O.T. I've got to take a Sudan

[[email protected]]

A bunch of idiotic ****ing barbarians.

You can look at a picture of this poor woman and tell she wouldn't
hurt a fly.

Who's for turning some sand into glass?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Les Cargill" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:

> > A bunch of idiotic ****ing barbarians.

> Any time you draw a conclusion like that, you
> know you messed up somewhere. Then again, I'm
> so cynical, I always figure footage like that was
> staged. It often is.

No kidding....

The 'talking heads' on TV these days seem to live for nothing more
than making people upset, angry or resentful.

> IOW, I think you wuz trolled.

The world was trolled on this one... big headlines that "Teacher
Will Get 40 Lashes and Prison Time" is just another propaganda
tactic to keep everyone scared and instill more religious animosity.

> How do I say this? I once saw footage from the
> 1979 Iranian Revolution of the crowd on "smoke
> break" - the journalist had a small camera hidden,
> and it showed what happened when the red light was off.
>
> Once you understand that terror, all terror is performance
> art designed to enrage and inflame.... t'was true on the dock
> in Paris during the original French Terror, 'tis true today...
> you begin to understand that you have at least control over
> allowing it to **** you off. *Some* control, anyway.

Control, the personal ability to choose in every instant of our lives,
is really that all we have which makes us different from the other
animals.

> Life entails a parcel of risk. Hopefully, she knew the job was
> dangerous when she took it. I seriously doubt her sentence will
> change from the couple of weeks.

15 days is pretty mild in an antiquated, backward Theocracy... but
I know a lot of pets that have been named Jesus.

> Remember, you are being trolled.

By life, no less. ;-)

> > Who's for turning some sand into glass?

> I think these guys do that all the time:
>
> http://www.pgglass.co.za/

Africa is notorious for such silliness. Khartoum is no exception.

Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.

> You do understand that what you saw on CNN, or BBC or whatever
> channel you saw it on, was entertainment product, right?

And since Faux News won the legal right for *all* media to blatantly tell
lies under the guise of "news," it's likely never going to get any better.

> Yeah. Yeah. Definitely time for Wapner. Yeah.

:-\

"Texas Law"

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:56:56 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
/Odm> wrote:

>Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
>Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
>in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.

You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
theocracies.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> 15 days is pretty mild ...

They're pouring out of Mosques rioting for death penalty.
Or perhaps you aren't following the news.

It seems to have escaped their notice that their own Moslem
organzation in England was selling teddy-bears named Mohammed.
But logic and consistency was never their strong suit.

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
> theocracies.

That is the dumbest thing you have posted this year.
Suggest sticking to audio topics if you want to maintain
any credibility.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 1, 1:01 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:56:56 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>
> /Odm> wrote:
> >Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
> >Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
> >in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.
>
> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
> theocracies.
>
> d
>
> --
> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com

Remember this is the same guy that claimed the vast majority of
cowboys in the American West were Chinese or Black. When he was
challanged to provide evidence, he claimed our historical references
are all made up, like "chinese cowboys"???

Turn off the BBC, it rots your thinking process....


Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2007 09:42:38 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>On Dec 1, 1:01 am, (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:56:56 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>>
>> /Odm> wrote:
>> >Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
>> >Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
>> >in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.
>>
>> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
>> theocracies.
>>
>> d
>>
>> --
>> Pearce Consultinghttp://www.pearce.uk.com
>
>Remember this is the same guy that claimed the vast majority of
>cowboys in the American West were Chinese or Black. When he was
>challanged to provide evidence, he claimed our historical references
>are all made up, like "chinese cowboys"???
>
>Turn off the BBC, it rots your thinking process....
>
You don't think that Bush consults his mullahs before making his
decisions? You think he doesn't hold daily prayer meetings? You all
appear to live in denial.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
"Richard Crowley" > wrote:

> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
> > You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
> > theocracies.
>
> That is the dumbest thing you have posted this year.
> Suggest sticking to audio topics if you want to maintain
> any credibility.

It may not be a formal theocracy, but the religious lobbies do have
their sway.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Richard Crowley]

"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>
>> "Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> > You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
>> > theocracies.
>>
>> That is the dumbest thing you have posted this year.
>> Suggest sticking to audio topics if you want to maintain
>> any credibility.
>
> It may not be a formal theocracy, but the religious lobbies do have
> their sway.

If Mr. Pearce had posted that same opinion in any of
several Moslem countries, he wouldn't have his head
attached long enough to read the replies. Now THAT
is how I define "unpleasant theocracy".

[Paul Stamler]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> >> >Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
> >> >Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
> >> >in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.
> >>
> >> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
> >> theocracies.
> >
> You don't think that Bush consults his mullahs before making his
> decisions? You think he doesn't hold daily prayer meetings? You all
> appear to live in denial.

No, not in denial. We live in a country where high officials and a large
segment of the people would *like* it to become a theocracy. They haven't
succeeded, so far, although there have been inroads. The fight isn't over by
any means.

Peace,
Paul

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:02:02 -0500, Les Cargill >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:56:56 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>> /Odm> wrote:
>>
>>> Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
>>> Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
>>> in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.
>>
>> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
>> theocracies.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>Not really. Politics in the US is informed of religion,
>usually in the form of "values" ( an empty, meaningless term ),
>but it's not specifically religious in nature. The backbone of
>American law is case law, not religious law like Sharia.

I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
and destroy the Taleban.

Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
all that support overnight.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
>most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
>and destroy the Taleban.
>
>Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
>all that support overnight.

That's true. But the beauty of the American system is that our government
consists of a lot more than just Mr. Bush. It's true that he doesn't seem
to understand this himself, but he's starting to learn.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On 1 Dec 2007 15:15:42 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
>>most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
>>and destroy the Taleban.
>>
>>Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
>>all that support overnight.
>
>That's true. But the beauty of the American system is that our government
>consists of a lot more than just Mr. Bush. It's true that he doesn't seem
>to understand this himself, but he's starting to learn.
>--scott

Well, for goodness sake get him out of there as soon as possible. The
damage he has already done is immeasurable.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Don Pearce]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:23:04 -0500, Les Cargill >
wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 14:02:02 -0500, Les Cargill >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Don Pearce wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 07:56:56 GMT, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)"
>>>> /Odm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lately I've been thanking our Founding Fathers each day for the
>>>>> Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment and that we don't live
>>>>> in a Theocracy.... at least, not yet.
>>>> You must be joking. You live under one of the more unpleasant
>>>> theocracies.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>> Not really. Politics in the US is informed of religion,
>>> usually in the form of "values" ( an empty, meaningless term ),
>>> but it's not specifically religious in nature. The backbone of
>>> American law is case law, not religious law like Sharia.
>>
>> I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
>> most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
>> and destroy the Taleban.
>>
>> Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
>> all that support overnight.
>>
>> d
>>
>
>You are simply identifying the appalling inability of the Bush
>Administration to practice propaganda. Had they been better liars,
>the support would still be there.

Your wording is revealing, and it echoes revelations over here in the
past few days. During the height of the Blair government, his chief
press agent, Alistair Campbell famously said "We don't do god" to an
American journalist questioning him about our government's
motivations. Blair has now revealed that this was a deliberate lie,
because he thought that if he revealed the extent to which his
"voices" guided him, he would be considered a lunatic. You are in
effect saying that Bush's press agent should have done the same as
Campbell.

As we all now know to our cost, secret theocracies such as we suffered
under Blair are every bit as damaging as overt ones as practiced by
Bush.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[D C[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
> most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
> and destroy the Taleban.
>
> Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
> all that support overnight.

