move on up to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam. Who signed this letter? Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Robert Zoellick, Richard Perle, and on and on and on.”


The removal of Saddam Hussein became a plank in the GOP's race for the Presidency in 2000. After gaining office, George W. Bush was confronted with the reality that he and many within his administration had spent a great amount of political capital promising that removal. Once in power, however, he came to realize what his father and Clinton already knew - talking tough was easy, and instigating pinprick military confrontations was easy, but removing Hussein from power was not easy at all. His own rhetoric was all around him, however, pushing him into that corner which had only one exit. Still, like the two Presidents before him, he treaded water.


Then came September 11th. Within days, Bush was on television claiming that the terrorists must have had state-sponsored help, and that state sponsor must be Iraq. When the anthrax attacks came, Bush blamed Iraq again. Both times, he had no basis whatsoever in fact for his claims. The habit of lambasting Iraq, and the opportunity to escape the rhetorical box twelve years of hard-talking American policy, were too juicy to ignore.


The dearth of definitive proof of an Iraqi threat against America began to go international. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld appeared before NATO not long ago and demanded that they support America's looming Iraq war. Most of the NATO nations appeared ready to do so - they trusted that America's top defense official would not come before them and lie. But when they tried to ask questions of him about the basis for this war, Rumsfeld absolutely refused to answer any of them. Instead, he offered this regarding our utter lack of meaningful data to support a conflict: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."


Scott Ritter appeared before NATO some days after this at their invitation to offer answers to their questions. Much of what he told them was mirrored in his comments in that Boston classroom. After he was finished, 16 of the 19 NATO nations present wrote letters of complaint to the American government about Rumsfeld's comments, and about our basis for war. American UN representatives boycotted this hearing, and denounced all who gave ear to Ritter.


Some have claimed that the Bush administration may hold secret evidence pointing to a threat within Iraq, one that cannot be exposed for fear of compromising a source. Ritter dismissed this out of hand in Boston. "If the administration had such secret evidence," he said, "we'd be at war in Iraq right now. We wouldn't be talking about it. It would be a fait accompli." Our immediate military action in Afghanistan, whose ties to Al Qaeda were manifest, lends great credence to this point.


Ritter dismissed oil as a motivating factor behind our coming war with Iraq. He made a good defense of this claim. Yes, Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves on earth, a juicy target for the petroleum-loving Bush administration. But the U.S. already buys some 68% of all the oil produced in Iraq. "The Navy ships in the Gulf who work to interdict the smuggling of Iraqi oil," said Ritter, "are fueled by Iraqi oil." Iraq's Oil Minister has stated on camera that if the sanctions are lifted, Iraq will do whatever it takes to see that America's oil needs are fulfilled. "You can't get a better deal than that," claimed Ritter.


His thinking on this aspect of the coming war may be in error. That sort of logic exists in an all-things-being-equal world of politics and influence, a world that has ceased to exist. Oil is a coin in the bargaining, peddled as influence to oil-state congressmen and American petroleum companies by the Iraqi National Congress to procure support for this baseless conflict. Invade, says the INC, put us in power, and you will have all you want. There are many ruling in America today, both in government and business, who would shed innocent blood for this opportunity.

Ritter made no bones about the fact that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. Like most Americans, however, he detests being lied to. His work in Iraq, and his detailed understanding of the incredible technological requirements for the production of weapons of mass destruction, leads him to believe beyond question that there is no basis in fact or in the needs of national security for a war in Iraq. This Marine, this Republican who seemed so essentially hawkish that no one in that Boston classroom would have been surprised to find wings under his natty blue sportcoat, called the man he cast a Presidential vote for a liar.


"The clock is ticking," he said, "and it's ticking towards war. And it's going to be a real war. It's going to be a war that will result in the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians. It's a war that is going to devastate Iraq. It's a war that's going to destroy the credibility of the United States of America. I just came back from London, and I can tell you this - Tony Blair may talk a good show about war, but the British people and the bulk of the British government do not support this war. The Europeans do not support this war. NATO does not support this war. No one supports this war."


It is of a certainty that few in the Muslim world support another American war with Iraq. Osama bin Laden used the civilian suffering in Iraq under the sanctions to demonstrate to his followers the evils of America and the West. Another war would exacerbate those already-raw emotions. After 9/11, much of the Islamic world repudiated bin Laden and his actions. Another Iraq war would go a long way to proving, in the minds of many Muslims, that bin Laden was right all along. The fires of terrorism that would follow this are unimaginable.


Scott Ritter wants to be present as a witness on Monday when the Foreign Relations Committee convenes its hearing, a hearing that will decide whether or not America goes to war in Iraq. He wants to share the information he delivered in that Boston classroom with Senators who have spent too many years listening to, or propounding, rhetorical and speculative fearmongering about an Iraqi threat to America that does not exist. Instead, he wants the inspectors back in Iraq, doing their jobs. He wants to try and keep American and Iraqi blood from being spilled in a military exercise promulgated by right-wing ideologues that may serve no purpose beyond affecting the outcome of the midterm Congressional elections in November 2002.


"This is not theory," said Ritter in Boston as he closed his comments. "This is real. And the only way this war is going to be stopped is if Congress stops this war."

William Rivers Pitt is a teacher from Boston, MA. His new book, 'The Greatest Sedition is Silence,' will be published soon by Pluto Press.

[Anonymous]

K´mon you cappies prove I am wrong! or that is too hard?

[Brian]

Saddam is still a scum bag!

[Augusto]

You're probably not wrong, Iraq will probably be invaded before years end, but why would you think we'd want to prove you wrong.

In any case while mr. ritter is working saddam's shaft you might want to give his nuts a little tug.

[Anonymous]

i never said i liked sadam, but remember that he was trained by CIA and he was helped to get Iraq gov. by the americans, plçus bush sold lots of tech. to sadam when he wasnt president

[Brian]

You keeping your trap shut for once would be nice.

(Edited by Brian at 9:29 am on Aug. 2, 2002)

[James]

The reality of the matter is very simple. America (CIA) backed Saddam into power.

Without the CIA, there would be no Saddam.

America kept Saddam in power for many many years.

Without the CIA, there would be no Saddam in power.

American government sections and businesses sold Saddam many different and wonderful things.

Without the US government and buisness, Saddam wouldn't have killed as many people as he has done so (be it in northern Iraq, Iraqi children, Kurdish people, Iranians, American/british).

So the underlining message is this. Without America, the current situation would not be present. So Brian, why don't you do us all a favour and shut the fuck up your self. You don't have to be here, you have no real intrests here, and no one really likes you here.

[James]

Having said that, i would support a proper over throwing of Iraq. Note "a proper over throwing".

And i would not support the hidden agendas that there no doubt are.

[Augusto]

actually the reality is not that simple, saddam did receive american support in the 1980's as a result of the iranian revolution and its implications for the US in the region. Prior to the 80s saddam's baathist regime which came to power in 1968 under the leadership of Ahmed Hasan Al-Bakr was a soviet aligned state. Throughout the 70's saddam's regime clashed with the american supported iranians over the kurdish issue and the supply of american arms to kurds thru iran.
So no, saddam was not put in by the CIA kiddies.

[Brian]

You took the words right out of my mouth Augusto.

[James]

Iraq was a British colony in all but name till 1956.

Two years later the iraqi monarchy was overthrown by a the nationalist, Abd al-karim kassem.

This new regime was called the "Arab socialist union" blah blah blah

This was all very well till 1963 when the iraqi oil company "Iraq Petroleum Comapny" was threatened with being nationalised, the USA stepped in (surprise eh?).

The CIA devised what it later called its "favourite coup". James Critchfield was head of the CIA in the middle east said "we regarded it as a great victory".

Secretary-General of the Ba'ath Party, Ali Saleh Sa'adi claimed "we came to power on CIA training".

This new regime went on to finnally produce Saddam as the head in 1979. He WAS the americans man.

Go look up "Aburish" thats the name of the guy who recently wrote saddams biography.

