Arrest the president now!

Enough 9/11 evidence exists to hang Bush, imprison thousands

(Will the U.S.A. survive this crisis?)

By John Kaminski skylax@comcast.net

On September 11, 2001, the most infamous day in American history, the tallest buildings in New York were not knocked down by airplanes hijacked by Arabs — they were destroyed by demolition charges.

This is no longer wild conspiracy theory — it is a series of provable facts, deftly presented on a website that every American should not only read but possibly memorize, so they can repeat it verbatim to every law enforcement officer in the country. The web site is located here.

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/

Briefly synopsized, the site outlines a terrifying proposition: if the collapse of the Twin Towers were caused by demolition, the entire official story about that sad day collapses like the house of evil cards so many Americans and people around the world already suspect it is.

The site, WTC7.net, backs up its conclusions with a devastating play-by-play of what actually happened on 9/11, and what could not possibly have happened according to universally accepted engineering principles.

The official story collapses under scrutiny, the site insists. It lists five stunning assertions:

1. Fires have never destroyed steel buildings.
2. The collapses were not investigated.
3. The physical evidence was destroyed.
4. The official explanations are ludicrous.
5. The evidence indicates demolition.
6. Demolition is provable.

No steel high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire, the site insists. And on 9/11, three of them collapsed in a matter of hours at the World Trade Center complex.

The total collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were (based on the official story) the three largest engineering failures in the history of the world, yet no federal investigation was ever funded.

The evidence of the collapses was quickly destroyed. A series of explanations was promoted to explain the collapses, but each is ridiculed and debunked on the site, including killer fires, column failure, and truss failure. The site's conclusion: official explanations cannot explain any kind of total collapse.

Other curious phenomena examined were the fires that burned for 100 days, that concrete was curiously pulverized in mid-air, and that the buildings fell so quickly despite following the path of most resistance, among other suspicious aspects.

After presenting its evidence, the site concludes the towers were deliberately demolished. Which means the disaster could not possibly have been the work of Osama bin Laden.

The implications of the story on this site are enormous. They mean that the official story told by George W. Bush's American government is a total fabrication. There is no evidence against Osama bin Laden if the buildings were demolished. It has all been a lie.

What this means is that George W. Bush is guilty of complicity to the most heinous crime in American history, the willful murder of more than 3,000 people and the destruction of a significant part of America's biggest city. And of course treason. There is no space to delineate here all the other charges of mass murder and obstruction of justice against this vain little demagogue who stole the U.S. presidency and now is raping the world.

Also guilty are Vice President Cheney and the entire Cabinet, the chiefs of staff of the armed forces, and many other members of the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government, plus many other federal and military employees, plus many state and federal regulatory officials and private citizens who were either friends of the Bush conspiracy or conspired in its coverup.

And perhaps the biggest problem is that also guilty of complicity in this tangled mess is the federal Justice Department, whose leader John Ashcroft was appointed by the principal defendant in this case.

America and the world have never faced such a colossal crisis, and that is no overstatement.

The entire American government is now a criminal defendant in the mass murder of its own citizens at the very moment the entire world is cringing in fear at America's new policy of preemptive war that threatens every sovereign nation on the planet.

It's true, my friends, although it's something you already knew — outlaws rule the world, and they own the cops, the army and the courts, not to mention all the legislatures.

How can America and the world possibly deal with this?

Well, for starters, the state of New York must assume the lead role, because all federal agencies, including the FBI, CIA and FEMA, are now all possible defendants in what will be the most amazing trial in history. Of course, state officials are as likely to be corrupted as federal officials, but this still seems to be the logical solution, at least to begin with.

What is at stake here, among so many other items, is the relationship of the states to the federal government. To say this is a profound Constitutional crisis is a severe understatement.

And the larger question becomes, can the people ever trust its government again. The quick answer, at least, is ... not this government — ever again.

But first, everyone must get the word out. Every American, or as many possible who aren't immediately felled by terminal apoplexy as they confront this material, should read the sequence of events as presented on this site.

Then, responsible people in many professions should confer as to the best way to deal with prosecutions on these charges, including how to suspend the functional legal legitimacy of the Bush adminstration, especially since this group seems intent on blowing up the world. Then it will have to be one step at a time with some sort of calmly constructed provisional government, with the current Congress most likely having absolutely no role in its creation.

This is a great and necessary opportunity for the individual states to regain some of the power that has been usurped by Washington when they create a new federal government without any help from the old one.

OK. I know this is all mind-boggling. Unfortunately for all of us, it happens to be reality. Shake off your stunned silence and incredulity. We have to deal with it, and we have to deal with it now.

Proper articulation of the offenses, machinery to effect remedies and prosecutions — and doing both of things in the proper venues — are of critical importance at this moment. Not being a lawyer, I don't know what they are. Somebody knows. That person or persons needs to speak, and soon.

Because if Bush knows his crimes are exposed and he is allowed to remain in power, God knows what will happen.

I know you've taken in a crushing amount of information just now, but I would beg you to try and digest a little bit more, this time from the mind of Kent State professor Walter Davis, who has articulated in a very coherent way the argument against George W. Bush continuing as the commander of the most deadly arsenal ever seen on this planet.

Read the whole piece at some point at

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm

It's titled "Compelling Evidence for Complicity." Davis points out the government has tried to cop a plea of ineptitude in failing to prevent the 9/11 disaster, but the professor concludes this excuse is "not consistent with the known facts."

With flawless logic and perfect professorial prose, Davis outlines and elaborates 22 reasons why he thinks Bush not only knew but helped plan and execute the tragic 9/11 deception. Davis's items range from the fact that the entire U.S. intelligence community knew the attack was going to happen and the American air defenses were "stood down" ... to historical precedents of leaders who lied about attacks in history. In between is the definitive version of the charges that should be laid upon Bush and all the criminal functionaries who participated in this profound crime against the American people.

I seldom say things are a "must read," but this is one of them, simply for its articulation of the basic crimes of 9/11 and the completeness of the magnitude of the atrocity and its implications. Read the damn thing. Try not to cry.

OK, OK, enough data. It's almost 4 a.m. and I've been up since 7 a.m. after being up til 3 a.m. the night before dealing with my e-mail, from all of you, my lovelies, who are getting this one.

I'm running out of time, as some of you know, and may not be able to do too many more of these missives. But this one is important, so I'm going to stay up til dawn punching in the addresses. Because you're running out of time, too. We're all running out of time, and we better do something fast.

The information contained in here is a critical step in the right direction. Take it and run with it.

Fasten your seatbelts, ladies and gentlemen. As you probably already know, with the Saudis reportedly aiming weapons at Israel and China and Russia viewing the pathetic U.S. military performance in Iraq and Afghanistan with an eye toward maybe taking a cheap but well-deserved shot at the U.S. for its insane and murderous policies of late, all of us are going to be in for a very rough ride. In fact, you can be assured that many of us are not going to make it through these next few months and years, but we have no choice but to try and fix this problem as best we can if anybody is to have any hope of surviving.

John Kaminski is the author of "America's Autopsy Report," a collection of his Internet essays. For more information on how to purchase this book, click http://www.johnkaminski.com/



http://www.johnkaminski.com/

There are 3 types of people who ignore this evidence.

1. The Stupid.

2. The Complicit

3. Cowards

There are three types of people who believe this evidence:

1. Stupid.

2. Stupid.

3. Stupid.

Only three types of people post messages like nonanarchist's:
1. FBI agents
2. employees of Fox News
3. agent provocateurs

...believe that people who don't swallow the conspiracy theory du jour are paid to do so:

1. Closed-minded fools.

Oops. I guess there's only one kind.

I've also seen it all refuted by experts. Real experts, not the kind so often cited by the CT types who are experts because they say they are.

So you can spare me the "FBI agent" paranoia.

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

YOU WILL FIND DAVEMAN==NONANARCHIST


THIS IS THE SAME IDIOT THAT WAS
CLAIMING TO EVERYONE
THAT IRAQ WAS RELATED TO 911

ANY ONE WHO DISAGREED WAS CALLED A
CONSPIRACY THOERIST...

I GUESS HE DIDNT READ THE NEWS THE OTHER DAY
WHEN BUSH ADMITTED IRAQ WASNT RELATED TO 911

LOOKS LIKE THE CONSPIRACY PEOPLE WERE RIGHT AND
YOU
DAVEMAN
WERE WRONG

I have never denied being daveman.

Now kindly post proof where I said Iraq was involved in 9/11.

This is a war on terrorism. Anyone who supports, aides or approves of terrorism against the United States is fair game. Saddam fit that picture. Different situations make it necessary to apply different methods of rooting out terrorists. However, the goal is clear, and that is to destroy those elements who would either carry out or harbor those who would carry out terrorist actions against the USA, or those who approve of such.

We didn't ask your permission. We didn't ask if you approved. Your opinion of how we are going about this is irrelevant. You are liberals/anarchists and therefore your opinions on such matters are not worth consideration. We will go forward and do what we must in order to protect our soverignity.

...against the United States is fair game."

Hey, all you anarchists! This means you!

Not to mention the whole Hollywood, Fisk, Chomsky et. al. "America deserved it" crowd.

Let's roll!

Yeah, right, Pvt. Fido...the whole of Hollywood is in league with terrorists...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?