I know what you mean, but your date is wrong.

[D C[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Well, for goodness sake get him out of there as soon as possible. The
> damage he has already done is immeasurable.

414 days.

http://www.backwardsbush.com/

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message

> "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...

> > 15 days is pretty mild ...

> They're pouring out of Mosques rioting for death penalty.
> Or perhaps you aren't following the news.

I mentioned propaganda value... but I'm wondering where you
saw this amazing "outpouring" calling for the death penalty
when even under extreme political and religious pressure,
the highest courts in the nation passed a sentence of 15
days in jail.

Everything else is staged and little better than a serious
embarrassment to the people of the country.

[Don Pearce]

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 01:11:41 -0500, D C > wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> I remember after 11/9/02 Bush had the world on his side, including
>> most moslem countries who supported his campaign to catch Bin Laden
>> and destroy the Taleban.
>>
>> Then he called it a Crusade. His religious fundamentalism ****ed away
>> all that support overnight.
>
>I know what you mean, but your date is wrong.

Eleventh of September 2001, sorry. A year out.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[[email protected]]

On Dec 1, 10:49 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
> > "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> > > 15 days is pretty mild ...
> > They're pouring out of Mosques rioting for death penalty.
> > Or perhaps you aren't following the news.
>
> I mentioned propaganda value... but I'm wondering where you
> saw this amazing "outpouring" calling for the death penalty

You really must develop better sources of news if you are so
unaware. Google reports >86,400 hits. We report. You decide.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
> On Dec 1, 10:49 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
> > "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
> > > "David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
> > > > 15 days is pretty mild ...
> > > They're pouring out of Mosques rioting for death penalty.
> > > Or perhaps you aren't following the news.
> >
> > I mentioned propaganda value... but I'm wondering where you
> > saw this amazing "outpouring" calling for the death penalty
>
> You really must develop better sources of news if you are so
> unaware. Google reports >86,400 hits. We report. You decide.

Google reports 17 years of posting history. What were your search terms?

[hank alrich]

> wrote:

> Who's for turning some sand into glass?

Oooh, baby, you blow that hot??

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>On 1 Dec 2007 15:15:42 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>
>>That's true. But the beauty of the American system is that our government
>>consists of a lot more than just Mr. Bush. It's true that he doesn't seem
>>to understand this himself, but he's starting to learn.
>
>Well, for goodness sake get him out of there as soon as possible. The
>damage he has already done is immeasurable.

That's the other thing about the American system. It was designed by
a bunch of revolutionaries that didn't trust governments, and consequently
was designed to make it difficult for the government to do anything.
This makes it harder for the government to do stupid things, but unfortunately
this also makes it difficult to reverse boneheaded decisions as well.

As Will Rogers said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except
for all the others."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce]

On 4 Dec 2007 09:46:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>>On 1 Dec 2007 15:15:42 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>>>
>>>That's true. But the beauty of the American system is that our government
>>>consists of a lot more than just Mr. Bush. It's true that he doesn't seem
>>>to understand this himself, but he's starting to learn.
>>
>>Well, for goodness sake get him out of there as soon as possible. The
>>damage he has already done is immeasurable.
>
>That's the other thing about the American system. It was designed by
>a bunch of revolutionaries that didn't trust governments, and consequently
>was designed to make it difficult for the government to do anything.
>This makes it harder for the government to do stupid things, but unfortunately
>this also makes it difficult to reverse boneheaded decisions as well.
>
What bothers me is that by rights he should have been out - and well
out - last time. But it didn't happen. I have great fears of a repeat
performance.

That is, I think, one of the weaknesses of your system. You elect a
president, not a party, so what it boils down to is which man can
smile widest, organize the best TV campaign etc. That just isn't a
recipe for the best man winning.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[D C[_2_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> What bothers me is that by rights he should have been out - and well
> out - last time. But it didn't happen. I have great fears of a repeat
> performance.

Thank goodness for term limits.

[Bill[_5_]]

For my money, "Dr. Strangelove" was one of the greatest films ever made.

Watch it today-- it's astonishing how the parody has become even more
timely and relevant with age.


Les Cargill wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> A bunch of idiotic ****ing barbarians.
>>
>
> Any time you draw a conclusion like that, you
> know you messed up somewhere. Then again, I'm so
> cynical, I always figure footage like that
> was staged. It often is.
>
> IOW, I think you wuz trolled.
>
> How do I say this? I once saw footage from the
> 1979 Iranian Revolution of the crowd on "smoke
> break" - the journalist had a small camera hidden,
> and it showed what happened when the red light was off.
>
> Once you understand that terror, all terror is performance
> art designed to enrage and inflame.... t'was true on the dock
> in Paris during the original French Terror, 'tis true today...
> you begin to understand that you have at least control over
> allowing it to **** you off. *Some* control, anyway.
>
>> You can look at a picture of this poor woman and tell she wouldn't
>> hurt a fly.
>>
>
> Life entails a parcel of risk. Hopefully, she knew the job was
> dangerous when she took it. I seriously doubt her sentence will
> change from the couple of weeks.
>
> Remember, you are being trolled.
>
>> Who's for turning some sand into glass?
>
>
> I think these guys do that all the time:
>
> http://www.pgglass.co.za/
>
> Probably not what you had in mind, is it? "Dr. Strangelove"
> was farce. Black farce. Please research the meaning of "black
> farce". It's a damned interesting form of entertainment product.
>
> You do understand that what you saw on CNN, or BBC or whatever
> channel you saw it on, was entertainment product, right?
>
> Yeah. Yeah. Definitely time for Wapner. Yeah.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[Bill[_5_]]

"Gosh, I wish we had one of those doomsday thingies..."

Les Cargill wrote:

>
> Probably not what you had in mind, is it? "Dr. Strangelove"
> was farce. Black farce. Please research the meaning of "black
> farce". It's a damned interesting form of entertainment product.
>
> You do understand that what you saw on CNN, or BBC or whatever
> channel you saw it on, was entertainment product, right?
>
> Yeah. Yeah. Definitely time for Wapner. Yeah.
>
> --
> Les Cargill

[Bill[_5_]]

Your comments deserve serious thought.

I was thinking of the propaganda value of the Moslems dancing in the
streets after 9/11. It might have been true. It might also have been
irrelevant-- think about an Islamic reporter coming to America looking
for some juicy bigotted comments with which to inflame the Moslem
world-- it wouldn't be hard at all. Would it be a fair representation
of America? Of course not. Was the clip of the Moslems dancing in the
streets a fair representation of the Moslem world? But I heard many
people cite that clip as justification for a harsh response.

Now "60 Minutes" aired a segment in which an Anglican priest described
how things are immeasurably worse for Christians in Iraq now than they
ever were under Saddam. How can a thoughtful person not think seriously
about what that means for what we have been led to believe about Iraq?

I'm curious whether at some point in his life Bush will ever look deep
into himself and admit the Iraq thing was a huge mistake. I'll bet
Laura knows, and I'll bet she's the one behind the current peace conference.

Okay, I've had my fun with politics. I will now return to our normally
scheduled program of audio issues....