He claimes...

"Saddam has a great deal to thank the CIA for. He can thank them for bringing the Ba'ath Party to power, for helping him personally, for providing him with financial aid during the war with iran, for protecting him against internal coups d'etat. Its a continuing relationship from the early 1960's untill now, and it's a love/hate relationship".

So yes he was put in by the CIA "kiddy".

[James]

Oh and Brian. Shut the fuck up.

[Brian]

Why do't you shut your fat mouth, It would help.

[Brian]

Quote: from James on 4:37 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
Iraq was a British colony in all but name till 1956.

Two years later the iraqi monarchy was overthrown by a the nationalist, Abd al-karim kassem.

This new regime was called the "Arab socialist union" blah blah blah

This was all very well till 1963 when the iraqi oil company "Iraq Petroleum Comapny" was threatened with being nationalised, the USA stepped in (surprise eh?).

The CIA devised what it later called its "favourite coup". James Critchfield was head of the CIA in the middle east said "we regarded it as a great victory".

Secretary-General of the Ba'ath Party, Ali Saleh Sa'adi claimed "we came to power on CIA training".

This new regime went on to finnally produce Saddam as the head in 1979. He WAS the americans man.

Go look up "Aburish" thats the name of the guy who recently wrote saddams biography.

He claimes...

"Saddam has a great deal to thank the CIA for. He can thank them for bringing the Ba'ath Party to power, for helping him personally, for providing him with financial aid during the war with iran, for protecting him against internal coups d'etat. Its a continuing relationship from the early 1960's untill now, and it's a love/hate relationship".

So yes he was put in by the CIA "kiddy".
...And your soruces are?

(Edited by Brian at 10:51 am on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Stormin Norman]

Well, I'm convinced. Iraq is a benign threat used to rally support for republicans during the mid-term elections. Attacking Saddam is purely a convenient way to galavanize the nation and create a demon that everyone loves to hate. Scott Ritter and his team did such a great job before they were ousted by the Iraqis that there is no way for Iraq to use weapons of mass destruction as a terroristic measure. Any views that the DOD has regarding Iraq are unsubstantiated, and we need to compromise sources and methods by providing evidence to the international community before an attack is launched.

I have another idea. The threat of terrorism is as prevalent today as it was before September 11th. Biological Weapons are easily stored and hidden. These weapons remain a excellent way for the enemies of the United States to create a climate of disarray within our borders. Terrorism exists as a way for nations to indirectly declare war without drawing the fire that would result in a stand up fight with the United States. Below I have provided text the alludes to the reason why a war with Iraq is needed to alleviate concerns about their weapons capability. The potential damage that could insue after a biological attack does not exactly warrant cautious measure regarding an attack on Iraq. Considering the cost and benefits of ousting the Iraqi leader, now is not the time to take a gamble. If the possibility exists for such terrorism, we should aggressively assault the would be perpetrators before, not after the fact.

From the CDC

Iraq

Iraq has stated that its biological weapons program dates to at least 1974. It was carried out in great secrecy, after the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention had been signed. The program was first conducted in an ostensibly civilian organization called the State Organization for Trade and Industry until this was superseded by the Military Industrial Commission. As with all other major military programs, biological weapons R&D was able to call upon many of its leading scientists who undertook undergraduate or postgraduate training in the west. Much of what happened between the supposed inception of the program in 1974 and the establishment of a group of biologists within the Al-Muthanna chemical weapons complex in 1984 is unknown.

In 1987, the Al-Muthanna research group was transferred to the Al-Salman facility, and work was expanded to include the investigation of fungal and antiplant agents; 1988 saw the establishment of the Al-Hakam Factory, an industrial-scale production facility designed to produce anthrax and botulinum toxin for filling into weapons. This project was completed quickly by using equipment from nominally civilian facilities, such as those used to produce vaccines; the factory itself produced biological agent, which was filled into weapons and deployed in late 1990. The program was further expanded in 1990 when viruses were added to the range of agents under development and production capacity was enhanced by the acquisition and integration of civilian biotechnology facilities by the Military Industrial Commission.

According to the Iraqis, the program was terminated in 1991, after the adoption of UN SCR687, and agents, weapons, munitions, and documents were destroyed. However, the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) believes that from 1991 to 1995 Iraq actively preserved biological weapons capability.


The Agents, Weapons, and Means of Delivery

The UNSCOM belief that three biological agents were filled into weapons is supported by Iraqi statements concerning the filling of munitions and their deployment ready for delivery. For one of these agents, Botulinum toxin, UNSCOM also possesses objective evidence; the other two were probably anthrax and Clostridium perfringens spores. Approximately 380,000 liters of Botulinum toxin were manufactured, along with 84,250 liters of anthrax spores and 3,400 liters of C. perfringens spores. In addition, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin were produced. All these figures represent preconcentration totals and may be underestimates. Ricin toxin and the antiplant agents wheat bunt and corn smut were also produced. Camel pox is known to have been under development as well. This disparate list of biological agents, which at first seems to contain substances not previously conceived as potential offensive biological weapons agents, on closer inspection reveals a rationale based on the possession of a multipotent arsenal having lethal, incapacitating, oncogenic, ethnic, economic, terror, and variable time-onset capabilities. In addition, these agents are capable of being used to attack people through the lungs and the skin, as well as with carriers such as triethylamine, CN or CS, or as a toxic coating in fragmentation weapons.

Agents were filled into various weapons for dissemination. By the end of 1990, according to Iraqi statements, 25 SCUD/Al-Hussein missiles were readied for use with biological weapons warheads (each carrying 145 liters of agent) and deployed for action. At least 160 R400 retarded aerial bombs, carrying the distinctive black-stripe identification around them, may also have been filled with 90-liter charges of Botulinum toxin and ready for use. UNSCOM has evidence to corroborate the Iraqi claim. The Iraqis also intended to fill R400 bombs with anthrax and aflatoxin. Originally designed and filled with chemical agents, 155-mm shells were also tested with a ricin toxin fill. At least three fuel drop tanks were completely modified and fitted with Venturi mechanisms to facilitate aerosol release, for dispersal of 2,200-liter loads of anthrax and possibly Botulinum toxin, using F1 aircraft as the delivery means.

Postscript

UNSCOM has no confidence that Iraq has abandoned its biological weapons program. The true scale and scope of the Iraqi biological weapons program are, despite all UNSCOM's efforts, still not known.


Source: www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/davis.htm

[James]

Lots of stuff.

Alas one was from a book, "The New Rulers Of The World" By John Pilger - page 65.

But as i said you can go look for your self. Go to a simple search engine, and type in some key words. Like Aburish.

I said this before, so you obviously havn't paid attention or a an utter retard. I suspect the latter. Of course you don't care about my sources. You just want me to be wrong. Even though i know this, i will give you some very basic sites that may help you in your search for my "sources"

http://www.geocities.com/mikeshanahan/book...ew/aburish.html (http://www.geocities.com/mikeshanahan/bookreview/aburish.html)


http://www.zmag.org/aburishiraq.htm



http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747...3732506-9406423 (http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/ASIN/0747549036/302-3732506-9406423)



http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/Ja...2/bookshelf.asp (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/english/JanFeb02/bookshelf.asp)


blah blah blah. I suggest you read "Saddam Hussein: the politics of revenge"

[James]

You can't have a war on terrorism.

[Brian]

"You can't have a war on terrorism."

So the U.S should just let terrorist blow up building and do notting? What a stupid comment James!

And why can't the U.S have a war on Terrorism?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Not only can we have a war on terrorism, we have been succeeding at it. Dozens of terrorist plots have been foiled and countless lives saved in the wake of action since sept 11th as a result of U.S. and her ally's preemptive and proactive stance against international terrorism.

[Capitalist Imperial]

here you go:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2001-10...5/usw_plots.asp (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/2001-10-15/usw_plots.asp)

[Xvall]

The U.S is doing this only because It got attacked. If the hijackers blew up a building in Russia or China I doubt that your stupid regime would care.