You people just cannot fathom that someone can look at the same data and come to a conclusion diferent from yours, can you?


that's because we're not as stupid as you hope. Dope.

Hey, you two could have a sitcom!

Too bad it wouldn't be funny. It'd get cancelled the first week, and then you could whine about "political oppression", just like your heroine Janeane Garafolo.

Chicken Boy: The way I see it, there are three options:

1. You're deliberately misreading my post.

2. You're funtionally illiterate.

3. You're stupid.

(I vote for #3, myself.) If you'll look carefully, and have a grown up help you with the big words, you'll see I never said " the whole of Hollywood". Just the "America deserved it" part. See the aformentioned Garafolo.

The Cracker: Thanks for proving my point in so beautiful a fashion.

John Kaminski isn't to be taken seriously. He's about as balanced as a bent bicycle wheel. This is someone who routinely compares the Bush administration to the Nazi party.

People can believe what they want, but the WTC was attacked by arab terrorists and thats the plain truth. Bin Laden has already admitted this on videa tape. The US did not attack itself.


But John Kaminski and his ilk aren't interested in the truth. They are interested in creating a socialist nanny state and see 9/11 as an opportunuity to bash conservatives with the ridiculous allegations in an attempt to weaken conservatives generally. They desire a weak and effete US, both domestically and internationally. They believe we should ask for the permission of the UN whenever we engage militarily anywhere in the world. They effectively want the UN to manage our foreign policy. THAT is the motivator here, make no mistake about it. They are simply opportunuists (read: leeches) using 9/11 as a means to another end. But, there is no point in arguing with them about it. Their hatred of the president (and the US itself in some cases) is deeply visceral and outside the scope of reasonable debate.

But fools like Kaminski are endlessly entertaining.

It is too late to reconsider. Greed and insanity brought them here and now
beyond the huge expenditures, the sand leaks out from under the empire while the parasites on top squabble for high ground.
.
..against the United States is fair game."
Hey, all you anarchists! This means you!
Not to mention the whole Hollywood, Fisk, Chomsky et. al. "America deserved it" crowd.
Let's roll!

Please do. Something stupid. Something that you think will place yet another block or shackle on us.
You're plainly outnumbered and outgunned. Too many now know the lies.
You loyal support is nonexistent, your side has only the hunger for power to give it inspiration and your vision is impoverished. Your old ally, ignorance is dieing.
You can retreat in orderly fashion or suffer a route. It's already begun where you can't control it. History is closing in. Go for it.

Spare us the teenage angst poetic histrionics.

"You're plainly outnumbered and outgunned."

You must be joking. There are what, about a couple of dozen of you nuts out there?

You are simply fodder for amusement. Utterly inconsequential.

Now that Bush has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, it would be interesting to see the results of another poll where people are asked whether or not they believed Saddam had a role in 9/11.

Something tells me that even though the same people with the same minds and thought processes would be asked, there would be a drastically different response.

Perhaps that says something about the American populace and the ability of ordinary Americans to think for themselves.

"Now that Bush has admitted Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11"

Bush never claimed that Sadam had anything to do with 9-11 in the first place. This is a reitteration, not an admission.

I do agree that a new poll would be interesting.

Don’t be ridiculous. Only you believe this garbage from right-wing think-tanks stuffed with chicken-hawks.
Terrorism has replaced Communism as the rationale for the militarization of the country, for military adventures abroad, and for the suppression of civil liberties at home. It serves the same purpose, serving to create PANIC.

Truth is always subversive, otherwise why should governments spend so much energy trying to suppress it?

This is a reitteration[sic], not an admission.
{ stop drinking }
Spare us the teenage angst poetic histrionics.
{ what a wooooossssssse, you sound like the drama teacher I was going out with, poor woman, nearly ruined her life }

Bush himself may never have directly admitted that Saddam Hussein had a role in 11/9, nor did he actually believe that Saddam Hussein had a role in 11/9, but he no doubt manipulated the American public into believing as much.

Taking advantage of both the complacency and idiocy of the Americans, Bush managed to convince Americans of the lie that Saddam was involved in 11/9. He did this in his silly little freedom pep-speeches in which he blurted out random, meaningless rhetoric at his rather impressionable target audiences. By mentioning Saddam and 11/9 in the same sentence over and over again, the two became synonymous with each other.

Once again I reiterate that the American people were simply repeating whatever they had heard on TV. More specifically, they were simply repeating whatever Bush was saying on TV.

I've asked you before, and you never answered.

If America sucks so bad, why did you come here?

Welcome to America.
This land is your land, this land is my land...

...cocksucka.

kaminski's right.

it was bush's granddaddies who financed hitler's rise to power,in league with nazi banka thyssen.

so bush's money is holocaust blood money.

and if he doesn't give it back to holocaust victims,it's because he's a nazi.

bush must be tried and executed for crimes against humanity and treason on 911.

The last few posts in this thread are hilarious. I've never seen so many delusional freaks in one place.

Thanks for the laughs!

"Once again I reiterate that the American people were simply repeating whatever they had heard on TV. More specifically, they were simply repeating whatever Bush was saying on TV."

Maybe you're right...who knows.

The important thing is that the war DID happen.

Thank God for it.

So far, it's been working out just fine.

More and more terroristic koranimals with guns are dying every day.

And no one can argue that that's a bad thing.

You lose.

Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress.

Man, that takes me back a ways... Too bad more people don't know about it. Not that it would change anything in the minds of Socialists and Marxists....

You take away the Nazi/Hitler references, the Left has lost 3/4 of what it's using instead of rational arguments.

Have you seen this?


AP: Terrorist Says 9/11 Plot Began in '96
AP Exclusive: 9/11 Mastermind Tells Investigators He First Discussed Plot With Bin Laden in 1996

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Sept. 21 —
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, has told American interrogators that he first discussed the plot with Osama bin Laden in 1996 and that the original plan called for hijacking five commercial jets on each U.S. coast before it was modified several times, according to interrogation reports reviewed by The Associated Press.

Mohammed also divulged that, in its final stages, the hijacking plan called for as many as 22 terrorists and four planes in a first wave, followed by a second wave of suicide hijackings that were to be aided possibly by al-Qaida allies in southeast Asia, according to the reports.

Over time, bin Laden scrapped various parts of the Sept. 11 plan, including attacks on both coasts and hijacking or bombing some planes in East Asia, Mohammed is quoted as saying in reports that shed new light on the origins and evolution of the plot of Sept. 11, 2001.

Addressing one of the questions raised by congressional investigators in their Sept. 11 review, Mohammed said he never heard of a Saudi man named Omar al-Bayoumi who provided some rent money and assistance to two hijackers when they arrived in California.

Congressional investigators have suggested Bayoumi could have aided the hijackers or been a Saudi intelligence agent, charges the Saudi government vehemently deny. The FBI has also cast doubt on the congressional theory after extensive investigation and several interviews with al-Bayoumi.

In fact, Mohammed claims he did not arrange for anyone on U.S. soil to assist hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi when they arrived in California. Mohammed said there "were no al-Qaida operatives or facilitators in the United States to help al-Mihdhar or al-Hazmi settle in the United States," one of the reports state.

Mohammed portrays those two hijackers as central to the plot, and even more important than Mohammed Atta, initially identified by Americans as the likely hijacking ringleader. Mohammed said he communicated with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar while they were in the United States by using Internet chat software, the reports states.

Mohammed said al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were among the four original operatives bin Laden assigned to him for the plot, a significant revelation because those were the only two hijackers whom U.S. authorities were frantically seeking for terrorist ties in the final days before Sept. 11.

U.S. authorities continue to investigate the many statements that Mohammed has made in interrogations, seeking to eliminate deliberate misinformation. But they have been able to corroborate with other captives and evidence much of his account of the Sept. 11 planning.

Mohammed told his interrogators the hijacking teams were originally made up of members from different countries where al-Qaida had recruited, but that in the final stages bin Laden chose instead to use a large group of young Saudi men to populate the hijacking teams.

As the plot came closer to fruition, Mohammed learned "there was a large group of Saudi operatives that would be available to participate as the muscle in the plot to hijack planes in the United States," one report says Mohammed told his captors.

Saudi Arabia was bin Laden's home, though it revoked his citizenship in the 1990s, and he reviled its alliance with the United States during the Gulf War and beyond. Saudis have suggested for months that bin Laden has been trying to drive a wedge between the United States and their kingdom, hoping to fracture the alliance.

U.S. intelligence has suggested that Saudis were chosen, instead, because there were large numbers willing to follow bin Laden and they could more easily get into the United States because of the countries' friendly relations.

Mohammed's interrogation report states he told Americans some of the original operatives assigned to the plot did not make it because they had trouble getting into the United States.

Mohammed was captured in a March 1 raid by Pakistani forces and CIA operatives in Rawalpindi. He is being interrogated by the CIA at an undisclosed location.

He told interrogators about other terror plots that were in various stages of planning or had been temporarily disrupted when he was captured, including one planned for Singapore.

The sources who allowed AP to review the reports insisted that specific details not be divulged about those operations because U.S. intelligence continues to investigate some of the methods and search for some of the operatives.

The interrogation reports make dramatically clear that Mohammed and al-Qaida were still actively looking to strike U.S., Western and Israeli targets across the world as of this year.

