how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to kilingspam
Re: All of it is TOTAL FRAUD! How can you say that? Are you accusing our government of killing ~3000 people in NYC and Washington D.C. to start a war over oil? This war is about some 3000 people dying plain and simple.
Obviously, being from California, you're ignorant to the depth of the feelings of the people in NYC and D.C or the parents of Daniel Perl. To them, and to me, this war is over their mother, brother, son, daughter, best friend, or arch enemy who died as a result of what happened.
Personally, I care more for life than oil and I think our government does too. To suggest otherwise does not only devalue the lives of those who died innocent, it makes you look like a fool! How would you like it if i called the execution of someone who murdered you a government conspiracy for oil! It's downright disrespectful. I did an internship at Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and the woman who was kind enough to let me into her life and office is now dead. Do you she think wanted to be accused of dying for oil?
PS If you truly think it's an oil conspiracy, stop using oil and do something about it! Don't drive your car to work this morning or take the bus. I wouldn't want anymore innocent people to die in an "oil war".
[text was edited by author 2002-02-25 10:35:10] | |
| Just as Enron is providing smoking guns that point in unexpected directions, it also provides a model for understanding our larger political situation. Bethany McLean showed in Fortune magazine a year ago that Enron, 'the 7th Largest Corporation In America,' was actually making less money than a small chain of Dairy Queens, yet no one would believe her. Jeffrey Skilling and friends went to her boss and demanded, 'What are her credentials?' Which is another way saying, 'She's just some punk reporter, a chick at that, and who is she to challenge the CEO of the 7th Largest Corporation In America?' And that summed up the entire reaction of Wall Street, brusquely dismissing McLean and continuing to issue 'Strong Buy' ratings on Enron till the bitter end. While Bethany McLean merely possessed the facts, what Skilling and Wall Street possessed is what can be called 'the prevailing narrative;' consisting of what everybody seems to be believing because it's what the particular vested powers of the situation want to be believed. Investors who lost billions in the collapse of the Internet bubble are currently being castigated because they believed the hype; yet during the bubble the business press printed nothing but hype. Same with Enron, same with all of Wall Street, with its pro forma earnings statements and consulting/auditing kickback schemes. The truth can't be told because the viability of the enterprise depends entirely on telling lies.
The facts of the Bush administration's true agenda in Central Asia, and of still undressed questions concerning the events of 9/11, can be discovered by anyone with the slight wit and ambition required to do a Google search. Try 'Zacarias Moussaoui and FISA warrants,' or 'FISA warrants and John Ashcroft and Janet Reno.' According to www.securityfocus.com/news/201 , under Clinton and Janet Reno, "In 2000 as in previous years, no FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) warrant requests were refused." In the current Village Voice, Nat Hentoff reports that Ashcroft's chief legal counsel confirmed to him that FISA requests were rarely refused. Why was Zacarias Moussaoui the exception to the rule? An identified terrorist, already in custody on the basis of an expired visa and the paying of large wads of cash for rather selectively chosen flying skills? Now known to be the 20th hijacker? And why has MSNBC apparently scrubbed their original reporting on this issue? (Saved at www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Access%20Denied.htm?cp1=1)
Do a search on Afghanistan, Caspian Sea Oil, pipelines, Unocal, etc., it's all out there. For a good overview, check out the Asia Times - »atimes.com/c-asia/DA25Ag01.html and »www.atimes.com/c-asia/DA26Ag01.html . The same story is found in the Russian press, the Indian press, the English press, etc. They have the mere facts, they just don't fit the prevailing narrative we're getting from CNN and Fox.
And speaking of whispers and murmurings, run a Google on 'Operation Northwoods,' and wonder why ABCNews chose this moment to confirm that in the early 1960's our Pentagon planned a coordinated series of attacks on American cities, airliners and ships to be blamed on Cuba, providing justification for an invasion of that country.
Only by looking back at history can you see forward to build a better future.
EVERYONE should have a major in history!!! | |
 dnoyeBFerrous Phallus
join:2000-10-09
Southfield, MI | reply to TZi
Daniel Pearl. I am suspecious that he likely was discovering more info about the US in Afganistan that he was about the Taliban. I know and admit to being a cynic so take my beliefs with a grain of salt.
