Page 3 - Dear Wurm...

14-08.-2006, 11:15 AM

#31

2FAST4U

Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Location: N4019.0 x W07850.0

Posts: 270

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

....or go for a hearing test.

Hearing is just fine. Got any other theories?

__________________
[/b]drinking ale from a barrel[/b]

14-08.-2006, 10:47 PM

#32

Eldron

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posts: 766

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

You'd be the first one on here preaching about citizens rights etc.

The British Police arrested people.
What does arrest mean?
Does it mean that those people have been charged?
No.
Does it mean that those people have been tried?
No.
Does it mean that those people have been convicted?
No.

As of now, all we have is theBritish Police making arrests.
I suggest that you hold fire unless and until, we see people charged/tried/convicted.

And one thought about 9/11.
Plenty of people doubt the veracity of the case made by the US gov. in terms of what happened that day.

Perhaps the humour was lost on you....

WRT 9-11 - plenty of people doubt it but someone has yet to come up with damning evidence showing bushco did it. Years on they are still only able to stand behind the "we can prove the governement was lying" type evidence.

I completely agree some of the details are dodgey but what does that mean? That the governement did it? No - it shows that they're not completely innocent.

Kinda like Lance/Floyd/Ivan and Jan....

14-08.-2006, 10:59 PM

#33

Eldron

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posts: 766

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wurm

Sorry to disappoint you Crappy, but I've never been given to "conspiracy theories". However, with 9-11 the writing's on the wall. Anyone with the common sense of a small soap dish can see that the gov'ts version of events is a fabrication.

Ask the survivors and their families, and much of the rest of NYC.

Ok so you and I have square danced around the issue of bushy lying.

Let's say he is lying and the whole thing is a government fabrication...

What is the truth? Whodunnit?

15-08.-2006, 07:04 AM

#34

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,386

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldron

The discussion about doping in cycling is much less serious than the issue of loss of life.

I have read and re-read a lot of information about Sept 11th.
There are considerable doubts about what the US goverment said that happened that day.
And it is these very inconsistencies which give credence to those who think and believe that something else was at play throughout all of this.

From a guerilla warfare viewpoint, Sept 11th is an anomaly.
And I will tell you why and please hear me out.

Planes were hijacked and were used to murder people on 9/11.
Since then - there has been no attack within the USA by the group who were deemed to have committed that attack.

This is very unusual.
It's very unusual for a number of reasons.

I can think of no other paramilitary group - anywhere - which has engaged in only one attack in the homeland of the country it's opposes.
Every other paramilitary grouping from FARC to ETA to IRA, has engaged a number of attacks within the country of the goverment it opposes.
It is standard papramilitary practice to "bring the war to the enemy's door".
It is standard practice to repeat attacks as frequently as possible - in order to dishearten the enemy and to put doubt in to the minds of that country's citizens.
That's what ETA/Provos/Farc did and do.

For Al Qaeda to only commit one terrorist act on one day "at the enemy's door" - especially given it's (AQ's) call to arms - makes 9/11 look highly questionable.

Of course, the US goverment will claim that their security policy has ensured that no terrorist attacks have taken place since, within the USA.
Objectively this claim would be true - but not for the reasons which the US might try to put forward ie better security.

Any paramilitary org, which is serious in it's objectives - will have a series of different plans/attacks and operatives in place to do carry out it's orders within the country of it's enemy.

We know from past experience that draconian levels of security and draconian powers such as internment could not prevent the Provos from bringing the war in to the heart of London and indeed Westminster itself.
(for example, recall the rocket attack on 10 Downing Street in 1992 - the killing of Airey Nieve in the House of Commons in 1979 - the blowing apart of the Baltic Exchange in 1996).

One would have to surmise that if AQ wished to bring the war to America - they could have easily done so since 9/11.
AQ appear to be as ideological driven as the Provos - probably more so in fact.

It is therefore astonishing that AQ have only attack the US on home soil, once.
Which begs the question - it could be the case that AQ were not responsible for 9/11?
And if not - who was?

__________________
.."But finally the last thing I’ll say to the people who don’t believe in cycling, the cynics and the sceptics. I'm sorry for you. I’m sorry that you can’t dream big. [I]I'm sorry you don't believe in miracles. You should believe in these athletes, and you should believe in these people. I'll be a fan of the Tour de France for as long as I live. And there are no secrets" - this is a hard sporting event and hard work wins it - Armstrong 2005 TDF
morelike hypocrisy.

15-08.-2006, 11:13 AM

#35

Wurm

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 2,148

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldron

WRT 9-11 - plenty of people doubt it but someone has yet to come up with damning evidence showing bushco did it.

The reason for that is the 9-11 Commission produced an enormous falsehood, a patently bogus report that was claimed to be the honest result of a factual, thorough investigation, but it is actually anything but.

Let us not forget that Bu$hCo opposed any 9-11 investigation, until the outcry from the survivors and victim's families became too loud. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that 1) Bush & Cheney were not sworn under oath for their secret testimony, and 2) nearly every hand-picked member of the 9-11 Commission had prior ties to Bu$hCo, constituting blatant conflicts of interest.