In addition - You can't declare a war on terrorism, because there is no way to win it. Even if you kill every known terrorist in the world, more people will become terrorists. It's an endless budget hike.

[Brian]

If your special little Kremlin was destroyed, Russia would start screaming bloody murderer and they would be bombing left and right.And they would start there own "War on Terrorism".

(Edited by Brian at 12:54 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

I don't care if the US fights a war on terror that lasts for the duration of its existence as a nation! We will not let terrorist action against us go unanswered! Fanatics need to understand that there will be repercussions and consequences to their actions.

[James]

"War on terrorism"

Okay lets disect it for you Brian in simple to follow steps. If i loose you, just yell. Ok?

WAR - This is a conflict. To americans it means invading or bombing etc etc

TERRORISM - We all know the many different deffs of what this is. But lets just simply say its where a guy, or group, target civilians, with an audience in mind.

Okay, so now we have the name sorted. Now put the two together...ok

Now you should think "well... duh...urm...kan we ave a war on dat?..duh..." Yes my simple redneck friend you've got it. Its like when a councilor says "Hey, we ain't going to get re-elected!!! We need to do something good, and fast. It needs to be simple to carry out, and have a good public apperance. I know, litter is a problem in our little town, lets try and cut down on it. Lets call it a "War On Litter" This makes us sound serious :)"

Of course, even you my simple minded friend should realize how stupid this is. You can't just simply go around bombing any crisp packets you find on the ground, and putting out more bins won't help that much. Of course we could always arrest all the children!!! Anyway, i've worn this example out...

You can't have a war on terrorism. Its a stupid concept.

Okasy, you can combat terrorists - which is what we are REALLY doing, but thats not going to win the war is it? As Drake said, "Even if you kill every known terrorist in the world, more people will become terrorists. It's an endless budget hike".

Do you follow that Brainy Brian? Or is that a little bit too...far out?

Terrorists arn't just a kind of people, that are born. They are made. You have to combat whats creating them, no Brainy Brian, this does not mean we kill every woman in the world, it means we have to try and understand what makes them want to strike out, and descover the roots. This is far as our little lesson goes Brian. Because from here onwards, its beyond your understanding.

(Edited by James at 7:21 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Xvall]

Quote: from Capitalist Imperial on 7:14 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
I don't care if the US fights a war on terror that lasts for the duration of its existence as a nation! We will not let terrorist action against us go unanswered! Fanatics need to understand that there will be repercussions and consequences to their actions.


Too bad you don't give a crap when they attack other nations. No one in this country even gave a fuck about the Palestinean Israeli situtation until this happened. No one care about their government before this happened, and no one was patriotic with flags outside their window.

[James]

ah CI i forgot about you.

Okay, so your suggesting that with out a war on terrorism, terrorists would have a free rein? That there would be bombs going off all the time? And terrorists wouldn't understand what would happen to them if they get caught?

BS


I don't care if the US fights a war on terror that lasts for the duration of its existence as a nation!
Man, get a copy on 1984 now!!!

[Capitalist Imperial]

James, you are splitting hairs over syntax. We all know the war on teroor is not a conventional war. Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the US government conceded early on in the game that it would be a long, arduous process.

They also admitted exactly what you said, that "we can't just kill present terrorists, we have to go to the source, where they are recruited, bred, and funded".

That is exactly what we are doing.

We are eradicating current regimes that support terrorism and terrorist networks. We are freezing funds found to be channeled to terrorist cell's operations, and we are seerching and destroying existing weapons caches, terrorist camps,and terroist facilities.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from James on 7:25 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
ah CI i forgot about you.

Okay, so your suggesting that with out a war on terrorism, terrorists would have a free rein? That there would be bombs going off all the time? And terrorists wouldn't understand what would happen to them if they get caught?

BS





Well, lets see, before the warr on terror was declared...

The US marine barracks in beirut were bombed, the US marine barracks in saudi arabia were bombed, the 2 embassies in africa were bombed, the WTC was bombed in 1993, the USS cole was bombed, Pan Am flight 103 over scotland, and, of course, sept 11th...

so, the answer to your question is an emphatic YES!

[Xvall]

James, you are splitting hairs over syntax. We all know the war on teroor is not a conventional war. Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the US government conceded early on in the game that it would be a long, arduous process.

I suggest you follow Jame's advice in reading the book 1984. Actually, come to think of it, that may nto be such a great idea. You might become entranced with the book, and start to idolize your ideal society after it.

They also admitted exactly what you said, that "we can't just kill present terrorists, we have to go to the source, where they are recruited, bred, and funded".

Bred? Where terrorists breed? They were never 'recruited', they took up arms themselves. What are you going to do to stop terrorist 'breedings'? Kill every arab woman in the third world? If you want to go after the person who funded them, you might want to assasinate Bush and Raegan.

That is exactly what we are doing.

Killing arab mothers? Yes, that is exactly what you are doing, isn't it?

We are eradicating current regimes that support terrorism and terrorist networks.

Why didn't you eradicate these regimes before they attacked you? Is it only when your own country is affected by something, that you give a crap? Terrorism has always existed, and attacked several other countries. America didn't even care.

We are freezing funds found to be channeled to terrorist cell's operations, and we are seerching and destroying existing weapons caches, terrorist camps,and terroist facilities.

How do you know where the terrorist cells are? And who decides what qualifies as a terrorist state? I noticed that George Bush randomly added North Korea, a country that hasn't done a thing to america, on the Axis of evil.

[Xvall]

If your special little Kremlin was destroyed, Russia would start screaming bloody murderer and they would be bombing left and right.And they would start there own "War on Terrorism".

Brian, you have no idea what Russia would be doing. Aside from that, Russia isn't even a communist country. Do you think I care about their stupid government?

[Brian]

James, your head is so far up your ass its not even funny.



Now you should think "well... duh...urm...kan we ave a war on dat?..duh..." Yes my simple redneck friend you've got it. Its like when a councilor says "Hey, we ain't going to get re-elected!!! We need to do something good, and fast. It needs to be simple to carry out, and have a good public apperance. I know, litter is a problem in our little town, lets try and cut down on it. Lets call it a "War On Litter" This makes us sound serious :)"Kinda funny that I'm Canadian and not American.Destroy terrorist groups and stop terrorist actions.Its not only a good for the West but Russia and Britain and some other conutries as well.

Of course, even you my simple minded friend should realize how stupid this is. You can't just simply go around bombing any crisp packets you find on the ground, and putting out more bins won't help that much. Of course we could always arrest all the children!!! Anyway, i've worn this example out...

You can't have a war on terrorism. Its a stupid
concept. True! its just a scam to keep the republicans in office.

Okasy, you can combat terrorists - which is what we are REALLY doing, but thats not going to win the war is it? As Drake said, "Even if you kill every known terrorist in the world, more people will become terrorists. It's an endless budget hike".
Yes it is an endless bugget hike, put it would take care of todays terrorist threats.

Do you follow that Brainy Brian? Or is that a little bit too...far out?
Head up your ass?

Terrorists arn't just a kind of people, that are born. They are made. You have to combat whats creating them, no Brainy Brian, this does not mean we kill every woman in the world, it means we have to try and understand what makes them want to strike out, and descover the roots. This is far as our little lesson goes Brian. Because from here onwards, its beyond your understanding. Its beyond my understanding? Is this more of you sad attempts on trying to make your self look smart?




(Edited by Brian at 2:15 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)


(Edited by Brian at 2:23 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 7:22 pm on Aug. 2, 2002

Too bad you don't give a crap when they attack other nations. No one in this country even gave a fuck about the Palestinean Israeli situtation until this happened. No one care about their government before this happened, and no one was patriotic with flags outside their window.


We have supported and supplied the isreaelis throughout their barttles with thew palestinians. They fly f-15's and ah-64 apaches.