Mohammed told his interrogators he had worked in 1994 and 1995 in the Philippines with Ramzi Yousef, Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah on the foiled Bojinka plot to blow up 12 Western airliners simultaneously in Asia.

After Yousef and Murad were captured, foiling the plot in its final stages, Mohammed began to devise a new plot that focused on hijackings on U.S. soil.

In 1996, he went to meet bin Laden to persuade the al-Qaida leader "to give him money and operatives so he could hijack 10 planes in the United States and fly them into targets," one of the interrogation reports state.

Mohammed told interrogators his initial thought was to pick five targets on each coast, but bin Laden was not convinced such a plan was practical, the reports stated.

Mohammed said bin Laden offered him four operatives to begin with al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi as well as two Yemenis, Walid Muhammed bin Attash and Abu Bara al-Yemeni.

"All four operatives only knew that they had volunteered for a martyrdom operation involving planes," one report stated.

Mohammed said the first major change to the plans occurred in 1999 when the two Yemeni operatives could not get U.S. visas. Bin Laden then offered him additional operatives, including a member of his personal security detail. The original two Yemenis were instructed to focus on hijacking planes in East Asia.

Mohammed said through the various iterations of the plot, he considered using a scaled-down version of the Bojinka plan that would have bombed commercial airliners, and that he even "contemplated attempting to down the planes using shoes bombs," one report said.

The plot, he said, eventually evolved into hijacking a small number of planes in the United States and East Asia and either having them explode or crash into targets simultaneously, the reports stated.

By 1999, the four original operatives picked for the plot traveled to Afghanistan to train at one of bin Laden's camps. The focus, Mohammed said, was on specialized commando training, not piloting jets.

Mohammed's interrogations have revealed the planning and training of operatives was extraordinarily meticulous, including how to blend into American society, read telephone yellow pages, and research airline schedules.

A key event in the plot, Mohammed told his interrogators, was a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in January 2000, that included al-Mihdhar, al-Hazmi and other al-Qaida operatives. The CIA learned of the meeting beforehand and had it monitored by Malaysian security, but it did not realize the significance of the two eventual hijackers until just before the attacks.

The interrogation reports state bin Laden further trimmed Mohammed's plans in spring 2000 when he canceled the idea for hijackings in East Asia, thus narrowing it to the United States. Bin Laden thought "it would be too difficult to synchronize" attacks in the United States and Asia, one interrogation report quotes Mohammed as saying.

Mohammed said around that time he reached out to an al-Qaida linked group in southeast Asia known as Jemaah Islamiyah. He began "recruiting JI operatives for inclusion in the hijacking plot as part of his second wave of hijacking attacks to occur after Sept. 11," one summary said.

Jemaah Islamiyah's operations chief, Riduan Isamuddin Hambali, had attended part of the January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur but Mohammed said he was there at that time only because "as a rule had had to be informed" of events in his region. Later, Hambali's operative began training possible recruits for the second wave, according to the interrogation report.

One of those who received training in Malaysia before coming to the United States was Zacarias Moussaoui, the Frenchman accused of conspiring with the Sept. 11 attacks. Moussaoui has denied being part of the Sept. 11 plot, and U.S. and foreign intelligence officials have said he could have been set for hijacking a plane in a later wave of attacks.

27. summer 2001 (est.) - The National Security Agency intercepts telephone conversations between bin Laden aide Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohammed Atta and does not share the information with any other agencies. [Source: Jonathan Landay, Knight Ridder Newspapers, June 6, 2002]

Expatriate Richard Perle.
By Kurt Nimmo
3-10-3

"Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it."

Seymour Hersh is a rarity in America these days -- an investigative journalist.

"Hersh is not a nice man in the Washington sense," writes Eric Alterman of Salon, "he does not know how to make small talk, flatter his bosses, spin his defeats and conceal his fierce competitiveness. He is simply the best investigative reporter alive and expects his work to speak for itself."

Because Hersh does what he does so well, the chicken hawk Richard Perle called him a terrorist on CNN the other day.

That's right. Perle equated Hersh with Osama bin Laden and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. "Sy Hersh is the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," Perle told Wolf Blitzer.

Perle slandered Hersh because the award winning journalist wrote in the March 17th issue of the New Yorker: "There is no question that Perle believes that removing Saddam from power is the right thing to do. At the same time, he has set up a company that may gain from a war."

I have not read the New Yorker article, so I can't comment on it. I don't know if Perle set up a company situated to profit from his boss' plan to mass murder possibly a half million Iraqis or not. But if Hersh said it, there must be something to it. Hersh is known for his meticulous research. He conducts interviews, double checks facts. Seymour Hersh does not make things up. Due to his professionalism Hersh has won more than a dozen major journalism prizes, including the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting and four George Polk Awards.

On the other hand, Perle and the neocons are liars.

One big lie is that Mohammed Atta met with Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, an official at Baghdad's embassy in Prague. US intelligence agencies went over records of Atta,s travels and concluded that during the period in question he was in Virginia Beach, not in Prague. Perle knew this was a fabrication. He attempted to pass it off on the American people as truth. There are many other lies, as well, but I will not bother you with enumeration.

That's how the neocons make their case before the American people -- through deceit, half-truth, fabrications, and outright lies. It should be considered treason. It should be a crime. Maybe one day Richard Perle will be prosecuted for his crimes. For now he is allowed to bend the ear of George W. Bush and prod the half-wit dictator into destroying America.

When Perle was working for Senator Scoop Jackson, he was investigated by the Justice Department and found to have violated US policies relating to unlawful transmission of sensitive classified US information to Israel.

"An FBI summary of a 1970 wiretap recorded Perle discussing classified information with someone at the Israeli embassy," writes Paul Findley (They Dare To Speak Out, Chicago, Ill, Lawrence Hill Books 1989)."He came under fire in 1983 when newspapers reported he received substantial payments to represent the interests of an Israeli weapons company. Perle denied conflict of interest, insisting that, although he received payment for these services after he had assumed his position in the Defense Department, he was between government jobs when he worked for the Israeli firm."

In other words, Richard Perle is an Israeli spy.

Perle should be expatriated immediately -- or made to share a cell with Jonathan Pollard, the spy who spent 18 months collecting and selling classified American intelligence to Israel from his position in U.S. Naval Intelligence. So pleased were the Israelis with the information passed on to them, two of the four government officials who had dealt with Pollard were promoted (Col. Aviem Sella, Pollard,s primary contact, was given full control of a major Israeli Air Force base). So arrogant are the Israelis that Sharon asked Bush to pardon and release Pollard.

If these are our friends, who needs enemies?

Okay, I'm going to use a word that will upset some of you -- Zionist. These days if you use the word Zionist you're going to be immediately accused of anti-Semitism. I receive hate email for using this word on occasion. You'd think I'm making excuses for the Holocaust (which is another subject that can get you in hot water, especially in France where you can go to prison for questioning the official verson of historical events). I'm not slandering Jews, I'm simply reporting the facts. Here's an indisputable fact:

Richard Perle is a Zionist.

Now what exactly does this mean? It means Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz,Douglas Feith, and others in the Bush administration -- are Israeli nationalists. "Wolfowitz and fellow Jewish neo-cons Richard Perle and Douglas Feith have emerged as the Pentagon's Paladins," writes Ann Pettifer, "their aim being to subdue the Islamic world through decisive, pre-emptive use of American military superiority."

"Only in Washington does one get a true sense of the obsession of these Pentagon civilians," writes Hugo Young, a Guardian columnist. "Conversationally, it is common talk that some of them, not including Rumsfeld, are as much Israeli as American nationalists. Behind nervous, confiding hands come sardonic whispers of an American outpost of Likud. Most striking of all, however, is how unmentionable this is in the liberal press."

Ain't that the truth.

But then the corporate press in America rarely criticizes the Zionists. Notice how Perle can jump from one TV news show to another and nobody mentions his spying for the Israelis or working for an Israeli arms manufacturer. Nobody mentions his "dual loyalties," which are common knowledge in Washington. Nobody calls him a traitor. Nobody in the corporate media dares -- that is if they want to keep their jobs.

Perle can insult the Germans and French at the same time and the corporate media looks the other way. In fact, he is allowed to denigrate the whole of Europe. "I think Europe has lost its moral compass. Many Europeans have become so obsessed by the prospect of violence they have failed to notice who we are dealing with," he told the Guardian.

Gee, Richard. Maybe the Germans remember the horror of American Flying Fortresses dumping gasoline bombs on Dresden in 1945, an act of barbarity that resulted in the murder of 100,000 people. Maybe the French recall the Nazi occupation. Maybe there's still thousands of Dutch, Italians, Poles, and other Europeans alive who remember none too fondly the systematic and engineered mass murder of the Second World War. No doubt, as well, there's plenty of Jews who remember the monstrosity of Hitler's concentration camps.

I bet if you asked them if Saddam Hussein is Hitler reborn they would laugh in your face.

Actually, Saddam is not a threat to a single person in the United States. Perle and the Zionist neocons know this, of course. They also know that Iraq is not a serious threat to Israel, especially after a decade of war and sanctions have reduced Iraq to one of the poorest countries in the world. "We don't lose sleep over Iraq's military threat to us," Lt Gen. Moshe Yaalon, Israel,s Chief of Staff, told the New York Times.

So why are the Zionists pushing for a US invasion of Iraq?

First, the Zionists believe that bad relations between the US and Arab nations is good for Israel. It's no mistake Iraq and Iran were specifically fingered as part of an "axis of evil," nations the Bushites have singled out for invasion and "democratization." Sharon told fellow Zionist and U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton last month he wants Syria and Libya attacked next. As if to make sure he received the correct marching orders, Bolton also met with Foreign Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Housing and Construction Minister Natan Sharansky.

The Israeli Zionists don't care if perpetual war destroys the American economy. It does not bother them if Americans will die in the thousands.

Second, the Zionists are itching to "transfer" -- i.e., to ethnically cleanse -- as many Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza as possible. Israel will do this while the US is busy slaughtering Iraqis. "Israel should have exploited the repression of the demonstrations in China, when world attention focused on that country, to carry out mass expulsions among the Arabs of the territories," Netanyahu told students at Bar-Ilan University in 1989. Americans may be clueless about the intentions of Zionists toward the Palestinians, but in Israel ethnic cleansing is a popular subject of discussion. Fifty percent or more of Israelis think ethnic cleansing is a good idea. This from a nation that supposedly remembers the Holocaust.

"The idea of transfer is as old as modern Zionism and has accompanied its evolution and praxis during the past century," remarks Israeli historian Benny Morris. Moreover, the Palestinian "demographic threat" was something that "once left Golda Meir sleepless at night and now serves as the subject of obsession for Israeli conferences and nervous policy analysts," notes Will Youmans.

Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, and their fellow travelers from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy (CSP), the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Hudson Institute -- as well as defense contractors and conservative foundations bankrolled by far-right American Zionists -- are calling the shots on Bush's invasion of Iraq.

It has nothing to do with the security of the American people. It has everything to do with Israel and the Likudites.

The Zionists in the Bush administration are pulling a fast one on the American people. It's criminal behavior. It should not be tolerated. The Zionist plan to bomb and kill Arabs across the Middle East will result in dismal failure and pointless mass murder. It will destroy America. It will wreck our economy and kill our sons. Perle and his cronies are mountebanks, swindlers, hypocrites. They are war criminals.

Richard Perle is a traitor. There's no other way to put it.

If Richard Perle -- and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Elliot Abrams, and all the other Zionists embedded in the Bush administration -- love Israel so much, they should pack their bags and go there.

If they won't go on their own, they should be forced to leave.

In the meantime, their treacherous crimes need to be exposed.

The AP article is fact.

The Kurt Nimmo article is opinion.

Mandrake, because the facts don't agree with his world view, prefers to see someone's opinion as fact.

And that explains a lot.

"More and more terroristic koranimals with guns are dying every day."

Of course that is a good thing.

But

More and more terroristic koranimals are being produced each day because of the war too.

Once more, with feeling:

If America is the hellhole you say it is, why did you come here?

Something along the lines of fire never destroyed a steel building...

That's enough for me to not read anymore of that stupid article.

thanks for your input. I tend not to take seriously any AP 'news' untill there is varifacation.
their track record on WMDs are pathetic.

cant u dumbass liberals get a clue? god u are so fucking stupid. sure we provided saddam with weapons of mass destruction and sure he used them against his own people. but how is it our fault? how is it our fault that people died just because we installed brutal dictators in the middle east?

i mean its not our fault for the war in Iraq. i mean we gave saddam WMD so he would use them on iranians but instead he wants to use them on us now. so now we have to get rid of him! how is it our fault that hundreds of thousands of people died and will die as a result of our actions? u fucking liberal idiots somehow think that if we didnt give him WMD to use on the Iranians that we wouldnt have this problem in the first place! but then instead we would have to deal with evil Iranians! just like the evil vietnamese who wanted to rule the world with their commie ways. Its a damn good thing we fought in vietnam and stopped them otherwise vietnam commies would be ruling the world right now! thank god the USA has never lost a war

everyday Saddam wakes up and instead of having pancakes and syrup he plots on how he can nuke the US. he even came up with a plan to transport a nuclear device hidden in a dead donkey through underground shipping/global hashish trade to redmonton, Louisiana! REDMONTON for crying out loud! with a population of 450!!!!!!!!!!!!

how can us justice-loving americans stand by and let saddam threaten his neighbours? i mean its not like we gave him WMD so he could do that it in the first place right? i mean its obvious that people in the middle east and the rest of the world dont like us because they are jealous of our lifestyle. i mean, i live in a town of around 14,000 own a Ford F150. my brother lives in a neighbouring town which is just like mine and also drives a Ford F150. i took a tour through the united states and everyone lives in a town of 14,000 and drives Ford F150s! its obvious theyre jealous!

u fucking liberals dont understand these people want to rule the world, it is up to us to defend freedom and democracy!!!!!!!!!! SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!!!!!!!!!!!
too bad i have a uhhh health problem otherwise i would join the army myself to fight! i mean the army wont let me join.

u liberal assholes dont deserve to be called american. u dont realize that the tree of freedom has to be watered with the blood of unselfish, patriotic, brave and good men like myself. i spit on u and ur graves u terrorist sympathizers.

Most of you believe that the president is a dork who can not tie his own shoes but somehow he was able to help coordintate the largest mass murder in the histroy of human kind...hey ......cant have it both ways.....

You leftist posters are SO FULL OF SHIT!

"More and more terroristic koranimals are being produced each day because of the war too."

Except for the fact that they've been breading steadily for decades now, whether we wage war on them or not.
So logically, we're no worse off, and potentially better off, if we DO slaughter them.
Appeasing them certainly hasn't panned out. That's, of course, what we did the FIRST time they bombed the WTC.
Thank God we finally learned our lesson.

Flame on!

Fresca , nonanarchist, smashtheleft, Real check and KOBE are the same pitiful shit .I know,You know, everybody know.You postings are ZERO intellectual ZERO interested and you help on this board is - ZERO.Only you believe you poor opinions and arguments. You online harassment are Unbelievably pathetic and highly ineffective . You are unloved and unwelcome.Don't waste you time here. Fuck off !!!

>Fresca , nonanarchist, smashtheleft, Real check and KOBE are the same pitiful shit .I know,You know, everybody know.You postings are ZERO intellectual ZERO interested and you help on this board is - ZERO.Only you believe you poor opinions and arguments. You online harassment are Unbelievably pathetic and highly ineffective . You are unloved and unwelcome.Don't waste you time here. Fuck off !!!

Ignore us! Pretend we're not here. Don't react to any of our comments. Don't acknowledge us. If you do that, eventually we'll leave. I've already told you this. You still haven't done it. Just how stupid are you?

Geez, you figured us out... we're all FBI and we're all out to GET YOU.

Since your post was complete void of actual content or ideas (unless insults count as content) there's nothing more to say to you other than... The only reason you're paranoid is because we're all out to GET YOU.

Boo!

Fresca: "Bush never claimed that Sadam had anything to do with 9-11 in the first place."

This is wrong. Bush most CERTAINLY did claim this in his letter to the UN justifying US intervention in Iraq.

You are either ill informed or lying...please correct your error or we will have to assume it is the latter.

...it should be easy enough for you to prove.

Post the relevant passage in Bush's letter...with a link, of course.

Simple enough, huh?

>This is wrong. Bush most CERTAINLY did claim this in his letter to the UN justifying US intervention in Iraq.

You're lying. I call.

Provide link (his letter to the UN??) where Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.

Fetch, doggie!


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-1.html

Here that?


That's the sound of shills furiously trying to type lie into truth....


...tap away....

But you and the rest of the anti-war types better look out.

"... including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, OR AIDED the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

If that's retroactive, you'd better duck and cover, Chicken Boy.

>acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

KPC. Typical liberal. Has no concept of diplomatic speak. It's another reason why idiots like him should never be in charge of anything of importance.

There are a minimum of two layers here; that of international terrorist in general, and of terrorists which committed actions specifically having to do with 9/11.

Here, let me break it down for you:

".....continuing to take the necessary actions against (1) international terrorists and (2) terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned,......."

There. Now KPC the child can understand it.

Saddam is classified under the term "international terrorist". Given the intelligence sources of several governments, we had every reason to believe he was engaged in developing WMD's, and in fact, a report due out soon will reveal that Saddam was funding programs in order to develop WMD's and was intentionally misleading UN inspectors.

Of course, for you to comprehend this would require you abandon the lies you already believe. We all know that won't happen. You're very happy with your head stuck up you ass. And it's another reason you and your ilk are ignored and marginalized, because your opinions are not worth consideration. Sucks being marginalized and shit on, don't it KPC? Tough. You're damn lucky we treat you that nice.

KPC...Thanks for the link to the letter. Seriously.

If you read it again, it clearly does NOT say that Iraq was directly involved with the 9-11 attacks.

It says this:

"continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "

Key word is INCLUDING.

The letter is simply saying that ALL terrorist and terrorist supportive states will be targeted. These being those terrorist states that DID NOT help with 9-11 (Iraq for instance)and those that DID. If you were to find any fault with this, I would think you'd be opposed to how open ended it is and not how exclusive it could have been.

indeed we have been appeasing the terrorists and tyrants. perhaps by providing support to them when it suited us instead of actually standing up for justice.

perhaps by failing to counter their arguments and by being hypocritical we demonstrated to them that they were in fact right about us. even to this day, american leaders accuse saddam hussein of "building WMD". not once do they acknowledge that they initially provided him with WMD.

denial of guilt. denial of responsibility. fantasy world. shameful. HYPOCRISY

"we"

What's this "we" business?

You always make sure to distinquish yourself from us "dumb" American's.

New X.. you said... "indeed we have been appeasing the terrorists and tyrants. perhaps by providing support to them when it suited us instead of actually standing up for justice."

First, Please define WHAT TERRORISTS the US has been appeasing. Also, please explain explicitly what you mean by "perhaps" and "them". Also, please define "justice". I am most interested in hearing your definition of "justice".

Second, you said... "perhaps by failing to counter their arguments and by being hypocritical we demonstrated to them that they were in fact right about us." ...

Please explain what their "argument" is. Also please explain how, exactly, the US has been hypocritical. Lastly, how are the terrorists "right about us"? I am very interested in your answer about how terrorists are "right about us".

Third, you said... "american leaders accuse saddam hussein of "building WMD". not once do they acknowledge that they initially provided him with WMD."

... This is flatly incorrect. Even Clinton Defense Department officials have said this. The US NEVER provided chemical weapons to Saddam. If you were actually an informed individual you would know that the chemicals the US provided were to be used for medical purposes (according to the Iraqi gov't). Those chemicals were NOT intended or developed for chemical weapons purposes. Saddam and his subhuman cohorts processed them into chemical weapons.


But go ahead and continue to bash the US.

Tell me... since the US is such a bad and terrible place, where would you prefer to live?

So now we got republicans parsing what the meaning of "is" is...

You guys are pathetic. The one reason.....THE ONLY REASON to include the reference to 9/11 was to relate Iraq to 9/11, otherwise there was no need to include it..

...and since he DECEPTIVELY decided to use the reference...he tried to soft peddle it since he knew the association was a LIE...and never EVER discussed it or otherwise clarified the misconception they helped to foster...depending on the lackeys to defend the deception once it became obvious....

....THE LIE...

Guess what? Three Fido's and 435 words later.....it's still a lie....THE PRESIDENT IS A LIAR.

Lied about Iraqi involvment in 9/11

Lied about WMD's

Lied about Iraqi threat

Lied about the costs

Lied about the commitment

Lied about "major" hostilities (teeeheee!) being "over"

Lied about evidence sent to the UN

Lied about business ties and contract awards

Lied about the real reasons for war in the first place



This fuckin guy lies everytime he opens his yob

Everyone knows that...even you bimps...ya get all hot and heavy about some fat assed movie maker...but when you're pResident LIES TO YOUR FACE...you take it like a bitch.

Pussies.

Some bootlicker asked this:"Tell me... since the US is such a bad and terrible place, where would you prefer to live?"

I don't think I've read a more stupid question today...

....but, hey, it's early and this dickhead is prolific.....

"If you were actually an informed individual you would know that the chemicals the US provided were to be used for medical purposes (according to the Iraqi gov't). Those chemicals were NOT intended or developed for chemical weapons purposes. Saddam and his subhuman cohorts processed them into chemical weapons. "

....this can't be a real post...right? It's gotta be a joke...I mean, NOBODY could be this stupid...

...could they?

You have clearly demonstrated that you have absolutely no ability to comprehend political speak.

Speeches, documents, etc... are intentionally left open-ended. How many times have you seen politicians back themselves into a corner? They write these things in such a way they can have various meanings depending upon the situation.

What are you, some kind of political virgin??

Goddamn! If you can't figure out how the game is played you don't need to participate. Don't complain about the outcome when you don't have the capacity to understand the rules. The rules are the way the rules are. If you don't like it, keep your fuckin' bitching about it to yourself.

MORON!

Some bootlicker asked this:"Tell me... since the US is such a bad and terrible place, where would you prefer to live?"

I don't think I've read a more stupid question today...

It's obvious.

The people's paradise: North Korea.

Kim Jong Il is more in tune with my liberal roots than any leader in the world today.

...well, I was wrong...

....somebody really IS that stupid....

That someone is ME.

Question: When is a lie not a lie?

Answer: When da shrub tells is, then it is "political speak"!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's _always_ political speak.

Once again, either understand the rules, or get out of the game. You're not very good at it anyway.

You're right! Like I said, the monkey boy lies....I mean "speaks politically" everytime he opens his yob....it's always "political speak" for him!

Bush tells the truth. Liberals lie. Get it right.

In case you haven't been reading the papers in a while....here's the scoop...


THE PRESIDENT IS A LIAR.

Lied about Iraqi involvment in 9/11

Lied about WMD's

Lied about Iraqi threat

Lied about the costs

Lied about the commitment

Lied about "major" hostilities (teeeheee!) being "over"

Lied about evidence sent to the UN

Lied about business ties and contract awards

Lied about the real reasons for war in the first place


This fuckin guy lies everytime he opens his yob

I've read it all. You believe what you want. You're going to anyway. You are a liberal.

I'm a liar?

Well, at least I'm qualified to run as a Repulican for any office, and you will then, of course, defend my lies...

Qualified?

You're not even qualified to run as the obnixious asswipe you are.

Damn, you are stupid.

You don't even know why you're here at LA-IMC.

Let me explain why you are here.

You're here to be among the other liberal wingnuts and dumbasses, to console each other, and find aid and comfort in your inability to politically control the situation.

Now, go bond with your fellow losers.

And make it funny!

That's an order.

And you WILL do what we say.

Just like you always do.

Da shrub is a liar...

Poppy had dictator jism dribblin' from his chin...

...your job is to defend the indefensible...

...now, go do that voodoo that you do so badly....

Your litany of Bush lies is a little weak and hyperbolic, don't you think (if you're honest with yourself).

Starting with the fact that he never said Iraq was involved with 9-11, a fact we've gone over and even you supplied the letter proving it.

In addition, the rest of the list contains no lies. It contains many interpretations of situations and potentials which you may disagree with vehemently , but that hardly constitutes lies.

Make no mistake, I am NOT a Bush 100% all the way guy. But as far as supporting an aggressive military approach to decades worth of Islamic terrorism culminating in 9-11, he has my vote all the way.

Get with the program, you moron! I can get that stuff anywhere. The crap you do I can get on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, SF Chron, USA Today, or any of those places where these left-wing rags are, any time of the day or night. They are constantly bashing Bush and doing what you're doing. They're even worse. What you're doing is a dime a dozen. But, that's not why we're here.

Stuff like FEMA and space aliens co-operating to throw everyone into internment camps, now THAT's the kind of stuff you can't just get anywhere. That's what you need to be doing here, you idiot! Do that kind of crap.

Now, get with the entertaining like we told you!

Funny how W should be held accountable for his family's sins.

So then, Chicken Boy, in your own inimitably obscene style, are you willing to accept accoutability for the sins of YOUR fathers?

Careful how you answer...Chicken Boy the Elder may not have been a choir boy.

But as long as you're holding Bush to a standard, you had damn well better be holding the same standard to yourself.

Fido, the apple don't fall far from the tree, dingleberry, and, unlike Poppy, my father wasn't suckin' dictator dick....

Fresca, there is no doubt that da Shrub included the 9/11 reference in his letter to conflate the issue. This is a lie. You can parse "is" into any meaning you like, but he lied. End of fuckin' story.

He also lied about the expense. He had his minions floating numbers, and Little Dick was claiming "we just didn't know"....now, that is a lie. Are you telling me they waltzed into the deal not knowing the cost? Give me a break, I know you are not that stupid.

Then the WMD, supposedly ready to pop at NYC at any time. They knew this was not true. A lie.

Or the Niger deal...a known lie. Aluminum tubes...trotted out again just last week by Little Dick...another known lie.

Little Dick say he has "absolutely no" connection with Halliburton...guess what ....LIE...

End of major hostilities...a claim made in a flight suit (that's a fuckin' lie right there!)...well...we all can see full of shit he was...if he couldn't anticipate what was happening, then he should be impeached for dereliction of duties...if he did know, then he was lying...

...So I'll give you that one if you want, but if you are correct, then he is incapable of leading this nation and should be removed from office.

But the rest of what I posted still holds. He lied in each case sited. If you don't mind being lied to, that's fine...but most people don't like it very much.

KPC...you gotta try to be a little less hysterical.

First of all, regardless of what you think is a lie or not, NO ONE ever claimed that IRAQ had anything to do with 9-11. No ONE, Not Bush or any of his followers. Connections with Al Queda was definetly a reason and to this day these connections seem to be all but common knowledge.

As far as the cost...you're not actually claiming that he "lied" about that are you? As if he knew it was going to be 87 Billion ( which is about 0.4 % of the US Government total yearly revenue - Small price to pay) yet thought the truth would make the overwhelming public support waver.( and contrary to the "peace movement", the numbers were much more on the side of going to war). It doesn't wash.

And to say that the fear of IRAQ attcking us directly was ever used as a reason is ludicrous. This has always been a strawman put up by the anti_war crowd to try and paint the real reasons as ludicrous.

The bottom line is this. 9-11 changed everything. Even though Sadam was not directly involved with that attack the risk of him supporting (like he did directly to Hamas, Hezbollah etc.) Al Queda in the future with WHATEVER level of weaponry he had is so huge that it was almost a given.

Only a nation of imbeciles would live with a risk like that, especially when to get rid of the risk also carries the bonus of destroying a monster of a dictator, NO MATTER HOW he came to or kept power in the past.

I mean really, be honest, are you so upset about this war because you are so compassionate and concerned about Iraquis and some idea of world peace or is it simply because it was initiated by Bush who you loathe?

If you choose the compassion for Iraqis, the next question will be, "Then why don't you think they're better off without Saddam?"

If you choose Bush-hate, you prove you don't give a damn about the Iraqis.

Sucks to have those choices.

Sucks to be you.

I didn't really mean for that question to paint KPC into such a corner.

Answer as best you can.

That the claim has been made regarding connections to AQ, yes this is common knowledge...but mistaken. There is no proof for the claim. Just another one of the many, many, many lies. Also, it seems to be mistaken common knowledge that SH was behind 9/11. There no doubt that Bush fostered this misconception with his lies as it served his ends. Cheney even directed his people to play up the connection. The letter is obviously a lie for anyone but the most devoted apologist. Join them if you wish, but the rest of reasoning America is beginning to see that we were sold a bill of goods by a pResident lies without shame or compunction.

As to what is best for Iraqi's, that is for Iraqi's to decide. I would not wish to join the arrogant camp that presumes to know what's best for people they really care nothing about beyond their roles as pawns.

Now about the cost...so you're claiming that they knew the cost, and denied them, why? If, as you say, there was overwhelming support (remove the lies and you would see that support dwindle to naught, but let's say your assertion is true), then why did they deny estimates in that range previously? If they did not know, they are incompetent. If they did know, they concealed the unpleasant facts for political purposes. That is not only deceptive but cowardly.

Now, about Iraq attacking us, of course the idea is ludicrous...but, I did not bring it up, this misadminsitration did. Wasn't is Rice who made comments that we should not wait for mushroom clouds in this country for our proof of the nonexistant WMD's? If that is allusion to a threat of nuclear attack, I don't know what is.

Now, speaking of ludicrous...you claim "the risk of him supporting Al Queda in the future with WHATEVER level of weaponry he had is so huge that it was almost a given." This is complete bullshit. What makes this risk so huge? What does SH have that AQ can't get elsewhere, if not WMD's (trying to dance around the WMD lie there, huh)? There has never been any proof before the war that they were working together. That the risk was negligable and could have been addressed in much less costly and more efficient ways is what is a "given". You claiming otherwise with absolutely no evidence is funny. I think your problem is that you still believe what your lying leaders are telling you....don't be a rube!

Here's the deal: Your boy is a fuckin cowardly liar. He's your boy...not mine. You defend him.....that's your role....apologies for the lies. That it is uncomfortable for you to defend the indefensible is your lot...you have chosen it, live with it. Don't cry to me about it. If it bothers you, then stop stooping to support lying shits.

Simple.

Oh, and I noticed how you didn't even mention Little Dick's lies....maybe if you ignore them they'll go away...

...that presumes to know what's best for people they really care nothing about beyond their roles as pawns."

Yet this is actually what you did, is it not? By opposing those who wanted to remove Saddam, you presumed you knew that they were better off with him.

So you answered my question. Thanks.

Nice little bit of pretzel logic there, doggiedoo, but, no, I presumed to have an opinion on what was best for my country...

...oh, that's right, you are only allowed to have an opinion if you agree with your masters....ain't that right Pvt. Fido?

You'd know, if you had ever had the guts to serve your country.

"... I presumed to have an opinion on what was best for my country..."

Yeah, and to hell with the Iraqis, huh? Saddam's not killing Americans, so it's okay, huh?

How can you kid yourself that you have a single ounce of compassion?

You really have answered my question. You're so blinded by your Bush-hatred, all you can see is yourself not getting what you want.

And you don't care how many Iraqis would have been killed if it meant you having your way.

Murdering Iraqis for oil is an example of servitude to a thief and a liar. In times of tyranny, serving your country requires rebellion, even if it means war against the state. Any coward can sit at a keyboard and belch lines that, in reality, are ass-kissing brown-nose statements designed to invite favor from the state. It takes someone with courage to state that the president is a treasonous thief deserving removal from office and a long stay in a cell with his fellow traitors.

Nonanarchist is a coward and an ass kisser.

>oh, that's right, you are only allowed to have an opinion if you agree with your masters

There are two opinions: My opinion and the wrong opinion. You're wrong.

Opinions are like assholes...


...everybody's got one, and yours stinks.

Let me restate it:

The things you say here, I can get that stuff anywhere. The crap you do I can get on ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NYT, LA Times, Washington Post, Boston Globe, SF Chron, USA Today, or any of those places where these left-wing rags are, any time of the day or night. They are constantly bashing Bush and doing what you're doing. They're even worse.

What you're doing, your Bush bashing, is a dime a dozen. You're nothing new. You've got one playbook and one play.

But, that's not why we're here.

Stuff like FEMA and space aliens co-operating to throw everyone into internment camps, now THAT's the kind of stuff you can't just get anywhere. That's what you need to be doing here, you idiot! Do that kind of crap.

Now, get with the entertaining like we told you!

Coward? Hardly.

I have sworn to protect, with my life, your right to dissent, to wish to abolish the Constitution whose protections you hide behind.

Have you sworn to give your life in the sevice of those you disagree with?

No? Then you're not in a position to label me coward, are you?

As for "asskisser", you're just upset I'm not kissing YOUR ass in your "death to KOBE" crusade.

Get over it.

Get over yourself.

Go sell some bumperstickers.

"As to what is best for Iraqi's, that is for Iraqi's to decide. I would not wish to join the arrogant camp that presumes to know what's best for people they really care nothing about beyond their roles as pawns. "


Well, if by "arrogant" you mean "the Iraqi people", I could see why you would exclude yourself. But the results are in. A new Gallup Poll of Iraqi Citizenry announced today that 62% of Iraqis supported the war and are glad Hussein is gone:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98174,00.html

Looks like you loony liberals are even being abandoned by the oppressed Arabs now.

"As to what is best for Iraqi's, that is for Iraqi's to decide. I would not wish to join the arrogant camp that presumes to know what's best for people they really care nothing about beyond their roles as pawns. "


Well, if by "arrogant" you mean "the Iraqi people", I could see why you would exclude yourself. But the results are in. A new Gallup Poll of Iraqi Citizenry announced today that 62% of Iraqis supported the war and are glad Hussein is gone:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98174,00.html

The survey found that 62 percent think ousting Saddam was worth the hardships they have endured since the invasion. In the five months since coalition forces defeated Saddam and his armies, Iraq has faced continuing violence, electrical outages, job shortages and civil unrest.



Looks like you loony liberals are even being abandoned by the oppressed Arabs now.

Fido, I would really be touched by your compassion and concern for the Iraqi people...really...

...IF you weren't proven to be a lying racist shit.

I think you just like that hooded white knight role...riding to defend the brown chillun who is too ignerunt to help demselves....

....and you may be servin' somebody, but it AIN'T your country, dingleberry...

....don't you have some lies to defend?.....I mean, da monkeyshrub gave a speech today, so I bet you got a fresh load of bullshit that you gotta make smell like roses.....go make yourself useful...to somebody....

I did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. That is why I am doing what I am doing. You, on the other hand, are supporting the theft of the treasury, the destruction of the Constitution, and the exploitation of US soldiers for profit.

Shame on you.

Bush bashing again. We can get that anywhere, you one trick pony you.

Tell us, when are FEMA nad the space aliens getting together to throw us into internment camps?

FOX NEWS?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah....I guess lies alway go over better when you post 'em twice!

Nothing to say about that poll, eh?

Thought not.

>You, on the other hand, are supporting the theft of the treasury, the destruction of the Constitution, and the exploitation of US soldiers for profit.

It's the opinion of an anarchist. Who cares!!

Bash, bash, bash...

get used to it.

The just reported on it.

Ever hear of Gallup?

That's the sound of liberals trying to make lies out of the truth...

In that case, you're no different than the corporate media. They do the same thing 24/7/365. I would expect more from a conspiracy ridden anarchist. You're nothing but the corporate media with a fancy title.

Who cares?

DeVoy,

There's a reason anarchist are marginalized. It's because what you have to say is not worth consideration.

On the other hand, what I believe and what I want done are put into practice everyday in people's lives all over the world. There's a reason for that. It's because what I have to say is worth not only hearing, but also living.

I know you hate that. I know you believe you can do something about it. You can't. But, I'll let you have fun trying. It humors me.

With my permission, you may carry on.

If you are so worthy, why hide behind annonymity?

Another point, all you have stated is that you are redundant. If you were removed from the world, nothing would change.

Every single anarchist in the world today is alive only because I've extended my mercy and haven't killed them.

I assure you, none of you will be missed.

That sounds like a threat to me...

it is the definition of redundancy. Something is redundant if its removal makes no difference. That's my point. Call 911 if you wish. It doesn't matter.

"Racist".

Yet everytime I ask my accuser to back it up, no evidence is forthcoming.

It's a lot like "fascist" around here.

They both get thrown around a lot, but there is no real understanding of their meaning. It's usually used when the accuser has nothing left to fall back on.

True. It won't matter. Soon.