I put at least 50% of the blame of 9/11 on the US governments letting corporations run roughshot over citizens rights. When you dance with the Devil, 9/11 is what you get. Don't blame the devil for simply being himself.
Opening the Alaskan refuge for oil because of 9/11??? Last time I checked we weren't getting any oil from Afganistan. So why now do we need to divest ourselves of middle-eastern oils??
Did you read the story about the Russian billionare claiming to have evidence that the Russian Government was behind the bombings of the Russian civilian apartments in an attempt to garner public support of invasion of Czeck Rrepublic? Same chit different nation.
Yea, you gotta keep you eyes open on these fools. Not to mention that Enron executive who off-ed himself in the middle of a Texas highway. Hmm. I can think of better places for a remorseful person to kill himself. You know most people who commit suicide do it in such a way not to hurt anyone else...
I admit that sometimes I may be overly cynical, but some times people want to believe its all good and they just ignore the facts. Them we call ignorant.
Be sure you check my biblical quote below. This chit has been going on for all of time. The revolutionary war was fought over this exact thing. Corporations raping the citizens.
--
dnoyeB"Then said I, Wisdom [is] better than strength: nevertheless the poor man's wisdom [is] despised, and his words are not heard. " Ecclesiastes 9:16
The government is pricing our rights our of our reach. | |
 Kelarch
join:2001-12-23
Lawrenceville, GA | reply to TZi
said by TZi:
I care more for life than oil and I think our government does too
The government has proven several times that they will throw away the lives of people in order to get what it wants. The government allowed the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor so FDR could join the war. A war the American people didn't give a crap about to begin with. The government plotted to kill civilians and blame it on the Cubans. The government experimented on American civilians without their knowledge or consent during the manhattan project. The government ran the Native Americans off their land and killed the ones who refused to leave in order to get more land. And I still believe it was the government that sunk the Lusitania and blamed it on the Cubans.
A life is more important to you than money, but that is because you have a conscience and morals. The government has no conscience and its morals are screwed up. To them, money is more important than a life.
To the government, lives come and lives go but the Almighty Dollar is here to stay. People are expendable, but Uncle Sam's pocketbook isn't.
(Yes, It's a screwed up world we live in  )
--
ICQ - 139492227, Odigo - 903182, AIM - Ranukhan | | |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | said by Ranukhan:
said by TZi:
I care more for life than oil and I think our government does too
And I still believe it was the government that sunk the Lusitania and blamed it on the Cubans.
That is interesting news. Everyone seems to think it was the Germans who did it (or at least who are accused of having done it). 
Are you sure you are not thinking of the MAINE? That one might have been a Black-Ops job to blame the Cubans (or the Spanish). | |
Kelarch
join:2001-12-23
Lawrenceville, GA | Woops! I was thinking of the Lusitania and the Maine at the same time and messed up what I was talking about. I have heard of a Conspiracy Theory that the British purposefully sent the Lusitania into harms way to persuade America to get involved, but I have a hard time swallowing that one.
But your right, I did mean the Maine.
--
ICQ - 139492227, Odigo - 903182, AIM - Ranukhan | |
| reply to TZi
said by TZi:
How can you say that? Are you accusing our government of killing ~3000 people in NYC and Washington D.C. to start a war over oil? This war is about some 3000 people dying plain and simple.
So, you just think arabs in the middle east would just up and hate us and want to "kill the infidels" for no reason? Surely you're not as ignorant as you sound just now.
Our foreign policy is why two planes smashed into the WTC. Not just because some jihad, or crazed muslims were bent on our destruction. There are reasons for everything. Not to justify their actions by any means, but think for a moment why they hate us. And then think about them simply "being evil" or attacking us for no reason. It makes no sense.
If you knew much about our foreign policy and how many people we've killed, overthrown in coups, played as pawns and ultimately left neglected once we got what we wanted (be it a puppet government, paid or coerced foreign government officials, oil or to stop "the evil spread of communism" that was so popular during the cold war). Do some research before you take all the propaganda the U.S. media and corrupt government officials shove down our throats next time.