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
> "Richard Crowley" > wrote in message
>
>
>>"David Morgan (MAMS)" wrote ...
>
>
>>>15 days is pretty mild ...
>
>
>>They're pouring out of Mosques rioting for death penalty.
>>Or perhaps you aren't following the news.
>
>
> I mentioned propaganda value... but I'm wondering where you
> saw this amazing "outpouring" calling for the death penalty
> when even under extreme political and religious pressure,
> the highest courts in the nation passed a sentence of 15
> days in jail.
>
> Everything else is staged and little better than a serious
> embarrassment to the people of the country.
>
>
>
>
>

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message ...
> On 4 Dec 2007 09:46:54 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce > wrote:
> >>On 1 Dec 2007 15:15:42 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>That's true. But the beauty of the American system is that our government
> >>>consists of a lot more than just Mr. Bush. It's true that he doesn't seem
> >>>to understand this himself, but he's starting to learn.
> >>
> >>Well, for goodness sake get him out of there as soon as possible. The
> >>damage he has already done is immeasurable.
> >
> >That's the other thing about the American system. It was designed by
> >a bunch of revolutionaries that didn't trust governments, and consequently
> >was designed to make it difficult for the government to do anything.
> >This makes it harder for the government to do stupid things, but unfortunately
> >this also makes it difficult to reverse boneheaded decisions as well.

> What bothers me is that by rights he should have been out - and well
> out - last time. But it didn't happen. I have great fears of a repeat
> performance.
>
> That is, I think, one of the weaknesses of your system. You elect a
> president, not a party, so what it boils down to is which man can
> smile widest, organize the best TV campaign etc. That just isn't a
> recipe for the best man winning.


You are correct, but the people of the USA had little choice in either of
the elections. The corporate Coup D'Etat of 2000 was (is) very powerful.

The first election of George W. Bush was stolen by his father's previous
appointments to the Supreme Court, and his brother the Governor and
his campaign manager in the state of Florida...


SUPREME COURT DECIDES 2000 ELECTION
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226294080/102-3288342-2707317?v=glance&n=283155

Bush lost the nationwide 'popular' vote....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000

And here are a few links to substantiate the fact, but I could list a
million because it is in fact TRUE that the Supreme Court of the
US decided the 200 election.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/10/sm.08.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884144.html
Tuesday, Dec. 12-The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7-2
to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts
in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating
all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection
and due process guarantees.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-836.ZPC.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-presidential-election-2000
http://www.questia.com/library/bush-v-gore.jsp



The second election of George W. Bush was stolen by illegal voting proceedures.


VOTE FRAUD
Vote Fraud MSNBC Video 2004 - http://www.vestigialconscience.com/5.countdown_56k.mov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_ir regularities
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election_controver sy%2C_exit_polls
http://nightweed.com/usavotefacts.html
http://www.blackboxvoting.org
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/40755/
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/summary.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/2004votefraud.html
http://vote2004.eriposte.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2004/031104votefraud.htm
http://www.votersunite.org/electionproblems.asp
http://www.ideamouth.com/voterfraud.htm
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/2004_vote_fraud.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen
http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/voter_fraud.html
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0411/S00124.htm
http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/122404X.shtml
http://www.thewe.cc/contents/more/archive/united_states_voting_procedures.html
http://www.seminolechronicle.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/16/41c2fdb042ea1
Video / Bev Harris - http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/041104harris.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/swanson11082004.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-22.htm
http://www.tvnewslies.org/html/election_2004.html
http://www.epionline.org/news_detail.cfm?rid=84
http://www.truthinvoting.org/
http://blackvoternetwork.com/votefraud.htm
http://www.flcv.com/fraudpat.html
http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Chin/110504chin.html

More links at http://www.squadron13.com/JackDresser/electionfraud.htm
And at bottom... http://www.pamrotella.com/polhist/elections2004.html

"We cannot accept this result as legitimate, because it does not meet
international standards. We call for a full review of the conduct of the
election and the tallying." --Colin Powell on the 2004 election

Outraged republican moderates: http://www.outragedmoderates.org/Page4.html


____________________________________________




Consortium News - Sep 26, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/092607a.html

[Editors Note: Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst
who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War,
offered insights into the looming war with Iran and the loss of liberty
in the United States at an American University symposium on Sept. 20.
Below is an edited transcript of Ellsbergs remarkable speech.]

__________________________________________________


A Coup Has Occurred

By Daniel Ellsberg

Text of a speech delivered September 20, 2007

I think nothing has higher priority than averting an attack on Iran,
which I think will be accompanied by a further change in our way of
governing here that in effect will convert us into what I would call a
police state.

If theres another 9/11 under this regime ] it means that they switch
on full extent all the apparatus of a police state that has been
patiently constructed, largely secretly at first but eventually leaked
out and known and accepted by the Democratic people in Congress, by the
Republicans and so forth.

Will there be anything left for NSA to increase its surveillance of us?
] They may be to the limit of their technical capability now, or they
may not. But if theyre not now they will be after another 9/11.

And I would say after the Iranian retaliation to an American attack on
Iran, you will then see an increased attack on Iran " an escalation "
which will be also accompanied by a total suppression of dissent in
this country, including detention camps.

Its a little hard for me to distinguish the two contingencies; they
could come together. Another 9/11 or an Iranian attack in which Irans
reaction against Israel, against our shipping, against our troops in
Iraq above all, possibly in this country, will justify the full panoply
of measures that have been prepared now, legitimized, and to some
extent written into law. ]

This is an unusual gang, even for Republicans. [But] I think that the
successors to this regime are not likely to roll back the assault on
the Constitution. They will take advantage of it, they will exploit it.

Will Hillary Clinton as president decide to turn off NSA after the last
five years of illegal surveillance? Will she deprive her administration
her ability to protect United States citizens from possible terrorism
by blinding herself and deafening herself to all that NSA can provide?
I dont think so.

Unless this somehow, by a change in our political climate, of a radical
change, unless this gets rolled back in the next year or two before a
new administration comes in " and theres no move to do this at this
point " unless that happens I dont see it happening under the next
administration, whether Republican or Democratic.


The Next Coup

Let me simplify this and not just to be rhetorical: A coup has
occurred. I woke up the other day realizing, coming out of sleep, that
a coup has occurred. Its not just a question that a coup lies ahead
with the next 9/11. Thats the next coup, that completes the first.

The last five years have seen a steady assault on every fundamental of
our Constitution, ] what the rest of the world looked at for the last
200 years as a model and experiment to the rest of the world " in
checks and balances, limited government, Bill of Rights, individual
rights protected from majority infringement by the Congress, an
independent judiciary, the possibility of impeachment.

There have been violations of these principles by many presidents
before. Most of the specific things that Bush has done in the way of
illegal surveillance and other matters were done under my boss Lyndon
Johnson in the Vietnam War: the use of CIA, FBI, NSA against Americans.

I could go through a list going back before this century to Lincolns
suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, and before that the Alien
and Sedition Acts in the 18th century. I think that none of those
presidents were in fact what I would call quite precisely the current
administration: domestic enemies of the Constitution.

I think that none of these presidents with all their violations, which
were impeachable had they been found out at the time and in nearly
every case their violations were not found out until they were out of
office so we didnt have the exact challenge that we have today.

That was true with the first term of Nixon and certainly of Johnson,
Kennedy and others. They were impeachable, they werent found out in
time, but I think it was not their intention to in the crisis
situations that they felt justified their actions, to change our form
of government.

It is increasingly clear with each new book and each new leak that
comes out, that Richard Cheney and his now chief of staff David
Addington have had precisely that in mind since at least the early 70s.
Not just since 1992, not since 2001, but have believed in Executive
government, single-branch government under an Executive president "
elected or not " with unrestrained powers. They did not believe in
restraint.