If an independent investigation was begun by a special prosecutor, (such as the one being conducted by Fitzgerald into the Plame outing) and Congressional hearings were held where certain key witnesses would be given immunity, and where Congress had subpoena power to force the release of "secret" documents, videos, and other evidence that the Pentagon and Administration have suppressed, AND if the Main-Stream Media would do their jobs like they were more apt to do during the Nixon years instead of being propaganda shills for their right-wing owners - the world might then have the truth.

If that were ever to occur, I am willing to bet my life that not only the vast majority of the Bush Admin., but also many in gov't agencies such as the FBI, CIA, NORAD, FAA, Pentagon (military), as well as many in Congress (both Dem & Repig) would be up on a whole slew of very serious charges.

I have never thought 9-11 was an event manufactured solely by the Bu$hCo 'inner circle', but they are the ones ultimately responsible, up to and including the highest Cabinet Sec'ys such as Colin Powell and Rumsfeld, then Director's Condi Rice of NSA, Tenet of CIA, and Mueller of FBI, Gen. Myers of the Joint Chiefs, Bush, Cheney, and all that were part of the White House at that time.

__________________
"Bush is the first President to admit to an impeachable offense."

- John Dean, former Counsel to the President (Nixon)

The aim of big corporations is to separate fools from their money all of the time and ordinary folks from their money most of the time. The rest of us must fend for ourselves.

Last edited by Wurm : 15-08.-2006 at 12:49 PM.

15-08.-2006, 12:31 PM

#36

2FAST4U

Registered User

Join Date: Oct 2005

Location: N4019.0 x W07850.0

Posts: 270

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

I think you are looking to deep for your answer here...The simple explanation is as follows: AQ is not stupid. #1 They know that Americans as generous as we are would not tolerate another 9/11. If it were to happen, Bush's approval ratings would go up as the country would rally around him and scream from the rooftops to nuke the middle east and not rest until every muslim in the world was a pile of ash.

#2 Further, I find in difficult to believe that these are your thoughts on this matter...Why would AQ attack other countries yet, not try to strike the U.S.??? The most hated country in the world (in their AQ's eyes and the don't want to attack it?) What is your theory DR?

__________________
[/b]drinking ale from a barrel[/b]

15-08.-2006, 04:09 PM

#37

Eldron

Registered User

Join Date: Jan 2002

Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Posts: 766

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Which begs the question - it could be the case that AQ were not responsible for 9/11?
And if not - who was?

That is my question also. I'm still in the "terrorists did it" camp.

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

16-08.-2006, 01:00 AM

#38

Wurm

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 2,148

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldron

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

Apparently you have trouble with reading comprehension.

I specifically named several of who I think are the culprits, based on the evidence I've seen - including Chimpenfuhrer and the rest of the top-level goons of his admin. Cheney was running the attack from the PEOC.(see below)

Now, have you any other canards to toss about today?

Quote:

Cover Stories of the People in Charge

Vice President Dick Cheney was in the White House during the attack. He said he learned of the attack from a clerical secretary.

Interestingly, Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures, and raises the question of whether and why the President delayed the scrambling of jets. Here is the text of Vice President Cheney's comments on NBC: 1

Tim Russert: "What's the most important decision you think he (President Bush) made during the course of the day?"
VP Cheney: "Well, the, I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft ... We decided to do it." Here Cheney cleverly attempts to confuse the listener into thinking that "intercept" means "shoot down". In fact the routine procedure of interception consists of flying fighter jets to within close proximity to the off-course aircraft, and attempting to make visual contact with whoever is in the cockpit.

As the attack unfolded, news reports stated that Cheney had been whisked to a secret and secure location -- later revealed to be the Presidential Emergency Operating Center in the basement of the White House. ["The VP is in a 'secure, undisclosed location.'"] Cheney was with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, directing the response to the attack. Or was he directing the attack? The testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta is suggestive in this regard.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" 2 Hamilton indicates that "the orders" were to shoot down commercial aircraft. But Mineta's account makes more sense if "the orders" were not to shoot down any such aircraft. The repeated questioning of Cheney by the junior officer whether "the orders still stand" had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy them still stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by a junior officer as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-missile anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane. Neither occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the junior officer.

Attached Thumbnails

Click image for larger version

Name: cheney_victory.jpg
Views: 5
Size: 47.1 KB

Last edited by Wurm : 16-08.-2006 at 01:15 AM.

16-08.-2006, 06:16 AM

#39

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,386

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2FAST4U

Maybe I am looking at this deeply - but if you consider what other paramilitary groups do (and have done), a once off attack such as 9/11 is an anomaly for a group who have such an ideology.

Paramilitary activity is all about "bringing the war to your enemy".

I'm not suggesting that AQ are required to match what happened at 9/11.
What I am suggesting is that AQ in not carrying out one single incident since 9/11 on US soil is an anomaly - for a paramilitary organisation.

In respect of the US and it's engagement in the "war on terror" since 2001.
I think it's far to say that 9/11 gave Bush the excuse to enact what he and cronies had been formulating in 1997-1999 and their plan for a new world order.