And don't try responding that I'm not a patriot or love our country. I'd be first in line to defend the honor of our fine nation but many of the "officials" running the show today are corrupt and appropriate tragedies such as 9/11 to force their own, often times, bent and malicious agendas on us. Remember, when someone like Bush says, "it's in our best interest..." he really means, "it's in my best interest..." Our nation's forefathers are rolling in their graves right now. | |
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| ignore this accidentally double-posted
[text was edited by author 2002-02-26 06:17:19] | |
TZi
join:2001-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
| reply to MrTangent
Re: All of it is TOTAL FRAUD! I understand. I think that a fundamental mistrust in government is healthy for a democracy, and it's definitely part of our American heritage (that's why we have the right to bear arms after all). I just reacted with a knee jerk reaction because I was personally affected by 9/11, but then again who wasn't? I don't doubt the government can and will be as subversive as possible whenever they can, so I value conflicting points of view like this. However, keep in mind that there are some people who keep this issue close to their heart. Whether we get more oil out of this war or not, I really don't care. Criticize me all you will, but for many this is a war of REVENGE. That is, a war of revenge and as a result we get to rape the natural resources of their country. So what if we get oil, I don't care. Perhaps feelings of revenge are politically incorrect, but that's how I feel. To me, getting oil out of the deal is just an added bonus for having spent billions on this war already!
--
Miami Hurricanes #1 (we're back!)
[text was edited by author 2002-02-26 06:21:00] | |
| TZi, I can see your point but have you ever wondered if their attacking us was revenge? Perhaps it was revenge for things we did to them? Perhaps not as widely known, perhaps covered up, etc. Obviously someone is not going to go through the massive trouble of training suicide bombers to train for years, learn to fly air craft and ultimately fly into a building killing thousands without some sort of motive or impetus. That is to say, I'm sure along the way with our American-centric, who-gives-a-damn-about-anyone-but-America thinking and oil-centric foreign policy have won us over many enemies. Perhaps these people are attacking us not because they're "evil" but because we started killing them, and their families, first?
It's funny that people are "evil" only when they're not on your side. | |
 KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to Kelarch
The British didn't so much as send the Lusitania into harms way, more as they knew it was in harms way but failed to do anything to protect it. Winston Churchill himself was reported to have said something along the lines of "If the Lusitania is sunk by the U-boats it will help bring the US into the war on our side" prior to it happening. It was also known that the Germans knew the ship was carrying war materials and had been modified to carry naval guns and so was a legitimate target of war.
The Lusitania was hit by one torpedo and sank incredibly quickly--- at that time, despite the warnings of U-Boats, nobody had ever thought of the idea of closing inner doors and hatches within the ship. Basically, all the coal storage bunkers were open, all the hatches and doorways that ran the length of the ship and engineering spaces were all latched open, etc etc. The water was free to flood every compartment of the ship without resistance, leading to the extremely rapid sinking (12 minutes from time of torpedo impact till ship went completely under). Given the size of the ship, nobody believed it could have sunk so quickly. There was a second explosion, and even the British Admiralty had thought the German torpedo had caused a secondary explosion in the contraband munitions which blew out the Hull and caused the rapid sinkage. It has since been proven that that isn't true--- the munitions never exploded, the second explosion was actually a boiler exploding as the cold sea water hit it.
In many ways, the Lustinana disaster is much like the Titanic. There are a lot of "If Only's" ie "If only such and such had been done, then it would of never happened..." etc. Example: If the coal bunker door had been closed (The bunker was empty, and so the door being open was unnecessary... it was just standard practice that noone ever bothered to close them when they were emptied) the ship would not have even sunk.
Simulations reveal that if the coal bunkers were closed, the ship would at a minimum taken 4 torpedoes, evenly spaced along the length of the ship to sink it... and even then it should have taken more then an hour to sink, enough time to launch the boats and for rescuers arrived (remember she sank in sight of the English Coast). 11 miles offshore, I believe.
A few years after the disaster policies were changed so that ships at sea would keep hatches and doors shut when not in use. Someone finally figured out having them all open made it a lot easier to sink.
Wow, that was a nice ramble... | |
|