When I say this Im not saying they are traitors. I dont think they
have in mind allegiance to some foreign power or have a desire to help
a foreign power. I believe they have in their own minds a love of this
country and what they think is best for this country " but what they
think is best is directly and consciously at odds with what the
Founders of this country and Constitution thought.

They believe we need a different kind of government now, an Executive
government essentially, rule by decree, which is what were getting
with signing statements. Signing statements are talked about as
line-item vetoes which is one [way] of describing them which are
unconstitutional in themselves, but in other ways are just saying the
president says I decide what I enforce. I decide what the law is. I
legislate.

Its [the same] with the military commissions, courts that are under
the entire control of the Executive Branch, essentially of the
president. A concentration of legislative, judicial, and executive
powers in one branch, which is precisely what the Founders meant to
avert, and tried to avert and did avert to the best of their ability in
the Constitution.


Founders Had It Right

Now Im appealing to that as a crisis right now not just because it is
a break in tradition but because I believe in my heart and from my
experience that on this point the Founders had it right.

Its not just our way of doing things " it was a crucial perception
on the corruption of power to anybody including Americans. On
procedures and institutions that might possibly keep that power under
control because the alternative was what we have just seen, wars like
Vietnam, wars like Iraq, wars like the one coming.

That brings me to the second point. This Executive Branch, under
specifically Bush and Cheney, despite opposition from most of the rest
of the branch, even of the cabinet, clearly intends a war against Iran
which even by imperialist standards, standards in other words which
were accepted not only by nearly everyone in the Executive Branch but
most of the leaders in Congress. The interests of the empire, the need
for hegemony, our right to control and our need to control the oil of
the Middle East and many other places. That is consensual in our
establishment. ]

But even by those standards, an attack on Iran is insane. And I say
that quietly, I dont mean it to be heard as rhetoric. Of course its
not only aggression and a violation of international law, a supreme
international crime, but it is by imperial standards, insane in terms
of the consequences.

Does that make it impossible? No, it obviously doesnt, it doesnt even
make it unlikely.

That is because two things come together that with the acceptance for
various reasons of the Congress " Democrats and Republicans " and the
public and the media, we have freed the White House " the president and
the vice president " from virtually any restraint by Congress, courts,
media, public, whatever.

And on the other hand, the people who have this unrestrained power are
crazy. Not entirely, but they have crazy beliefs.

And the question is what then, what can we do about this? We are
heading towards an insane operation. It is not certain. It is likely. ]
I want to try to be realistic myself here, to encourage us to do what
we must do, what is needed to be done with the full recognition of the
reality. Nothing is impossible.

What Im talking about in the way of a police state, in the way of an
attack on Iran is not certain. Nothing is certain, actually. However, I
think it is probable, more likely than not, that in the next 15, 16
months of this administration we will see an attack on Iran. Probably.
Whatever we do.

And ] we will not succeed in moving Congress probably, and Congress
probably will not stop the president from doing this. And thats where
were heading. Thats a very ugly, ugly prospect.

However, I think its up to us to work to increase that small perhaps "
anyway not large " possibility and probability to avert this within the
next 15 months, aside from the effort that we have to make for the rest
of our lives.


Restoring the Republic

Getting back the constitutional government and improving it will take a
long time. And I think if we dont get started now, it wont be started
under the next administration.

Getting out of Iraq will take a long time. Averting Iran and averting a
further coup in the face of a 9/11, another attack, is for right now,
it cant be put off. It will take a kind of political and moral courage
of which we have seen very little]

We have a really unusual concentration here and in this audience, of
people who have in fact changed their lives, changed their position,
lost their friends to a large extent, risked and experienced being
called terrible names, traitor, weak on terrorism " names that
politicians will do anything to avoid being called.

How do we get more people in the government and in the public at large
to change their lives now in a crisis in a critical way? How do we get
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for example? What kinds of pressures, what
kinds of influences can be brought to bear to get Congress to do their
jobs? It isnt just doing their jobs. Getting them to obey their oaths
of office.

I took an oath many times, an oath of office as a Marine lieutenant, as
an official in the Defense Department, as an official in the State
Department as a Foreign Service officer. A number of times I took an
oath of office which is the same oath office taken by every member of
Congress and every official in the United States and every officer in
the United States armed services.

And that oath is not to a Commander in Chief, which is not mentioned.
It is not to a fuehrer. It is not even to superior officers. The oath
is precisely to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United
States.

Now that is an oath I violated every day for years in the Defense
Department without realizing it when I kept my mouth shut when I knew
the public was being lied into a war as they were lied into Iraq, as
they are being lied into war in Iran.

I knew that I had the documents that proved it, and I did not put it
out then. I was not obeying my oath which I eventually came to do.

Ive often said that Lt. Ehren Watada " who still faces trial for
refusing to obey orders to deploy to Iraq which he correctly perceives
to be an unconstitutional and aggressive war " is the single officer in
the United States armed services who is taking seriously in upholding
his oath.

The president is clearly violating that oath, of course. Everybody
under him who understands what is going on and there are myriad, are
violating their oaths. And thats the standard that I think we should
be asking of people.


Congressional Courage

On the Democratic side, on the political side, I think we should be
demanding of our Democratic leaders in the House and Senate " and
frankly of the Republicans " that it is not their highest single
absolute priority to be reelected or to maintain a Democratic majority
so that Pelosi can still be Speaker of the House and Reid can be in the
Senate, or to increase that majority.

Im not going to say that for politicians they should ignore that, or
that they should do something else entirely, or that they should not
worry about that.

Of course that will be and should be a major concern of theirs, but
theyre acting like its their sole concern. Which is business as
usual. We have a majority, lets not lose it, lets keep it. Lets
keep those chairmanships. Exactly what have those chairmanships done
for us to save the Constitution in the last couple of years?

I am shocked by the Republicans today that I read in the Washington
Post who yesterday threatened a filibuster if we ] get back habeas
corpus. The ruling out of habeas corpus with the help of the Democrats
did not get us back to George the First it got us back to before King
John 700 years ago in terms of counter-revolution.

We need some way, and Ann Wright has one way, of sitting in, in Conyers
office and getting arrested. Ray McGovern has been getting arrested,
pushed out the other day for saying the simple words swear him in
when it came to testimony.

I think weve got to somehow get home to them [in Congress] that this
is the time for them to uphold the oath, to preserve the Constitution,
which is worth struggling for in part because its only with the power
that the Constitution gives Congress responding to the public, only
with that can we protect the world from mad men in power in the White
House who intend an attack on Iran.

And the current generation of American generals and others who realize
that this will be a catastrophe have not shown themselves " they might
be people who in their past lives risked their bodies and their lives
in Vietnam or elsewhere, like [Colin] Powell, and would not risk their
career or their relation with the president to the slightest degree.

That has to change. And its the example of people like those up here
who somehow brought home to our representatives that they as humans
and as citizens have the power to do likewise and find in themselves the
courage to protect this country and protect the world. Thank you.


[Daniel Ellsberg is author of Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the
Pentagon Papers.]