Many people were patriotic b4 sept 11th, but it was just such a galvanizing force that everyone toook a step back, and realized how much we really do love our country. Who cares what caused the partriotism and unity? The important thing is that we were reminded of how great America is, and that, even though we have a lot of work to do in some areas, we are all brothers and sisters in this great nation.

You ignorant leftists just can't seem to accept that americans are unified and proud, and after sept 11th, america was not brought to its knees.

To the contrary, we became stronger than ever.

[Brian]

It's pretty sad how American's drive around in there SUV's and wave there flags and follow blindly, they don't even know that there own goverment are screwing them over.

(Edited by Brian at 2:21 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 8:20 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
It's pretty sad how American's drive around in there SUV's and wave there flags and follow blindly, they don't even know that there own goverment are screwing them over.

(Edited by Brian at 2:21 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)


What is sad, brian, is that you try to discredit americans with dogmatic blanket statements like that, when in actuality the US government does a pretty good job of looking out for its citizenry overall, and we are far from "ignorant" or "blind".

How do you propose the the US government is "screwing us over"?

Look at the canadian tax rate, and tell me who is getting screwed.

[Xvall]

Many people were patriotic b4 sept 11th, but it was just such a galvanizing force that everyone toook a step back, and realized how much we really do love our country. Who cares what caused the partriotism and unity? The important thing is that we were reminded of how great America is, and that, even though we have a lot of work to do in some areas, we are all brothers and sisters in this great nation.

Give me a break. Few people were patriotic. Your nation is one of the most cruel and vicious in the history of humankind. Brothers and sisters? That's what brothers and sisters do? Commit hate crimes against people that look like arabs? Yeah, great family. Can't even stop each other from shooting themselves. Brothers and Sisters. CI, Patriotism is useless. Do you have any idea how much money could have been spent on the families of 9/11 victims, instead of wasting it on flags and bumper stickers?

A colorful piece of cloth that you got from wal-mart isn't going to protect you against any terrorist threat. It isn't going to bring people back, and it isn't going to save any lives.

You ignorant leftists just can't seem to accept that americans are unified and proud, and after sept 11th, america was not brought to its knees.

Sure CI. Proud of what? Proud that your government was unable to prevent 3,000 people from dying? Proud that your 400,000,000 dollar security plan was toppled a by a couple foreigners with box cutters?

[Brian]

The U.S Goverment is using fear as a weapon against it's own people,Before you Americans know it Americans you will be be having a tracking and indifcation chip placed under your skin.

Republicans only care about the people when it's time to vote.

(Edited by Brian at 2:39 pm on Aug. 2, 2002)

[rebel with a cause]

Confused? Having difficulty telling the good guys from the bad guys? Use this handy guide to differences between Terrorists and the U.S. Government:

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader is the spoiled son of a powerful politician, from extremely wealthy oil family

TERRORISTS: Leader has declared a holy war ('Jihad') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified.
US GOVERNMENT: Leader has declared a holy war ('Crusade') against his 'enemies'; believes any nation not with him is against him; believes god is on his side, and that any means are justified.

TERRORISTS: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers
US GOVERNMENT: Supported by extreme fundamentalist religious leaders who preach hatred, intolerance, subjugation of women, and persecution of non-believers

TERRORISTS: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election
US GOVERNMENT: Leadership was not elected by a majority of the people in a free and fair democratic election

TERRORISTS: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings
US GOVERNMENT: Kills thousands of innocent civilians, some of them children, in cold blooded bombings

TERRORISTS: Operates through clandestine organization (al Qaeda) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics
US GOVERNMENT: Operates through clandestine organization (CIA) with agents in many countries; uses bombing, assassination, other terrorist tactics

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader has extensive financial ties to Supposed leader of US GOVERNMENT
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader has extensive financial ties to Supposed leader of TERRORISTS

TERRORISTS: Supposed leader invested heavily in US bio-chemical companies
US GOVERNMENT: Supposed leader invested heavily in US bio-chemical companies

TERRORISTS: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties
US GOVERNMENT: Using war as pretext to clamp down on dissent and undermine civil liberties

[Brian]

That post is pretty pointless If you have half a brain and are not brain dead like Capitalist Imperial.

[Stormin Norman]

Brian,

What's wrong Brian? Are you still upset about getting kicked out of the other forums? What ever the cause, I am sure the answer to your problems will not be solved by adopting the losing argument.

Rebel with a cause,

Your post is ridiculous. Moral equivalence between the US and terrorists, you'd have to be a fool not to reject that, out of hand.

In response to Drake who stated:

"Give me a break. Few people were patriotic. Your nation is one of the most cruel and vicious in the history of humankind. Brothers and sisters? That's what brothers and sisters do? Commit hate crimes against people that look like arabs? Yeah, great family. Can't even stop each other from shooting themselves. Brothers and Sisters. CI, Patriotism is useless. Do you have any idea how much money could have been spent on the families of 9/11 victims, instead of wasting it on flags and bumper stickers?"

Patriotism is useless, huh? Look what it did post 9-11. Prior to that event, SUV gas emission standards was the top story, and nobody cared about the potential threats that I illustrated in my previous post. What the terrorist succeeded in doing, was to take the most powerful nation in the world and focus them on the erradication of certain enemies. They have done nothing to further their cause, only stirred up the hornets nest.

The families of the victims of 9-11 should be taken care of through the proceeds donated to charity for that reason. Contrary to your jaded view of Americans, we are probably the most generous when it comes to such events. Billions of dollars were raised.

If people want to buy bumper stickers and flags that is their perogative. Part of the effort to erradicate terrorists depends upon an extensive propaganda war. The fact that our people support this war is crucial to our relative success. We must win this information and ideological campaign in order to convince the world that we are committed to the cause. Our enemies thrive on weakness, and if we present the appearance of waivering support, they will view it as a sign of weakness to be further exploited.

[Anonymous]

Shut your fucking mouth!

[Augusto]

Quote: from the anarchist on 9:37 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
Shut your fucking mouth!

Touche. SN, I think he's got you there.

[Xvall]

Patriotism is useless, huh?

Yes, It's useless.

Look what it did post 9-11.

Aside from overflowing the country with 'American Pride', And mass producing items with American flags on it, which were actually made in china, Patriotism seems to have done nothing useful. I hardly call people thinking they're safe, and having pride in their country progressive.

Prior to that event, SUV gas emission standards was the top story, and nobody cared about the potential threats that I illustrated in my previous post.

The country is still pretty blind and stupid. Most political stuff isn't important anymore to the masses. Instead, they wish to flock to see movies about crop circles, and talk about Micheal Jackson.

What the terrorist succeeded in doing, was to take the most powerful nation in the world and focus them on the erradication of certain enemies. They have done nothing to further their cause, only stirred up the hornets nest.

Stirring up the hornets nest? America is dragging random 'enemies' into this fray. North Korea? They never did anything to them. America simply sees them as a threat, and that is no excuse to start a campaign against them. If I was allowed to kill everyone I saw as a 'threat' you would probably be dead.

The families of the victims of 9-11 should be taken care of through the proceeds donated to charity for that reason. Contrary to your jaded view of Americans, we are probably the most generous when it comes to such events. Billions of dollars were raised.

I've heard of families who have not recieved a penny.

If people want to buy bumper stickers and flags that is their perogative. Part of the effort to erradicate terrorists depends upon an extensive propaganda war.

LOL. I don't care about that. The terrorists aren't going to see your bumper stickers. You're spreading propoganda amongst yourself. Flags hardly qualify as propoganda.

The fact that our people support this war is crucial to our relative success. We must win this information and ideological campaign in order to convince the world that we are committed to the cause. Our enemies thrive on weakness, and if we present the appearance of waivering support, they will view it as a sign of weakness to be further exploited.

I hope you are aware that MUCH of the population does not support your stupid war past Afghanistan. No one here really cares about Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. Or whatever wild countries King George decides to add to his hit list. There have been several occasions where over 20,000 people in New York have rallied to denounce the wars declared against Iraq? How many people have rallies to support it, Winston?