"it is the definition of redundancy. Something is redundant if its removal makes no difference. That's my point. Call 911 if you wish. It doesn't matter."


What a pathetic existence you lead. I'm so sorry for you. My a-hole bleeds.

So what in you miserable little world actually does matter?

If I felt like you, I'd certainly kill myself.

"I did take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC."

This is going to be good.

Stevie boy, by your own admission, you are an anarchist.

Anarchists are, by definition, opposed to government.

Yet you swore an oath to defend the document that very clearly spells out the form of government we have.

How do you reconcile that?

You, who want to destroy the Constitution, have sworn to defend it?

Can I get a "Say what?" from the congregation?

SAY WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, how 'bout that poll, huh?

This is the part where you say "Polls are meaningless."

Except when YOU agree with them, of course.

I dunno. I'm just talking out my ass while I've still got a few days to live. Where's the bong?

That's very easy. Would you ask the same question of a Christian the believes that, eventually, Jesus will return and establish the kingdom of God on Earth?

The odd thing about you rightwingers is that you have blinders on. You have a very simplistic view of the mentality of anarchists. Few anarchists actually believe that some revolution that will put an end to government, once and for all, is right around the corner. Anarchism is the belief that hierarchy is bad and that voluntary relationships with a network structure are better. Ultimately, anarchists wish to dispense with government, just as Christians wish to dispense with the state for the reign of God.

The conditions for attaining anarchism are not currently present. They will take generations to achieve. Therefore, during my lifetime, we will not achieve anarchism. I believe that a structure that protects free speech and the right to bear arms is essential to achieving the conditions underwhich anarchism will eventually be achievable. I see constitutional democracy as a stepping stone in the right direction, not as an end in itself.

I am protecting the stepping stone for those that will eventually take the next step.

Since you are of limited intelligence and imagination, I expect that you will not understand. However, your lack of understanding is as important to me as the lack of understanding on the part of a chimp is important to me. You are but a Neanderthal, I am your replacement.

First, there will need to be some tremendous leaps in genetic engineering. We'll need to re-engineer the human specie, and remove the survival instinct.

False.

Had genetic engineering been achieved 1000 years earlier, I can imagine some serf from the dark ages making the same statement as you have about democracy.

You lose. You deserve to lose. You are inferior and your kind will become extinct.

Good night. I have some sleeping to do.

Dream of candy canes and sugar plums in the golden paved world of your Utopia. Because that's as close as you'll ever get to it.

The rest of us live in Darwin's world. Survival of the fittest and all that jazz. A rude existence sure, but we make the best out of a crappy situation. Eventually, it will all be over and I'd be curious to know how it will turn out. Will we achieve Utopia or will the sun super nova first and extinguish all life on Earth?

I think we're doomed.

All flaming aside, Stephen, you actually BELIEVE what you wrote?

"The conditions for attaining anarchism are not currently present. They will take generations to achieve. Therefore, during my lifetime, we will not achieve anarchism"

Anarchy will never be "attained". It is a condition of chaos, a non-hierarchy. It seeks to destroy that which is the basis of human evolution and the progress of civilisation. Anarchy is the result of a subtractive process, not an additive one. Way back when, we had an interesting discussion about "memeplexes". It was your belief then that somehow, an anti-hierarchy meme would overpower the current memeplex and allow the existense of an anarchist society, in which people would become "rational agents", cooperating in a voluntary society where there is no government. (see? I have read your....writing)

What you fail to comprehend in your quest, is the fact that human beings are ANIMALS. We are primates, and we are genetically predisposed to form hierarchial structures in the form of families, then family groups (tribes), and finally nations (group of cooperating tribes). The purpose of forming such groups is the control of resources, and females ( to carry superior genetic traits forward). The fossil record proves that ALL primates do the same, and have done so since the dawn of mammals. In fact, if you think about it, even plants, insects and the simplest of microbes organize and compete in the same manner. Physics prove that molecular structures (a heirarchial construct of atoms) are stronger and more stable than "anarchistic" forms of matter such as fire and plasmas.

Anarchism is AGAINST THE LAWS OF NATURE AND MAN. Hence, there has never been, nor will there ever be an anarchist society anywhere, or anytime in history. Anarchists would quickly organize into groups, form hierarchies, and compete for resources. Without resorting to your regular KOBE blather, can you intelligently argue a valid point for anarchy? Society favors survival of the fittest. America is the fittest, and hence, the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. America hold the BEST promise for advancement of humankind, and you are working to destroy it. That is my issue with you, and others like you.

I challenge you to respond in an INTELLIGENT manner. I bet you cant do it.

...when there is no basis for it.

This means you, Stevie D.

Thanks for the admission that you're hiding behind the protections of the Constitution while you plot its overthrow....which, you admit, you have no idea how to bring about. Here's a hint: bumperstickers are not a vital part of any revolution.

Further, thanks fo the admission that anarchy is a long way off for the US. You just got one part wrong: It's NEVER going to happen.

Constitutional democracy is the height of mankind's political achievement. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the successful, long-term, large-scale, technological anarchistic societies that have so pervaded history. I'll wait here.

You are my replacement?

It's a very good thing for America...and for the human race in general...that there are far, far more of ME than there are of YOU.

The concept of anarchy isn't such a terrible thing as to warrant such an outpour of emotion, not if you understand what it's truely about.

Anarchy is the philosophy of people working together to accomplish the same things as they are now, without rulers to exloit them in the process.

What is so terrible about that?

We'd be spared things like Bustamante and Arnold attempting to convince us why *they* should be our newest ruler, only to fuck us over after we take the line.

I think you're all so opposed to the concept primarily out of fear. You've been controlled for so long and duped so many times by your leaders that it hurts. It's diffucult to suppose that you've been tricked, I know. But just like those that took offense when told the Earth isn't flat, it's more likely you're wrong than right.

The concept of anarchy isn't such a terrible thing as to warrant such an outpour of emotion, not if you understand what it's truely about.

Anarchy is the philosophy of people working together to accomplish the same things as they are now, without rulers to exloit them in the process.

What is so terrible about that?

We'd be spared things like Bustamante and Arnold attempting to convince us why *they* should be our newest ruler, only to fuck us over after we take the line.

I think you're all so opposed to the concept primarily out of fear. You've been controlled for so long and duped so many times by your leaders that it hurts. It's diffucult to suppose that you've been tricked, I know. But just like those that took offense when told the Earth isn't flat, it's more likely you're wrong than right.

Well, if anyone wants to convince people differently and they take the appraoch you just did, it won't really matter.

This hate campaign against anarchists has nothing to do with anarchism. It has everything to do with Israel. Anarchists have been vocal opponents of the polices of the Government of Israel with regard to its treatment of Palestinians. Of course, this is to be expected. Anarchists oppose all governments. Those governments involved in the most active programs of human rights abuses will hear from anarchists. Israel is no acception.

Brainwashing by the JDL and the ADL has led some supporters of Israel's polices to the conclusion that all opponents of Israel's polices are anti-Semites. The JDL has joined in the campaign against anarchists because anarchists have dared to speak up. The JDL has a long history and a well developed program for smearing those it targets. In fact, the JDL has stated that its goal is to cause non-Jews to fear Jews. The JDL believes that fear is the basis of respect. Any reasonable person knows that fear is the basis of hate, not respect. Thus, the JDL is working to create anti-Semitism.

Due to the nature of anarchist thought, anarchists will not blame the Jewish people for the actions of the JDL. Therefore, the only thing the JDL is accomplishing within the anarchist community is opposition to the JDL. This is self defeating for the JDL. However, fascists alway defeat themselves through irrational behavior. Therefore, one should not be surprised that the JDL is meeting the same fate.

I dare to say that the number of anarchists in the US is far greater than the number of individuals that are members of the JDL. The JDL is making a major tactical error. The backlash has already started. What is more dangerous is that casual observers from the general population are also outraged at this behavior. The average American is far less likely to distinguish between the JDL and Jews in general. Therefore, the JDL is endangering Jews by waging such blatant smear campaigns against Americans for the political beliefs.

I have no expectation, whatsoever, that reasoned statements such as this will make any difference with regard to JDL behavior. The JDL is an organization of lost souls that attracts people looking to do harm. They use the JDL as a rationalization for their criminal behavior in the same way that skin-heads use the Nazi philosophy as a rationalization for their criminal behavior.

The important thing is to understand that this is not about anarchism. It is about trying to silence anyone that would speak out against Israel's genocide against the Palestinians.

So, once Palestine gets its own state and Israel builds a wall around it borders to keep themselves safe, what will anarchists do?

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.


I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

25 Rules of Disinformation: How to Fight Back

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive.

People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist

1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino's character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days - just as it was at the People's Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.


I close with the first paragraph of the introduction to my unpublished book, Fatal Rebirth:

Truth cannot live on a diet of secrets, withering within entangled lies. Freedom cannot live on a diet of lies, surrendering to the veil of oppression. The human spirit cannot live on a diet of oppression, becoming subservient in the end to the will of evil. God, as truth incarnate, will not long let stand a world devoted to such evil. Therefore, let us have the truth and freedom our spirits require... or let us die seeking these things, for without them, we shall surely and justly perish in an evil world.


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish

If the Palestinians are given sovereignty and allowed to live in peace, I suspect most anarchists will have more important things to do opposing their own governments to waste time on Israel, with the exception of Israeli anarchists that will continue their struggle against their own government. Palestinian anarchists will likely oppose the government of Palestine. As for the wall, walls are stupid. Israel should abandon the idea.

Personally, I think what Israel does is my business exactly because I help fund Israel. If you end US aid to Israel, that direct link will be broken. I opposed the Government of El Salvador, directly, specifically because my tax dollars were funding it. It is the same thing. As an American anarchist, I would prefer to focus on exposing the US Government and leave explosing foreign governments to their own people.

"As for the wall, walls are stupid."

Given the Palestinains inability to control their radicals, Israel should build a wall. If the new state of Palestine cannot control its militants, Israel should roll in and take the country.

>Personally, I think what Israel does is my business exactly because I help fund Israel......because my tax dollars were funding it.

People who don't have two nickels to rub together don't have any say. People left of center, anarchists and other fascist/marxists can talk, but they will be ignored because what they have to say is not worth consideration.

Excuse me...did you say something worth considering?

....we weren't paying attention...

...to you.

KPC = ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, NYT, LA Times, Boston Globe, SF Chron, USA Today, or any number of other left-wing rags.

Nothing new. Same old stuff.

USA Today...

....a left-wing rag....

CBS..owned by Westinghouse...that bastion of Communism..

NBC...owned by General Electric....evertbody knows they're all pacifists...except for the weapons thing....

Next thing you'll tell me is that Quaker Oats is a communist organization because Cap'n Crunch was a Fellow Traveler...

...whatta fuckin' douchebag.....

It doesn't matter who owns them. It's the content of their reporting. It's all left-wing-good, right-wing-evil. Just like you.

"It doesn't matter who owns them. It's the content of their reporting"

So it doesnt matter that FOX is owned by RM...it's just a coincidence that their reporting is so biased? Who do you think decides content, dingleberry?

....your idiocy has been confirmed with that post. Everything you post can now be ignored...if it hasn't been already.

Goodbye.

"This hate campaign against anarchists has nothing to do with anarchism. It has everything to do with Israel. Anarchists have been vocal opponents of the polices of the Government of Israel with regard to its treatment of Palestinians."

Sure. Never mind all the other oppressive governments on the planet. Let's just focus solely on one little country, shall we? And if that little country just happens to be populated by JOOOOS, well, that's just coincidence, isn't it?

"Those governments involved in the most active programs of human rights abuses will hear from anarchists. Israel is no acception."

Indeed it isn't...to the point of being the only government protested. What about Syria, North Korea, Yemen, Cuba, and all the other places where official government policy includes lots of dead people? Hmmm?

"Due to the nature of anarchist thought, anarchists will not blame the Jewish people for the actions of the JDL."

Okay...your own personal Jew-hatred is just a bonus, then? Gotcha.

"I dare to say that the number of anarchists in the US is far greater than the number of individuals that are members of the JDL."

Sure, you can say it...but so what? Remember, anarchists eschew all heirarchy. How do you expect to successfully oppose a well-organized opponent? By putting bumperstickers on them? Dream on, Steve. Your JDL paranoia fantasies are just that.

"The average American is far less likely to distinguish between the JDL and Jews in general."

That's the way to win converts! Tell people they're ignorant and stupid!

" It is about trying to silence anyone that would speak out against Israel's genocide against the Palestinians."

Uh, in case you didn't notice, you haven't been silenced. If the JDL were as ruthless as your delusion says, you'd be dead now, Steve, instead of being free to rant on the internet.

"... I suspect most anarchists will have more important things to do opposing their own governments..."

You mean, like hiding behind the Constitution they strive to overthrow?

Fox is fair and balanced. You're so far to the left, you believe middle America is extreeme right-wingers.

Now, back to those space aliens and FEMA taking over the world you believe in.......

you want this thread
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/84149_comment.php#84752
that spooker is one persistent bastard.
But you will have to search for space aliens and other intelligent life
yourself, good luck.

No reason for me to look. I'm sure if I stay here long enough you Indynuts will tell us more about your space aliens.

Once again we see "nonanarchist" failing to address any issues of relevance.
If an anarchist protests against Israel it is because they are an anti-semite.
NO other reason.....
Or course the religious right blames it on those AAA--RAABS.
Why arent the "anarchists" protesting any other countries of the world......
They are only protesting Israel because of the Jews...

Are you serious nonanarchist?
This is the basis of your argument?

The landslide of information provided by numerous other world agencies and heads of states and other governments are also protesting the human rights violations of Israel...........is it because they are anti semites????
Probally not...

It is also quite interesting to find that this "nonanarchist " is such an authority on anarchism..
Nonanarchist......have you read any books on anarchism? I mean, your such an authority.....

Another gem of "nonanarchist "logic
"The average American is far less likely to distinguish between the JDL and Jews in general."

That's the way to win converts! Tell people they're ignorant and stupid!
????????????
SO when i watched Fox news the other day and they reported that over 80% of Americans believed that Iraq was somehow linked to the 9-11 terrorism....

Is Fox news telling the American public that they are ignorant and stupid?
Probally not......

The JDL is just like Al queda or the Church of the Creator...all religious extremist groups that MOST people in the World dont get confused with each other.....we dont think that just because someone is Jewish that they are a Zionist or because someone is an Arab that they are a terrorist.....

Only nonanarchist logic thinks like that....

Just as he explains that the "anarchists" are committed to overthrowing the american government.
Which branch of anarchism are you referring to...?
All anarchists?
ALL?

Its pretty funny when "americans" like "nonanarchist"
oppose "anarchists" that are really fighting for the civil and human rights for all peoples...
Not hiding behind the Constituion or trying to overthrow it.....
They are simply making sure this out-of-control government is ENFORCING it

For example, nonanarchist claims that I am anti-semitic, but the only "evidence" he can find is that I oppose Israel.

He fails to answer the following questions.

(1) When I was actively opposing El Salvador, and not Israel, was I anti-Latino? Ask my Latina wife. I think she'd tell you I'm not anti-Latina.

(2) My websites had made anti-Castro statements. However, compared to Israel, Cuba is a saint. Does that make me anti-Cuban?

(3) My taxes fund Israel to a sum that far exceeds all aid to other countries. Doesn't that make Israel's crimes my business?

(4) When I opposed the Apartheid government of South Africa, was I being anti-white?

(5) My government is already an enemy of Syria, Lybia, and so on. However, my government is actively assisting Israel in its crimes. Doesn't that make a BIG difference.

nonanarchist's KOBE friends have been so keen to paint me as an anti-Semite that they have FORGED FAKE PUBLICATIONS IN MY NAME with anti-Semitic content. This means that THEY ARE PUBLISHING ANTI-SEMITIC material - NOT ME. If I were an anti-Semite, why would KOBE need to fabricate articles to support it's position?

What you are sadly missing is that the man that recruited KOBE did so in order to wage a vendetta against me. All of this "anti-Semitism" crap is just a ruse. He's about to be exposed big time.

On the other hand, the unjustified hate campaign that I have endured at the hands of JDL thugs and Zionist extremists has exposed them for the hate mongers that they are. I have NEVER been an anti-Semite and I am not an anti-Semite now.

More importantly, however, I've decided that I don't give a damn if a bunch of hate mongers hate me. I would be more concerned if they liked me. I am the enemy of racists and any Zionist that assumes that Israel is beyond reproach just because it is a Jewish state is, by definition, a racist.

"What you are sadly missing is that the man that recruited KOBE did so in order to wage a vendetta against me. All of this "anti-Semitism" crap is just a ruse. He's about to be exposed big time. "

Exposed when? I thought you said this week.

You are full of shit DeVoy, you live in a dream world. Kobe is JUST to wage a vendetta against you?

So you KNOW who "recruited" KOBE? How much is he paying KOBE??

Expose away... Hex is doing a really piss poor job of "exposing", he needs help.

"My taxes fund Israel to a sum that far exceeds all aid to other countries. Doesn't that make Israel's crimes my business?"

No. You don't pay enough to get a voice.

"He's about to be exposed big time."

I saw it posted that October 15, 2203 is the deadline to see if you and Hex are lying or not. Sounds good. We'll go with it.

"the unjustified hate campaign that I have endured"

You're an anarchist. By all things true and right, you deserve to be dead. They haven't killed you. Consider it a bonus.

"is, by definition, a racist."

You don't get to define anything.

October 15, 2203

should be

Oct 15, 2003

Otherwise Hex will be bugging us with this shit even after he's dead. Which is probably sooner than he thinks. And he doesn't think at all. So it'll be soon.

NOTICE HOW WHEN THE RIGHT WINGERS DONT HAVE AN ARGUMENT
THEIR ARGUMENT BECOMES MORONIC

"My taxes fund Israel to a sum that far exceeds all aid to other countries. Doesn't that make Israel's crimes my business?"

No. You don't pay enough to get a voice.


"the unjustified hate campaign that I have endured"

You're an anarchist. By all things true and right, you deserve to be dead. They haven't killed you. Consider it a bonus.

"is, by definition, a racist."

You don't get to define anything.

ANARCHISTS ARE RACISTS
SERIOUSLY?
THIS HAS GOT TO BE A JOKE...

THATS THE BEST YOU COULD COME UP WITH?
PRICELESS

ROFL!!!!!!!