*
_________________________________


In addition to the books he's written, Ellsberg
has been active in assisting and supporting whistleblowers over the
years, especially during the Bush Reich. He has been particularly
active in encouraging whistleblowers to come forward to help prevent an
unprovoked military attack on Iran, including founding a website
dedicated to whistleblowers. For more on his recent activity, see this
page of search results from NY Transfer's Archives:
http://tinyurl.com/2bvgqb

Full URL:
http://blythe-systems.com/mailman/namazu.cgi?query=ellsberg+and+whistleblowers&submit=Search%21&max=20&result=normal&sort=score

[Scott Dorsey]

Bill > wrote:
>I was thinking of the propaganda value of the Moslems dancing in the
>streets after 9/11. It might have been true. It might also have been
>irrelevant-- think about an Islamic reporter coming to America looking
>for some juicy bigotted comments with which to inflame the Moslem
>world-- it wouldn't be hard at all. Would it be a fair representation
>of America? Of course not. Was the clip of the Moslems dancing in the
>streets a fair representation of the Moslem world? But I heard many
>people cite that clip as justification for a harsh response.

The famous clip shown was of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Now, this
doesn't suprise me much; America is not very popular in Palestine. But the
Palestinians of course had nothing to do with 9-11 or with Iraq either for
that matter. The rest of the Moslem world isn't so well-liked in Palestine
either.

>Now "60 Minutes" aired a segment in which an Anglican priest described
>how things are immeasurably worse for Christians in Iraq now than they
>ever were under Saddam. How can a thoughtful person not think seriously
>about what that means for what we have been led to believe about Iraq?

Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good intentions
but without any strategy or any concept of what they were doing, and that
the end result was disasterous for everybody involved in the conflict and a
lot of folks who weren't.

The question that folks can't agree on is what to do about it now.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Don Pearce" wrote ...
> What bothers me is that by rights he should have been out - and well
> out - last time.

He probably would have been if the Democrats hadn't run a
crazy-person in the election.

> But it didn't happen. I have great fears of a repeat performance.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. You'll likely have Hillary or Barack
in the Whitehouse soon enough.

[Don Pearce]

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 10:59:04 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote ...
>> What bothers me is that by rights he should have been out - and well
>> out - last time.
>
>He probably would have been if the Democrats hadn't run a
>crazy-person in the election.
>
This is the big problem - it all comes down to the person rather then
the policies. It is one hell of a way to run a railroad.

>> But it didn't happen. I have great fears of a repeat performance.
>
>Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. You'll likely have Hillary or Barack
>in the Whitehouse soon enough.
>

If they manage to run through the primaries without shooting
themselves in the foot, maybe.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Richard Crowley]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good
> intentions
> but without any strategy or any concept of what they were doing, and that
> the end result was disasterous for everybody involved in the conflict and
> a
> lot of folks who weren't.

I suppose we could have done nothing and let Iran and Iraq
kill each other. Where is Mutually Assured Destruction when
we need it?

[hank alrich]

Richard Crowley > wrote:

> He probably would have been if the Democrats hadn't run a
> crazy-person in the election.

So is there a crazy person in there now or did you find the WMD's?

--
ha
Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Richard Crowley" > wrote in message ...
> "Scott Dorsey" wrote ...
> > Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good
> > intentions
> > but without any strategy or any concept of what they were doing, and that
> > the end result was disasterous for everybody involved in the conflict and
> > a
> > lot of folks who weren't.

> I suppose we could have done nothing and let Iran and Iraq
> kill each other.

What did Iran have to do with anything ?

For that matter, what did Iraq ?

After all, the US has been alternating in the selling of weapons to both
countries for many, many years.


THE POWER OF NIGHTMARES
Part One - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8217638438978899371>
Part Two - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2839463332690200955>
Part Three - 59 Minutes
<http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3649090417189127240>
OR
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares



> Where is Mutually Assured Destruction when we need it?

Waiting in Israel ??

;-)

[[email protected]]

On Nov 30, 10:08 pm, Les Cargill > wrote:
> wrote:
> > A bunch of idiotic ****ing barbarians.
>
> Any time you draw a conclusion like that, you
> know you messed up somewhere. Then again, I'm so
> cynical, I always figure footage like that
> was staged. It often is.
> You do understand that what you saw on CNN, or BBC or whatever
> channel you saw it on, was entertainment product, right?


Sure, there haven't been millions slaughtered in Africa over cultural
& religious divides and there aren't religious factions bent on
murdering each other in Iraq and elsewhere. 9/11 was done on a
soundstage. Iran isn't plotting on how they can jury-rig a nuke or
two to toss into Israel.

Sudan isn't a backwards, superstitious, corrupt, violent third-world
********, of course not, it's a prosperous shining example of modern
life. Everything is made up by CNN.

[Scott Dorsey]

hank alrich > wrote:
>Richard Crowley > wrote:
>
>> He probably would have been if the Democrats hadn't run a
>> crazy-person in the election.
>
>So is there a crazy person in there now or did you find the WMD's?

I gotta admit that Mr. Bush makes even Al Sharpton look good in comparison.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message...

> Iran isn't plotting on how they can jury-rig a nuke or
> two to toss into Israel.

Absurd.

You watch too much Faux News....

[Scott Dorsey]

Don Pearce > wrote:
>That is, I think, one of the weaknesses of your system. You elect a
>president, not a party, so what it boils down to is which man can
>smile widest, organize the best TV campaign etc. That just isn't a
>recipe for the best man winning.

Well, that's a weakness and a strength. The problem, though, is that
the system wasn't design with parties in mind, and individual politicians
were expected to stand on their own merits. Jefferson, for example, hated
the idea of political parties because he was worried about precisely the
sort of thing you describe; the party support becomes more important than
the person, and the party has money and pull for advertising that an
individual may not.

But you can't prevent power from coalescing into groups, and so we got
political parties within a few decades.

It's true that what it takes to win an election is very different than
what it takes to be a good president or senator. This is where parties
can be a good thing, in that they can provide the support and skills for
a good person to win. Then again, they can also provide the support and
skills for a bad one too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
Bill > wrote:

> For my money, "Dr. Strangelove" was one of the greatest films ever made.
>
> Watch it today-- it's astonishing how the parody has become even more
> timely and relevant with age.
>
>

Kind of depressing isn't it, the lack of progress?

-Jay

--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x ---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x---------- http://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jay/ ------------x

[Richard Crowley]

"Jay Kadis" wrote ...
> Bill wrote:
>> For my money, "Dr. Strangelove" was one of the greatest films ever made.
>>
>> Watch it today-- it's astonishing how the parody has become even more
>> timely and relevant with age.
>>
>
> Kind of depressing isn't it, the lack of progress?

Can you post that in Arabic?
And better prepare a translation in Russian.
And Korean, also, while you're at it.
Oh, and be sure to cc: the UN so they can file
it away in their bulging "Do Nothing" folder.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 4, 12:33 am, (hank alrich) wrote:
> > wrote:
> > Who's for turning some sand into glass?
>
> Oooh, baby, you blow that hot??


Hank, I'm talking about the sand in your anus which has been turned to
glass by repetative friction.

Be careful taking that next dump.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 5, 3:01 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:
> > wrote in message...
> > Iran isn't plotting on how they can jury-rig a nuke or
> > two to toss into Israel.
>
> Absurd.
>
> You watch too much Faux News....


Really?

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2968535.ece

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
> On Dec 5, 3:01 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
> > > wrote in message...
> > > Iran isn't plotting on how they can jury-rig a nuke or
> > > two to toss into Israel.
> >
> > Absurd.
> >
> > You watch too much Faux News....


> Really?
>
> http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2968535.ece


Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that Iran would "toss a nuke" into
Israel ?? You think they can just hide from that ?? You think they're STUPID
enough to be willing to risk the complete annihilation of their entire country in
order to kill a few Jews? If so, you're in deep need of de-programming help.

All of the recent IAEA reports on Iran (all available on line) conclude that there
is NO EVIDENCE of *any sort* of weapons intention... just nuclear powered
electricity. Even the most recent NIE reports say the same thing... that Iran
gave up all tools for creating weapons between 1997 and 2003, and simply
wants cheap electricity.

The rhetoric about "Wiping Israel from the map" has always been spun
to mean it's 'destruction'...... what it really means and always has meant,
is that the borders that were illegally drawn up by the UN in 1947 should
be removed from the map.

Try reading something besides the right-wing, fear-mongering, propaganda.

[[email protected]]

On Dec 11, 8:17 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> > > You watch too much Faux News....
> > Really?
>
> >http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2968...
>
> Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that Iran would "toss a nuke" into
> Israel ?? You think they can just hide from that ?? You think they're STUPID
> enough to be willing to risk the complete annihilation of their entire country in
> order to kill a few Jews?


While my original comment was made semi-facetiously, it was only
semi. Your argument seems predicated on the fact that such an act
would be irrational. I find nothing about Iran or other Islamic
nations to be rational. They hold irrational beliefs religiously and
socially. Their President is a nutcase.

Of course, if it makes you feel better, I feel ALL religion is
irrational.

They're part of a culture which encourages people to commit suicide to
achieve their ends, and they do so regularly.

You say they "couldn't hide" from an act such as nuking Israel.
Depending on how it's delivered, are you confident you could prove who
sent it, and even if you caught the Iranians red-handed, what do you
think would be done about it?

We were attacked in New York and Washington DC. The White House was
spared only because of the act of passengers on board and the
ineptitude of the hijackers.
Who did we decimate as a result? We eventually attacked Iraq, never
proven as having any direct link to the attacks. We're conducting a
war of sorts in Afghanistan, a ****ant ******** on its best day,
barely a country to begin with. The main participants killed
themselves in the attack. What nation faced retribution specifically
for the attack?

You think we'd "take over" Iran? Sure we would. We're already mired in
one bottomless cluster****.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
> On Dec 11, 8:17 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > > > You watch too much Faux News....
> > > Really?
> >
> > >http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2968...
> >
> > Are you seriously ignorant enough to believe that Iran would "toss a nuke" into
> > Israel ?? You think they can just hide from that ?? You think they're STUPID
> > enough to be willing to risk the complete annihilation of their entire country in
> > order to kill a few Jews?

> While my original comment was made semi-facetiously, it was only
> semi.

Ah.... sorry... I thought you had been brainwashed by the media.

> Your argument seems predicated on the fact that such an act
> would be irrational.

It is.

> I find nothing about Iran or other Islamic
> nations to be rational.

How long have you lived there ??

> They hold irrational beliefs religiously and socially.

That sounds as if you're addressing the US. ;-)

> Their President is a nutcase.

At least he can formulate a coherent sentence, speaks rationally and
with dignity and respect for others, and presents himself as a citizen
rather than an overlord.

I have *all* of Ahmadenijad's speeches in text files. He's pretty damned
damned rational if you ask me.

> Of course, if it makes you feel better, I feel ALL religion is
> irrational.

Thanks... we can agree on that one.

> They're part of a culture which encourages people to commit suicide to
> achieve their ends, and they do so regularly.

Iran ????

> You say they "couldn't hide" from an act such as nuking Israel.

Obviously not.

> Depending on how it's delivered, are you confident you could prove who
> sent it, and even if you caught the Iranians red-handed, what do you
> think would be done about it?'

The "return address" is what has kept the world at peace for the past
30 years. The first time in history that there was no real 'return address'
on terrorism and no one laid claim to the deed, was on 911. Government
provided the story and made the accusations, never substantiating any
of them. Osama denied it and we now know full well that Iraq simply had
*nothing* to do with it.. that the WMD stories were lies, etc..

> We were attacked in New York and Washington DC.

The question remains, by whom and why. I'm sure that you
see past the propaganda far enough to understand that these
questions have never been truthfully answered, else 74% of the
population of the US would not believe that the government lied
about 911 and there would be no so-called "911 Truth" movement.

> The White House was
> spared only because of the act of passengers on board and the
> ineptitude of the hijackers.

Dude.... You're brainwashed after all. ;-) If Flight 93 (as it has
been presented to us) actually existed, it was blown out of the sky
by the military, as all of the flights *should* have been after the first
impact.

> Who did we decimate as a result?

Afghanistan first.... but we actually wanted to complete the CIA's
control over the opium trade... just as was the case in VietNam
and the desire for our share of the French connection drug trade
which we went to "war against communism" to protect. Now, 34%
of our domestic fiscal budget is being borrowed from the same
'communist' nation (China) which we were at war over drugs with.

> We eventually attacked Iraq, never
> proven as having any direct link to the attacks.

Of course they didn't. The Corporate Coup D'Etat of 2000 directs
the US aggression and chooses the targets these days. It's about
greed, dominance, plundering other's resources, screwing the US
population for a profit, and lying to the American public and the
remainder of the world.

> We're conducting a
> war of sorts in Afghanistan, a ****ant ******** on its best day,
> barely a country to begin with. The main participants killed
> themselves in the attack.

In order to keep US involvement with the frug trade at a minimum,
we've turned most of that over to the United Nations peacekeeping
forces. Between the US and the UN, we're losing our shirt there.

> What nation faced retribution specifically
> for the attack?

Which attack? 911, the invasion of Afghanistan or the illegal war in Iraq?

> You think we'd "take over" Iran? Sure we would.

I don't think the American people would stand for that. If the Neo-Con
corporate Coup D'Etat which took over the US government in 2000
were to thumb it's nose at the American people once again, I believe
the people will cease being so passively complacent. Iran is backed
by both China and Russia, and it wouldn't be a cakewalk like we had
when we waltzed into Bahgdad virtually unopposed. There would be
serious death and destruction of US forces and holdings, and if we
were to be so stupid, then perhaps Iran *would* blow the **** out of
America's favorite holding in the middle east while they were taking
our Navy apart. Unlike Iraq, Iran actually has a military and some
very serious imported technology.

> We're already mired in
> one bottomless cluster****.

Which is doing exactly what the proponents of the New World Order
desire... and that is, to bring the American economy to it's knees and
subjugate it's population so that it's more on par with the remainder
of the world. For a one-world economy to exist, America must either
completely fall economically, or become a dictatorship of unusual
proportions.


DM

[Paul Stamler]

"David Morgan (MAMS)" /Odm> wrote in message
news:i_Y7j.8066$581.770@trnddc04...

> In order to keep US involvement with the frug trade at a minimum,
> we've turned most of that over to the United Nations peacekeeping
> forces. Between the US and the UN, we're losing our shirt there.

What do you expect? The UN couldn't do the frug. Or the hully gully either.
Hell, they barely managed the twist.

Peace,
Paul

[[email protected]]

On Dec 12, 5:09 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> Dude.... You're brainwashed after all. ;-) If Flight 93 (as it has
> been presented to us) actually existed, it was blown out of the sky
> by the military, as all of the flights *should* have been after the first
> impact.


"If" it existed? Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having
existed? The passengers had families and there were relatives of
passengers who spoke to them on their cel phones as I recall.

Was it shot down with the theory being there was nothing that could be
done to save them and they were going to die anyway? Dunno, can you
prove it?

So you're insisting there was a coverup over the shooting down of a
plane when you're also intimating said plane might not have even
existed.


> > We're already mired in
> > one bottomless cluster****.
>
> Which is doing exactly what the proponents of the New World Order
> desire... and that is, to bring the American economy to it's knees and
> subjugate it's population so that it's more on par with the remainder
> of the world. For a one-world economy to exist, America must either
> completely fall economically, or become a dictatorship of unusual
> proportions.


How does a population becoming less affluent benefit those who are
motivated by the desire to sell something?

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
> On Dec 12, 5:09 pm, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > Dude.... You're brainwashed after all. ;-) If Flight 93 (as it has
> > been presented to us) actually existed, it was blown out of the sky
> > by the military, as all of the flights *should* have been after the first
> > impact.

> "If" it existed?

Yes.... IF.

> Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having existed?

Are you new on the planet? ;-) Dude.... it's called propaganda.

> The passengers had families and there were relatives of
> passengers who spoke to them on their cel phones as I recall.

I'm afraid you don't recall that... what you recall is, the 'story'. Oh...
and of course it made a great, patriotic looking movie. Please try
to remember these lines from another NON-fiction movie....


"The bigger the lie and the more often it's repeated, the more who believe it."
-- Josef Goebbels - Nazi German 'Minister of Propaganda' 1897-1945


> Was it shot down with the theory being there was nothing that could be
> done to save them and they were going to die anyway? Dunno, can you
> prove it?

Since there was little to no wreckage, (and according to the coroner
called to the sight, no signs of an aircraft, parts, baggage, blood or
people having ever existed), and such is completely inconsistent with
all aircraft crash history, can you prove the flight DID exist? Both flights
93 and 77 (by tail number) were not scheduled to fly that date - easily
researchable... and at least one airline employee has brought to the
media having sighted the tail number of flight 93 well after 911.

But No... I can't prove anything of the sort. The issue here is that the
government can't prove it's story, either. And don't talk to me about
grieving families... a single "National Security Letter" will quiet them
down or put them in prison... and what can a hand full of voices do
effectively when the mainstream media is in bed with the government
and barraging you multiple times per hour, unceasingly for well over a
year with another story?

"National Security Letters" (gag orders) silence patriots, courts, media
& business, as they pry into America's private side.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050824a.asp
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20060109.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/17458res20040929.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/national_security_letters.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/13/Columns/National_security_let.shtml
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200512/120805.html
And over 67 Million more references for NSL research....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=National+security+letter&btnG=Google+Search


> So you're insisting there was a coverup over the shooting down of a
> plane when you're also intimating said plane might not have even
> existed.

Don't go all comprehension issues on me.... *I said,* if it existed "AS
IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED" to have existed. The lack of wreckage
and other anomalies surrounding the incident leave a great deal to be
explained - and explained in a fashion that beats, "Because we said so."

Let's don't even go here... I'm prefacing all of these comments with the
requisite OT notice in the subject line so people don't have to read this
sort of conversation.... but I am a FIRM believer that the government of
the United States was guilty of allowing 911 to take place; quite possibly
enhancing the "Shock & Awe" value of the day with the mysterious and
unexplainable circumstances surrounding flights 93 and 77 along with
the controlled demolition of Building 7 WTC; and actively covered up
all logical reasoning for the day with lies, deception and DIS-information
which continues to this day.. Please don't think I'm completely crazy
though.... unless you choose to believe that the current pollings which
reveal that almost 70% of the US believes as I do, is also crazy. And
if you take those polls outside of the brainwashed US, those percentages
increase dramatically.

> > > We're already mired in
> > > one bottomless cluster****.

> > Which is doing exactly what the proponents of the New World Order
> > desire... and that is, to bring the American economy to it's knees and
> > subjugate it's population so that it's more on par with the remainder
> > of the world. For a one-world economy to exist, America must either
> > completely fall economically, or become a dictatorship of unusual
> > proportions.

> How does a population becoming less affluent benefit those who are
> motivated by the desire to sell something?

Sorry... I don't get it.... where does *selling* anything (except a bull****
911 story) enter into the picture of the American economy taking a nose
dive? You do understand that the US economy is only a hand full of years
from being _fully_ tanked, don't you?




"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of
the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to
drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship,
or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the
people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is
easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the
country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials



Quote authenticated at: <http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm>

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote

> Their President is a nutcase.


I can't resist asking....

Did you read Ahmadinejad's Op-Ed piece in this weeks "NewsWeek"
magazine? Pretty damned level-headed if you ask me... even for a
religious nutter. ;-) I love the little credit line at the end of the piece,
as if to address all those US readers still living under a rock.

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is president of Iran.]

Sheeesh.......







Newsweek - Dec 14, 2007
http://www.newsweek.com/id/77945

[Scott Dorsey]

> wrote:
>
>"If" it existed? Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having
>existed? The passengers had families and there were relatives of
>passengers who spoke to them on their cel phones as I recall.

Airlines are always making up stories of planes that don't exist. One
night I spent eight hours at the gate at Logan waiting for a plane that
didn't exist until the airline finally put me up in a hotel.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[jakdedert]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
> > wrote:
>> "If" it existed? Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having
>> existed? The passengers had families and there were relatives of
>> passengers who spoke to them on their cel phones as I recall.
>
> Airlines are always making up stories of planes that don't exist. One
> night I spent eight hours at the gate at Logan waiting for a plane that
> didn't exist until the airline finally put me up in a hotel.
> --scott
>
Last year, I took United down to Dallas. I made the mistake of having
the secretary book the last flight of the day. It was
canceled--weather, they said. I ended up having to leave at 6am next
day...missed my call time by a couple of hours. (Fortunately, the rest
of the road crew made it in.)

On the way back I sat with a friend who had booked the departure just
prior to my canceled flight. He related how his flight got an hour out
of Nashville, turned around due to some difficulty...and that when they
arrived back here, they got on a *different* aircraft and went to Dallas.

How much you wanna bet that the *different* aircraft they took was MINE?

Worse yet, they left (second time) just shortly before my departure
time, and the aircraft wasn't full.....

Anyway, I told the secretary to never again book me on the last flight
of the day.

jak

[[email protected]]

On Dec 15, 4:54 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
wrote:

> > Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having existed?
>
> Are you new on the planet? ;-) Dude.... it's called propaganda.


Automatic deduction of 100 credibility points from anyone prefacing
their sentences with "Dude".

You think the Pentagon and the WTC being attacked wasn't enough to get
the American public worked up?


> > The passengers had families and there were relatives of
> > passengers who spoke to them on their cel phones as I recall.
>
> I'm afraid you don't recall that... what you recall is, the 'story'. Oh...
> and of course it made a great, patriotic looking movie. Please try
> to remember these lines from another NON-fiction movie....


They named passengers, there were interviews with their loved ones.
Were these all actors?



> Since there was little to no wreckage, (and according to the coroner
> called to the sight, no signs of an aircraft, parts, baggage, blood or
> people having ever existed),


Funny, others say the very reason they believe it was shot down is
because the wreckage and human remains were found spread over too
great a distance for it to have simply crashed.


> But No... I can't prove anything of the sort. The issue here is that the
> government can't prove it's story, either. And don't talk to me about
> grieving families...


You mean those grieving families that must not exist because the
flight didn't exist?

> a single "National Security Letter" will quiet them
> down or put them in prison...


Bull****.


> and what can a hand full of voices do
> effectively when the mainstream media is in bed with the government
> and barraging you multiple times per hour, unceasingly for well over a
> year with another story?


> > So you're insisting there was a coverup over the shooting down of a
> > plane when you're also intimating said plane might not have even
> > existed.
>
> Don't go all comprehension issues on me.... *I said,* if it existed "AS
> IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED" to have existed.


Certainly the gov't has lied to the American people repeatedly over
the course of history, but you assert two utterly incompatible
conspiracies. The plane was shot down and the government covered it
up, but the plane didn't exist to begin with. The former has some
kernel of plausibility, the latter is preposterous given the fact that
family members have spoken.


> what can a hand full of voices do effectively when the
> mainstream media is in bed with the government


That must be how the gov't kept the story about the warrantless
wiretaps quiet.


> Please don't think I'm completely crazy


Your tinfoil hat is definitely on too tight.

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

> wrote in message ...
> On Dec 15, 4:54 am, "David Morgan \(MAMS\)" /Odm>
> wrote:
>
> > > Why would anyone make up a story of the plane having existed?
> >
> > Are you new on the planet? ;-) Dude.... it's called propaganda.
>
>
> Automatic deduction of 100 credibility points from anyone prefacing
> their sentences with "Dude".

Pointless remark and childish pabulum. I guess you purposely missed the
'smiley' face, too.

> You think the Pentagon and the WTC being attacked wasn't enough to get
> the American public worked up?

The Pentagon was a **complete** fraud. There was no jumbo-jet crash
at the Pentagon.

But it's EXACTLY what was needed by the corporate Coup D'Etat of 2000
to get the gullible masses "worked up." Most of the "worked up" idiots are
coming to their senses lately.

> They named passengers,

Duh......

> there were interviews with their loved ones.

And I feel sorry for them.

> Were these all actors?

Pointless remark.

> > Since there was little to no wreckage, (and according to the coroner
> > called to the sight, no signs of an aircraft, parts, baggage, blood or
> > people having ever existed),

> Funny, others say the very reason they believe it was shot down is
> because the wreckage and human remains were found spread over too
> great a distance for it to have simply crashed.

Point, set, match. It was either shot down or faked.

Note that I am not implying the manifested passengers for flight 93 are
not fairly definitely dead and gone.

> You mean those grieving families that must not exist because the
> flight didn't exist?

Pointless remark and childish pabulum.

> > a single "National Security Letter" will quiet them
> > down or put them in prison...

> Bull****.

Ah... but you're just brainwashed and DIS-information oriented enough to
snip the proof. Bad mistake if you want any credibility to your rather
paltry and unsubstantiated "bull****" reply.

"National Security Letters" (gag orders) silence patriots, courts, media
& business, as they pry into America's private side.
http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050824a.asp
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/ramasastry/20060109.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/index.html
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/patriot/17458res20040929.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501366.html
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/national_security_letters.html
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/11/13/Columns/National_security_let.shtml
http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200512/120805.html
And over 67 Million more references for NSL research....
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=National+security+letter&btnG=Google+Search


> Certainly the gov't has lied to the American people repeatedly over
> the course of history, but you assert two utterly incompatible
> conspiracies. The plane was shot down and the government covered it
> up, but the plane didn't exist to begin with.

You're in such a knee-jerking hurry to deny the obvious, that you've
completely (as did the previous poster) avoided my real point. The
tail number of the aircraft assigned to the route of flight 93 for that day
was still seen in service and listed by the airlines as "in operation"
much later.

Something was shot down (or allegedly "crashed")... but it wasn't the
vehicle ID number that the government says was covering the route of
flight 93 for that day.


> The former has some
> kernel of plausibility, the latter is preposterous given the fact that
> family members have spoken.

People died. People lied. There's nothing proposterous about the
supposition that the "crash" of flight 93 was faked, though the
passengers are indeed missing... I never asserted otherwise.

> > what can a hand full of voices do effectively when the
> > mainstream media is in bed with the government

> Your tinfoil hat is definitely on too tight.

Pointless remark and worse than childish pabulum.

[Edwin Hurwitz]

In article >,
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> Bill > wrote:
> >I was thinking of the propaganda value of the Moslems dancing in the
> >streets after 9/11. It might have been true. It might also have been
> >irrelevant-- think about an Islamic reporter coming to America looking
> >for some juicy bigotted comments with which to inflame the Moslem
> >world-- it wouldn't be hard at all. Would it be a fair representation
> >of America? Of course not. Was the clip of the Moslems dancing in the
> >streets a fair representation of the Moslem world? But I heard many
> >people cite that clip as justification for a harsh response.
>
> The famous clip shown was of Palestinians dancing in the streets. Now, this
> doesn't suprise me much; America is not very popular in Palestine. But the
> Palestinians of course had nothing to do with 9-11 or with Iraq either for
> that matter. The rest of the Moslem world isn't so well-liked in Palestine
> either.
>
> >Now "60 Minutes" aired a segment in which an Anglican priest described
> >how things are immeasurably worse for Christians in Iraq now than they
> >ever were under Saddam. How can a thoughtful person not think seriously
> >about what that means for what we have been led to believe about Iraq?
>
> Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good intentions
> but without any strategy or any concept of what they were doing, and that
> the end result was disasterous for everybody involved in the conflict and a
> lot of folks who weren't.
>
> The question that folks can't agree on is what to do about it now.
> --scott

I agree with your concluding question, but I disagree that everyone
agree we went in with the best of intentions. I knew before it happened
(along with the other millions of people worldwide who also marched)
that it was a bad idea with no good intentions behind it whatsoever. It
was clearly part of the PNAC plan that had nothing to do with the best
interest of 99% of the Americans or Iraqis. It was done for a few
reasons:

1) oil
2) perhaps to settle a Freudian score vis a vis GHW Bush
3) to set up a free market economic wet dream
4) to set up huge military bases and a monster embassy from which to
control middle east exploits.
5) to make military contractor and civilian contractor friends of Cheney
and Bush fantastically wealthy.

There are probably a few I've missed, but I don't really see any good
intentions in there. The above were all incredibly obvious to me before
the war started. Bush wanted a war in Iraq and he got it. What W wants,
W gets was how the paradigm was going. Another spoiled rich kid.

Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan

[David Morgan \(MAMS\)]

"Edwin Hurwitz" > wrote in message

> (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

> > Oh, everybody today can agree that the US went into Iraq with good intentions

I'm afraid that I simply can't buy that, Scott. The brainwashing said so, but
the facts did not.

> > The question that folks can't agree on is what to do about it now.

There is only one thing, GTFO. But unfortunately, the US is having a bit
of a problem with it's continuous bolstering of Israel lately, and since GWB
kowtowed to the Saudi Terrorism of 911 and removed military bases from
Saudi Arabia as a result, the US needs Iraqi soil almost as bad as it wants
their OIL.


> It was clearly part of the PNAC plan that had nothing to do with the best
> interest of 99% of the Americans or Iraqis. It was done for a few
> reasons:
>
> 1) oil
> 2) perhaps to settle a Freudian score vis a vis GHW Bush
> 3) to set up a free market economic wet dream
> 4) to set up huge military bases and a monster embassy from which to
> control middle east exploits.
> 5) to make military contractor and civilian contractor friends of Cheney
> and Bush fantastically wealthy.
>
> There are probably a few I've missed,

Just repeat OIL about 5 more times and you'll have all of the bases covered.