[James]

What is sad, brian, is that you try to discredit americans with dogmatic blanket statements like that, when in actuality the US government does a pretty good job of looking out for its citizenry overall,

Like those 3000?

we are far from "ignorant" or "blind".

Don't think you can be any more ignorant CI. For instance, you didn't know a thing about the reichstag fire, or even know the basic concept of 1984. Both apply to the current situation (which ironicly patriotic americans seem to like to tell themselves - "we know alot about"), and both seem to be complete obsolute.

The U.S Goverment is using fear as a weapon against it's own people,Before you Americans know it Americans you will be be having a tracking and indifcation chip placed under your skin.

Republicans only care about the people when it's time to vote.


wow, brainy brain is really actually brainy!

What the terrorist succeeded in doing, was to take the most powerful nation in the world and focus them on the erradication of certain enemies. They have done nothing to further their cause, only stirred up the hornets nest.


And that in its self doesn't seem at the least, a bit "ironic"?

Patriotism is useless, huh?

Bing. You got a good note there, here is a very apt quote

"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them."

[rebel with a cause]

Let me just say straight up, that I am proud, damn proud to be an American, I hail from the sunny skies of Los Angeles, California.

I love my country with my whole heart….

But I can’t stand my government.

“I don't care if the US fights a war on terror that lasts for the duration of its existence as a nation! We will not let terrorist action against us go unanswered! Fanatics need to understand that there will be repercussions and consequences to their actions.”

1)1.5 million dead in Iraq due to bombings & sanctions, because we no longer like Saddum, we punish the innocent civilians, this guy killed masses of his own people at one point to which we turned a blind eye and a deaf ear (of course we didn’t say anything because he was a trading partner, political collaborate, and oil supplier), what makes you think he’s gonna give a shit if someone else does it? And so you strangle their trade, so what, he just buys it on the black market now.

Actual dialogue on 60 minutes May 12, 1996 about Iraq Sanctions

Lesley Stahl: “We’ve heard that half-a-million children have died”

Former Sec. Of State, Madeline Albright : “You know it’s a difficult decision, but… we think the PRICE is worth it.”

2)Support of Israel’s military to kill Palestinians

3)1998, 13 cruise missiles fired on Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, to destroy medicines that were going to be provided at a much cheaper cost to the impoverished of the region with lethal diseases, instead of buying the high priced U.$. medicines (hey, they were going to destroy our monopoly, profits above people, it’s the U.$. way)

You’re right, there will be repercussions & consequences for their actions, over 3,000 people had to die because of a reckless & ridiculous foreign policy. (I lost an uncle in the WTC, and my aunt was on the flight that supposedly crashed into the pentagon, but there is no plane wreckage at all there, and from what was reported and the damage done, a Boeing 757 crashing into the pentagon defies all science)

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

don’t come saying, oh the pics are airbrushed, check the sources below their pics

I wanna know where that fuckin plane is, we’d like something from my aunt

Does that justify what happened, on 9-11. NOTHING CAN EVER, AND WILL NEVER JUSTIFY TERRORISM!!!!! REGARDLESS OF WHO DID IT (yes, that means you U$A, you have a very exceptionalist attitude thinking that the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to you) AND WHO DID WHAT TO WHO FIRST.

But if those 3 things, in a similar fashion happened to the U.S. by the arab world…
If you can’t restrain yourself from retallitaion after having something like that happen to you, don’t expect it of them either! They’re just as human as you and I, and inclined to the very same emotions that we can partake.

“The US marine barracks in beirut were bombed, the US marine barracks in saudi arabia were bombed, the 2 embassies in africa were bombed, the WTC was bombed in 1993, the USS cole was bombed, Pan Am flight 103 over scotland, and, of course, sept 11th...”

So why didn’t the CIA arrest Bin Laden last July in France when they met with him in a hospital undergoing kidney operations? I mean, they had every right to, he bombed the USS Cole, and embassies in Africa. Also, why doesn’t Michael Riconosciuto, a CIA agent who worked closely with Bin Laden (while OBL was in the CIA under the name Tim Osman), and knows a lot about his network, have an office next to Colin Powell. That’s because Michael is serving time on false drug charges that appeared suddenly, after he told his fellow agents the embassies in Africa were going to be bombed, he was detained, and after asking & begging many times to have at least on phone call to the consulate in Africa to warn them (he knew the day it would happen too), the federal officers still denied the call. Hmmm?

”Many people were patriotic b4 sept 11th, but it was just such a galvanizing force that everyone toook a step back, and realized how much we really do love our country. Who cares what caused the partriotism and unity? The important thing is that we were reminded of how great America is, and that, even though we have a lot of work to do in some areas, we are all brothers and sisters in this great nation.”

I have probably seen one speck of patriotism since 9-11, and half of it is coming from me. I sure as hell have seen a lot of nationalism though. Putting a flag on your fuckin car doesn’t make you a patriot, wearing a T-Shirt bearing Old Glory that says “these colors don’t run” doesn’t make you a patriot.

In the words of founding father Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, which sparked the American Revolution, “It the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

“It's pretty sad how American's drive around in there SUV's and wave there flags and follow blindly, they don't even know that there own goverment are screwing them over.”

“How do you propose the the US government is "screwing us over"?”

Well you probably didn’t hear CI, but the Bush Administration has now declared that they can detain U.S. Citizens without them having access to a trial, defense, or even knowing what they’re charged with.

Oh, but it’s a time of terror. It’s ok.

When’s this time of terror gonna end? When every single fuckin terrorist in the world has been caught?

Not to mention that bullshit PATRIOT ACT. I scream TREASON into the face of the administration!

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

Timmy Jefferson, Old Ben, Jimmy Madison, Tom Paine, and THE ORIGINAL GEORGE W. !!!!! (that would be Washington) would vomit all over what has happened to our liberties. Just because we’re in a “war on terror”, doesn’t give them to right to take away what people fought and died for at Lexington and Concord.

“A society that will trade a little freedom, for a little order, will lose both, and deserve neither.” – Thomas Jefferson

But I guess the rest of America is fine with it, they don’t see the rise of the police state before their very eyes, they don’t see their rights being dismantled by the authorities, they don’t see the misery and destruction our government causes, but I do.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
-Michael Rivero

I do have that moral courage, and as long as I have a voice, and can make a fist, and throw it into the air, I will dissent, I will rebel, and I will question, because as an American not only is it my right, but my obligation.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (not to the government because they have betrayed the) republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL!! Not for some, not for the privileged few, the elite, or those who can afford it, but for ALL!!!

“I am only one, but still I am one, I cannot do everything, but I can do something, and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.”

Peace out comrades

~rebel with a cause


To my fellow Americans, we all know the first part of the declaration of independece, ever bother to read farther than that?

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This country was founded on rebellion, by dissent, radical ideas, and protest, we have a beautiful history of it, from anti-federalists, abolitionists, suffragists, and the civil rights movements to name the least.

http://www.subvertise.org/img_big/718.gif

It’s the TRUE AMERICAN WAY.


(sorry for the huge ass flag guys) :)

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Drake Dracoli on 8:32 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
Many people were patriotic b4 sept 11th, but it was just such a galvanizing force that everyone toook a step back, and realized how much we really do love our country. Who cares what caused the partriotism and unity? The important thing is that we were reminded of how great America is, and that, even though we have a lot of work to do in some areas, we are all brothers and sisters in this great nation.

Give me a break. Few people were patriotic. Your nation is one of the most cruel and vicious in the history of humankind. Brothers and sisters? That's what brothers and sisters do? Commit hate crimes against people that look like arabs? Yeah, great family. Can't even stop each other from shooting themselves. Brothers and Sisters. CI, Patriotism is useless. Do you have any idea how much money could have been spent on the families of 9/11 victims, instead of wasting it on flags and bumper stickers?

A colorful piece of cloth that you got from wal-mart isn't going to protect you against any terrorist threat. It isn't going to bring people back, and it isn't going to save any lives.

You ignorant leftists just can't seem to accept that americans are unified and proud, and after sept 11th, america was not brought to its knees.

Sure CI. Proud of what? Proud that your government was unable to prevent 3,000 people from dying? Proud that your 400,000,000 dollar security plan was toppled a by a couple foreigners with box cutters?


"Give me a break. Few people were patriotic. Your nation is one of the most cruel and vicious in the history of humankind."

I don't know where you are from, but if you have ever been to small-town america, the "grass roots" areas, blue collar towns, you would find that there are a lot of people, many veterans, that loved this nation and hung their flag out every day before 9/11. And you say "your nation" what is your nation, drake?


"Brothers and sisters? That's what brothers and sisters do? Commit hate crimes against people that look like arabs?"

Those few incidents, while unexcusable, were few and far between, and magnified by the media for you leftist fanatics to blow out of proportion. Most americans, contrary to anti-american propoganda, understand that islam and terrorism are seperate entities, to be treated as such. In my personal experience, most middle easterners I encountered post 9/11 were treated very well, even extra-special, with the support of their fellow americans, many of them asking "how are you doing? is everyone treating you well?" the compasion for middle-eastern americans post 9/11 was amazing. A deli owner in the building I work with come to mind.

"Yeah, great family. Can't even stop each other from shooting themselves."

Murders happen everywhere, kind of like the chines government killing every unauthorized newborn? What is your point?


CI, Patriotism is useless."

Apparently, you have not payed attention to history. Patriotism is the lifeblood of morale. History has shown, in countless incidents, including the american revolution, and I will even concede cuba, that an outmanned, outgunned force can defeat a technically/numerically superior enemy with will and heart, which in the context of political struggle, is patriotism.


"Do you have any idea how much money could have been spent on the families of 9/11 victims, instead of wasting it on flags and bumper stickers?"

Do you have any idea how much each 9/11 family will receive as a result of direct contributions from citizens, the government, and various charities? Over $1million each.
And if you deny the fact that many americans from all walks of life pulled together to contribute to 9/11 relief in some way, then you obviously are grasping at straws. As far as flags and bumper stickers go, they are a symbol or our solidarity, and a reminder of what we stand for. Your attempt to reduce them to the value of their physical material is short sighted and desperate.

"A colorful piece of cloth that you got from wal-mart isn't going to protect you against any terrorist threat."

It will remind us to be vigilant and strong in the face of terror, and may help us prevent another attack through mindful observation.


It isn't going to bring people back, and it isn't going to save any lives."

It helps us mourn, and it ensures we won't forget the lives that were lost.

"Sure CI. Proud of what? Proud that your government was unable to prevent 3,000 people from dying?"

It wasn't the governments fault, contrary to popular leftist belief. Do I really need to exp[lain this to you?

"Proud that your 400,000,000 dollar security plan was toppled a by a couple foreigners with box cutters?"

That and the fact that they told hostages that the planes were:

1) rigged with a bomb

2) were merely going to be landed, not crashed

What would you have done in that scenario, drake?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 8:56 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
That post is pretty pointless If you have half a brain and are not brain dead like Capitalist Imperial.


As oppsed to you, canuk genius?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from James on 10:43 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
What is sad, brian, is that you try to discredit americans with dogmatic blanket statements like that, when in actuality the US government does a pretty good job of looking out for its citizenry overall,

Like those 3000?

we are far from "ignorant" or "blind".

Don't think you can be any more ignorant CI. For instance, you didn't know a thing about the reichstag fire, or even know the basic concept of 1984. Both apply to the current situation (which ironicly patriotic americans seem to like to tell themselves - "we know alot about"), and both seem to be complete obsolute.




"Like those 3000?"

If you equate the 3000 killed in an unprecedented terrorist attack to the US government not looking out for its citizenry, then apparently all governments are responsible for neglect due to atrocities against their citizenry from outsiders. Did england "fail" its citizens when the v-2's were raining down from germany? Get serious.


"Don't think you can be any more ignorant CI. For instance, you didn't know a thing about the reichstag fire, or even know the basic concept of 1984. Both apply to the current situation (which ironicly patriotic americans seem to like to tell themselves - "we know alot about"), and both seem to be complete obsolute. "

Because I haven't read a specific book or studied a specific historical event I am ignorant?

Hardly

Ignorant would be claiming that I know something about either of those topics when I don't, and then blindly spouting off about them. I didn't do that, I admitted that I was unfamiliar with them (admitting I don't know something is something a lot of the primadonnas here can't even bring themselves to do), and so did not attempt to discuss them. I'm sure I can name a specific historical event that you are not familiar with or a book you haven't read. Would that make you ignorant? By yout logic it would.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from rebel with a cause on 11:04 pm on Aug. 2, 2002
Let me just say straight up, that I am proud, damn proud to be an American, I hail from the sunny skies of Los Angeles, California.

I love my country with my whole heart….

But I can’t stand my government.

“I don't care if the US fights a war on terror that lasts for the duration of its existence as a nation! We will not let terrorist action against us go unanswered! Fanatics need to understand that there will be repercussions and consequences to their actions.”

1)1.5 million dead in Iraq due to bombings & sanctions, because we no longer like Saddum, we punish the innocent civilians, this guy killed masses of his own people at one point to which we turned a blind eye and a deaf ear (of course we didn’t say anything because he was a trading partner, political collaborate, and oil supplier), what makes you think he’s gonna give a shit if someone else does it? And so you strangle their trade, so what, he just buys it on the black market now.

Actual dialogue on 60 minutes May 12, 1996 about Iraq Sanctions

Lesley Stahl: “We’ve heard that half-a-million children have died”

Former Sec. Of State, Madeline Albright : “You know it’s a difficult decision, but… we think the PRICE is worth it.”

2)Support of Israel’s military to kill Palestinians

3)1998, 13 cruise missiles fired on Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, to destroy medicines that were going to be provided at a much cheaper cost to the impoverished of the region with lethal diseases, instead of buying the high priced U.$. medicines (hey, they were going to destroy our monopoly, profits above people, it’s the U.$. way)

You’re right, there will be repercussions & consequences for their actions, over 3,000 people had to die because of a reckless & ridiculous foreign policy. (I lost an uncle in the WTC, and my aunt was on the flight that supposedly crashed into the pentagon, but there is no plane wreckage at all there, and from what was reported and the damage done, a Boeing 757 crashing into the pentagon defies all science)

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

don’t come saying, oh the pics are airbrushed, check the sources below their pics

I wanna know where that fuckin plane is, we’d like something from my aunt

Does that justify what happened, on 9-11. NOTHING CAN EVER, AND WILL NEVER JUSTIFY TERRORISM!!!!! REGARDLESS OF WHO DID IT (yes, that means you U$A, you have a very exceptionalist attitude thinking that the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to you) AND WHO DID WHAT TO WHO FIRST.

But if those 3 things, in a similar fashion happened to the U.S. by the arab world…
If you can’t restrain yourself from retallitaion after having something like that happen to you, don’t expect it of them either! They’re just as human as you and I, and inclined to the very same emotions that we can partake.

“The US marine barracks in beirut were bombed, the US marine barracks in saudi arabia were bombed, the 2 embassies in africa were bombed, the WTC was bombed in 1993, the USS cole was bombed, Pan Am flight 103 over scotland, and, of course, sept 11th...”

So why didn’t the CIA arrest Bin Laden last July in France when they met with him in a hospital undergoing kidney operations? I mean, they had every right to, he bombed the USS Cole, and embassies in Africa. Also, why doesn’t Michael Riconosciuto, a CIA agent who worked closely with Bin Laden (while OBL was in the CIA under the name Tim Osman), and knows a lot about his network, have an office next to Colin Powell. That’s because Michael is serving time on false drug charges that appeared suddenly, after he told his fellow agents the embassies in Africa were going to be bombed, he was detained, and after asking & begging many times to have at least on phone call to the consulate in Africa to warn them (he knew the day it would happen too), the federal officers still denied the call. Hmmm?

”Many people were patriotic b4 sept 11th, but it was just such a galvanizing force that everyone toook a step back, and realized how much we really do love our country. Who cares what caused the partriotism and unity? The important thing is that we were reminded of how great America is, and that, even though we have a lot of work to do in some areas, we are all brothers and sisters in this great nation.”

I have probably seen one speck of patriotism since 9-11, and half of it is coming from me. I sure as hell have seen a lot of nationalism though. Putting a flag on your fuckin car doesn’t make you a patriot, wearing a T-Shirt bearing Old Glory that says “these colors don’t run” doesn’t make you a patriot.

In the words of founding father Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, which sparked the American Revolution, “It the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”

“It's pretty sad how American's drive around in there SUV's and wave there flags and follow blindly, they don't even know that there own goverment are screwing them over.”

“How do you propose the the US government is "screwing us over"?”

Well you probably didn’t hear CI, but the Bush Administration has now declared that they can detain U.S. Citizens without them having access to a trial, defense, or even knowing what they’re charged with.

Oh, but it’s a time of terror. It’s ok.

When’s this time of terror gonna end? When every single fuckin terrorist in the world has been caught?

Not to mention that bullshit PATRIOT ACT. I scream TREASON into the face of the administration!

"Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting.

Timmy Jefferson, Old Ben, Jimmy Madison, Tom Paine, and THE ORIGINAL GEORGE W. !!!!! (that would be Washington) would vomit all over what has happened to our liberties. Just because we’re in a “war on terror”, doesn’t give them to right to take away what people fought and died for at Lexington and Concord.

“A society that will trade a little freedom, for a little order, will lose both, and deserve neither.” – Thomas Jefferson

But I guess the rest of America is fine with it, they don’t see the rise of the police state before their very eyes, they don’t see their rights being dismantled by the authorities, they don’t see the misery and destruction our government causes, but I do.

"Most people prefer to believe their leaders are just and fair even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which they live is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all."
-Michael Rivero

I do have that moral courage, and as long as I have a voice, and can make a fist, and throw it into the air, I will dissent, I will rebel, and I will question, because as an American not only is it my right, but my obligation.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (not to the government because they have betrayed the) republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL!! Not for some, not for the privileged few, the elite, or those who can afford it, but for ALL!!!

“I am only one, but still I am one, I cannot do everything, but I can do something, and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.”

Peace out comrades

~rebel with a cause


To my fellow Americans, we all know the first part of the declaration of independece, ever bother to read farther than that?

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This country was founded on rebellion, by dissent, radical ideas, and protest, we have a beautiful history of it, from anti-federalists, abolitionists, suffragists, and the civil rights movements to name the least.

It’s the TRUE AMERICAN WAY.


(sorry for the huge ass flag guys) :)



"Let me just say straight up, that I am proud, damn proud to be an American, I hail from the sunny skies of Los Angeles, California.



I love my country with my whole heart…."

OK, we agree there

"But I can’t stand my government."

Although it has provided the means for you to live your life with liberty, and the worlds best standard of living, with little intrusion?


"1)1.5 million dead in Iraq due to bombings & sanctions, because we no longer like Saddum, we punish the innocent civilians, this guy killed masses of his own people at one point to which we turned a blind eye and a deaf ear (of course we didn’t say anything because he was a trading partner, political collaborate, and oil supplier), what makes you think he’s gonna give a shit if someone else does it? And so you strangle their trade, so what, he just buys it on the black market now."

Correction, 1.5 million dead (if that is the true #) due to saddam hussein and his regime. UN sanctions allow for provisions to feed, cloth, and provide medicine to his population. He is redistributing those resources for his needs. Although I concede that collateral damge and incidentals have occured, the US has never targeted innocent civilians with malice and intent.

"Actual dialogue on 60 minutes May 12, 1996 about Iraq Sanctions

"Lesley Stahl: “We’ve heard that half-a-million children have died”

Former Sec. Of State, Madeline Albright : “You know it’s a difficult decision, but… we think the PRICE is worth it.”"

She is looking after her nations best interests, she is the secretary of state! Besides, 60 minutes? I wonder what the full quote was, and in which context she meant it, before it was editied to hell and broadcast. And of course, leslie stahl "heard" 1/2 million died. Huh.


3)1998, 13 cruise missiles fired on Sudanese pharmaceutical plant, to destroy medicines that were going to be provided at a much cheaper cost to the impoverished of the region with lethal diseases, instead of buying the high priced U.$. medicines (hey, they were going to destroy our monopoly, profits above people, it’s the U.$. way)

Do you mean that chemical weapons plant producing weapons under the pasad of a "pharmecuetical factory"?
If the military was employed destroy factories to eliminate corporate competition, why don't they do it more often? Was this sudanese plant the be-all end-all for the american pharmecuetical industry? Dude, get real. The US government did not use military intervention to undermine pharmecuetical competition from Sudan.

You’re right, there will be repercussions & consequences for their actions, over 3,000 people had to die because of a reckless & ridiculous foreign policy. (I lost an uncle in the WTC, and my aunt was on the flight that supposedly crashed into the pentagon, but there is no plane wreckage at all there, and from what was reported and the damage done, a Boeing 757 crashing into the pentagon defies all science)

Oh, I haven't heard this shit before, the absolutely fucking ludacrious leftist notion that "the US and its foreign policy is ultimately responsibe" for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And then he tries to qualify his claim by citing relatives as victims. Have you ever considered thatmost US action abroad is in response to a request for help?

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pen.../erreurs_en.htm (http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm)

Question 1: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour* only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"


1)The Pentagon was built with rings for the very purpose of maintaining strong structural integrity in the face of an attack (it was bulit with the cold war, remember?). 2) Here is a physics lesson: 100 tons of malleble aluminum @ 250 mph really isn't much compared to hundreds of thosands of tons of concrete and steel with a low center of gravity embedded in a foundation of concrete.

Question 2: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"

Funny, those 2 pictures seem to be different parts of the building at different angles. Hmmm More importantly, the height dimention of 14+ yards includes the tail, which, by the principles of physics, would have been crumpled in a collision with the building. So the height of the 1st impact portion of the plane is about 3.8 meters, about the height of your average floor, assming ceilings are not high. The wings were sheared off. They are much less dense than the fuselage, and stress tests on them have demonstarated that they will "snap" off if stressed.

Question 3: "You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"

I see a lot of loose debris, much of which contrasts drastically with the building. It looks like what could easily be aircraft debris to me

Question 4: "Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?"

Fuel fumes, fire-fighting chemical residuals, heavy vehicle tread, heat, etc. How can this site deem the lawn "undamaged"? With a digital photo taken several yards away?

Question 5: "Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?"

See question 2

Question 6: "Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?"

Because he is not an aviation crash and air-fuel fire expert, he was a structural fire expert. As a layman, I can theorize that most of the plane disintegrated, accelerating the melting and vaporization process, and the fuel mostly burned.

"don’t come saying, oh the pics are airbrushed, check the sources below their pics"

I won't claim that. The pics are absolutely not doctored. Unfortunatelty, the questions are.

"I wanna know where that fuckin plane is, we’d like something from my aunt"

It is wherever they took the chared debris that was not incineratred

"Does that justify what happened, on 9-11. NOTHING CAN EVER, AND WILL NEVER JUSTIFY TERRORISM!!!!! REGARDLESS OF WHO DID IT (yes, that means you U$A, you have a very exceptionalist attitude thinking that the rules that apply to the rest of the world do not apply to you) AND WHO DID WHAT TO WHO FIRST."

If you mean terrorism as intentionally attacking unsuspecting civilians in an effort to gain attention to a certain political or ideological cause, I would like you to point out when the US government has suported or executed said action.


"If you can’t restrain yourself from retallitaion after having something like that happen to you, don’t expect it of them either! They’re just as human as you and I, and inclined to the very same emotions that we can partake."


Restrain from retalliation? After 3000+ innocents are slaughtered, and our economic epicenter destroyed? Let me guess, you want us to pick up a fucking koran, learn to "understand them", open a fucking "dialogue", and sing cubbayah with a round of smores.
Besides, we don't expect them to restrain. Most americans concede that we should expect more terrorist attacks.



"So why didn’t the CIA arrest Bin Laden last July in France when they met with him in a hospital undergoing kidney operations?"

Perhaps at that particular point he was more valuable to them free than under arrest and gagged.

I mean, they had every right to, he bombed the USS Cole, and embassies in Africa. Also, why doesn’t Michael Riconosciuto, a CIA agent who worked closely with Bin Laden (while OBL was in the CIA under the name Tim Osman), and knows a lot about his network, have an office next to Colin Powell. That’s because Michael is serving time on false drug charges that appeared suddenly, after he told his fellow agents the embassies in Africa were going to be bombed, he was detained, and after asking & begging many times to have at least on phone call to the consulate in Africa to warn them (he knew the day it would happen too), the federal officers still denied the call. Hmmm?

"False" drug charges? Can you corroborate this claim?
Can you coroborate anything in the above paragraph?


"I have probably seen one speck of patriotism since 9-11, and half of it is coming from me. I sure as hell have seen a lot of nationalism though. Putting a flag on your fuckin car doesn’t make you a patriot, wearing a T-Shirt bearing Old Glory that says “these colors don’t run” doesn’t make you a patriot.

In the words of founding father Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, which sparked the American Revolution, “It the responsibility of the patriot to protect his country from its government.”"

Thomas Paine was speaking about the oppressive, monarchial british government and the lack of fair representation in the colonies.


Well you probably didn’t hear CI, but the Bush Administration has now declared that they can detain U.S. Citizens without them having access to a trial, defense, or even knowing what they’re charged with.

This is a war-time measure, constitutional considerations are not an issue. And when you say "detain without access to a trial" how long? do you mean for questioning? are you saying representation is not allowed? I think you are misinterpreting the legislation.


"When’s this time of terror gonna end? When every single fuckin terrorist in the world has been caught?"

No one knows.

"Not to mention that bullshit PATRIOT ACT. I scream TREASON into the face of the administration!"

see above

""Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government."
-- Henry Kissinger speaking at Evian, France, May 21, 1992 Bilderburgers meeting. Unbeknownst to Kissinger, his speech was taped by a Swiss delegate to the meeting."

What is your point? This is basic survival, self preservation, Maslow's hierarchy. Everything else being equal, did you expect ideological considerations to overcome one's survival instinct?

"Timmy Jefferson, Old Ben, Jimmy Madison, Tom Paine, and THE ORIGINAL GEORGE W. !!!!! (that would be Washington) would vomit all over what has happened to our liberties. Just because we’re in a “war on terror”, doesn’t give them to right to take away what people fought and died for at Lexington and Concord."

If you stand back and take a look, I don't see any examples of our liberties being stripped, for all intents and purposes. Besides, pundits always claim that "the founding fathers would be turning over in their graves". Could anyone that lived 225 years agoo predict the state of the USA and world today? The technology, information resourcing, state of world affairs? How do you know how they would have interpreted the constitution in todays climate? Some of the founding fathers were "loose constructionists", meaning that they believed the constitution should be interpreted to reflect modern times, situations, and dynamics.

“A society that will trade a little freedom, for a little order, will lose both, and deserve neither.” – Thomas Jefferson

Jefferson was a great visionary, but that quote is dogmatic and meaningless. He oppses even "a little order"? Is he suggesting anarchy?

"But I guess the rest of America is fine with it, they don’t see the rise of the police state before their very eyes, they don’t see their rights being dismantled by the authorities, they don’t see the misery and destruction our government causes, but I do."

Please provide concrete examples. Contrary to current popular leftist edict, and inspite of a few acts designed to protect americans, there is no "police state". People still get up, go to work, scratch their asses,, and come home. No problem.


"I do have that moral courage, and as long as I have a voice, and can make a fist, and throw it into the air, I will dissent, I will rebel, and I will question, because as an American not only is it my right, but my obligation."

Brother, I support your right as an american to spout your liberal, leftist, conspiracy theory ridden views and question our government. I obviously just don't agree with them.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America (not to the government because they have betrayed the) republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for ALL!! Not for some, not for the privileged few, the elite, or those who can afford it, but for ALL!!!"

Word is bond! ( I do like how you kept "God" out).

“I am only one, but still I am one, I cannot do everything, but I can do something, and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do.”

OK, that makes sense.

Peace out comrades

~rebel with a cause


To my fellow Americans, we all know the first part of the declaration of independece, ever bother to read farther than that?

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to ALTER or to ABOLISH IT, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

"This country was founded on rebellion, by dissent, radical ideas, and protest, we have a beautiful history of it, from anti-federalists, abolitionists, suffragists, and the civil rights movements to name the least.

It’s the TRUE AMERICAN WAY."

Again, I support your right to peaceful protest, and I look forward to a rebutal


"(sorry for the huge ass flag guys) :)"

Yeah, that wasn't OK (LOL, J/K)

[Stormin Norman]

Thanks CI. I was going to ask him about the 1.5 million dead. In my estimation, that number seems a little contrived.

[Brian]

As oppsed to you, canuk genius?
Wow! , what a great comeback.

[James]

If you equate the 3000 killed in an unprecedented terrorist attack to the US government not looking out for its citizenry, then apparently all governments are responsible for neglect due to atrocities against their citizenry from outsiders. Did england "fail" its citizens when the v-2's were raining down from germany? Get serious.

We can go on about this for ages and ages and ages...

American Government were told by many sources that Bin Ladens "terror net work" were planning on hijacking planes, and crashing them into big buildings. Bush even knew it was going to happen a week before. Were any prevention methods introduced? Why were no jets scambled after the first jet lost radio contact? Why were no jets launched after the first plane crashed? Why not after the second? blah blah blah

Please tell me how the v-2 rockets falling on London equates in the british government failing its people. Also noting that air raid shelters were provided - and the public were made to be aware of what to do in such events.


Because I haven't read a specific book or studied a specific historical event I am ignorant?



No. But the way you like to portray yourself as knowing all the abosulte answers to everything and anything - with out looking at background stuff blah blah blah

[Capitalist Imperial]

Quote: from Brian on 12:46 pm on Aug. 3, 2002



As oppsed to you, canuk genius?
Wow! , what a great comeback.


Yeah. almost as good as your original statement

[Brian]

Idiot!

[Capitalist Imperial]

Ignoramus!

[Brian]

Dimwit!

[James]

Please keep your kinky activities to your PM's...

[Stormin Norman]

What is up with this Brian fellow? The commies hate him, and I don't think that he is loved much by the reasonable ones either. Maybe he should keep his mouth shut unless he can think of a good post.

[marxistdisciple]

lol I agree stormin.

You know the IRA have been blowing stuff up ariound here for nigh 30 years. Where were the US? ...Oh some of them were funding them. Don't remember any great war on the IRA?

Of course when someone attacks a great american land mark and thousands of people something must be done. I agree. Right, so the people who attacked, where did they come from? right, some were saudis, most actually. Right. Saudis have Oil, very rich. can't do much there. Ahhh Osama is in Afghanistan. lets punish that country for their crimes right?

Does the war get any more simplistic than that? I know you will of course argue (the americans gave the taliban chance to give him up.) Does that justify killing any civilians at all? If Osama was hiding in France and they wouldn't give him up, would america bomb France? no. they have close realtions with the US, they are a capitalist and rich nation that has things you want. Afghanistan is not. It's not about justice, it's about revenge. Always was.

[Brian]

Quote: from Stormin Norman on 6:19 am on Aug. 4, 2002
What is up with this Brian fellow? The commies hate him, and I don't think that he is loved much by the reasonable ones either. Maybe he should keep his mouth shut unless he can think of a good post.
And this is coming from a person who said "The only justifiable increase in spending should be the military and security measures."
I rest my case!