The problem for your country - is that it needs to recognise that it (like every other country before) can never prevail in a guerilla war.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2FAST4U

#2 Further, I find in difficult to believe that these are your thoughts on this matter...Why would AQ attack other countries yet, not try to strike the U.S.??? The most hated country in the world (in their AQ's eyes and the don't want to attack it?) What is your theory DR?

DR?
Who or what is DR?

As regards my thoughts on 9/11 : I try to keep an open mind as to what happened that day.
The more one reads from the enquiries about what happened that day - it is not unreasonable to question the US goverments statements about what happened that day.

16-08.-2006, 06:21 AM

#40

limerickman

Community Team

Join Date: Jan 2004

Location: at the bar

Posts: 12,386

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eldron

That is my question also. I'm still in the "terrorists did it" camp.

@wurm - so basically your answer is: someone in the US did it and because bushy is the leader it's his fault?

We both live in countries where guerilla warfare raged for the past 30 odd years.
You and I both know that guerilla tactics don't go in for "once off spectaculars" (as they're euphemistically referred to as).
Guerilla warfare is born out of the "long war mentality".

Personally I don't know who was responsible for 9/11.
Yes we know that name of the people blamed for the attack and we have official enquiries which have thrown up doubt about the official version regarding what happened that day.

16-08.-2006, 10:02 AM

#41

stevebaby

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: Craggy Island

Posts: 2,449

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2FAST4U

It's highly unlikely that the us could nuke the middle east,or even iran.Firstly,they would be nuking their own supply of oil,without which their military would be severely handicapped.It would be quite pointless to nuke any oil producer unless the us military could occupy their oilfields and maintain production.Since the us,with a population of almost 300 million and the largest military budget in the world,has been unable to subdue iraq,with a population of 25 million and armed only with light infantry weapons and IEDs,then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the us could ever hope to conquer the entire middle east and maintain oil production.
Secondly,such an action would instantly drive the price of oil sky-high.The saudi oil minister has said publicly that even a conventional attack on iran will push the price of oil to $250 a barrel.The resulting inflation would destroy the economies of the west virtually overnight.
Thirdly,it would unite the moslem world under the leadership of the extremists who are currently in a minority.Sunnis,shiites and all the other branches of islam would be joined together in a way that no islamic leader has ever been able to achieve.
Fourthly,it would alienate whatever support the us currently has.Europe,china,japan,india,australia,canada,russia etc. are not going to allow the us to destroy the economies of the world and start WWlll.
Fifth...any support that bush has would disappear the instant americans realise they have no jobs,no food,no effective military and probably most importantly...no fuel for their cars.
It might make you feel good to sound tough,but it's gibberish.Absolute drivel.
The frightening thing is that there are enough fundamentalist extremists who believe in the rapture,the showdown at armageddon,rivers of blood etc.,to push for this scenario to occur.
Fortunately there are enough sensible people in the world to prevent this happening.

__________________
Cruel and vicious,but fair.
Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls!
Nechaevist

16-08.-2006, 11:07 AM

#42

Durangodave

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: Colorado, USA

Posts: 204

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Yeah, but FARC, ETA, IRA are all indiginous to their place of battle. Not so with AlQ in the USA. Their challenge is totally different.
.

__________________
"I must (deride me not) be somewhere where I can, without disaster, bicycle." Henry James, 1896

16-08.-2006, 11:12 AM

#43

Durangodave

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2004

Location: Colorado, USA

Posts: 204

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebaby

...The frightening thing is that there are enough fundamentalist extremists who believe in the rapture,the showdown at armageddon,rivers of blood etc.,to push for this scenario to occur...

To think that these people have the president's ear. Really, it just show how insane things have become that we can even contemplate such a thing....
.

__________________
"I must (deride me not) be somewhere where I can, without disaster, bicycle." Henry James, 1896

16-08.-2006, 11:55 AM

#44

Wurm

Registered User

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 2,148

Re: Dear Wurm...

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebaby

...then I think it's ridiculous to suggest that the us could ever hope to conquer the entire middle east and maintain oil production....[etc.]

That is the conventional thinking, and well-placed it is. But since when has logic, hard-won lessons, or good old horse sense ever stopped the Bu$hCo's? They will drive on until the US is depleted of resources to fuel their wars, or until they're stopped by an external force, such as the courts (not likely), Congress (not likely), the People (slightly likely), or a bullet or bomb (hopefully).

16-08.-2006, 11:57 AM	#45
stevebaby Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Craggy Island Posts: 2,449	Re: Dear Wurm... I read somewhere that dubya is privately scathing about the "religious right".I can't find the article though it fits with his character.His "born again" christianity doesn't really fit either.He certainly has never demonstrated any of the christian virtues. He's a total cynic manipulating the ignorant to get what he and his cronies really worship...power and money.I hate to think who is going to replace him when his second term is up...can't see the neo-cons letting go of power at all and I think they are capable of almost anything,short of actually destroying the world. Well,I hope he's a hypocrite about all this born-again/rapture/armageddon nonsense! __________________ Cruel and vicious,but fair. Drink!Feck!Arrse!Girls! Nechaevist

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode