State of the Union Address
Listen people.. I've waded through pages and pages of anti-bush/anti-war/anti-american/anti-intelligence pages time and time again at this site. One individual starts to finally defend the US and you all get pissed off. How is that fair? If nothing else, he does have one point. You all are too young to understand. And blaming the war on Bush is stupid and ignorant. Bush has several advisors that are running the country as far as I'm concerned, it isn't just him. Also, if you have ever taken a US government class, you'd know that war must be approved by the Senate. That's another 100 people to say yay or nay. It is also the job of these individuals to know global events and to understand the issues so I think they know a little more about it than all of you. Stop taking everything at face value and do a bit of research.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
here i come, to save the day
point 1. 9/11
exhibit a. "home run"
in the 1970's the NSA developed a data piggybacking system to combat the hijacking of commercial flights in america. nicknamed "home run", the system worked by using the data transpoders in the black box recorder to recieve and send signals from computers in the control tower. this allowed people on the ground to manually seize control of the airplane.
proof of this fact: not much. however, when the home run system is activated, the black box stops recording data. the last 30 minutes of each plane's black box recorder is blank.
exhibit b. "bulletproof president"
shortly after the planes crashed, dick cheney was moved to an unknown location and held there safely. where was the president? reading to small children.
a reporter with ABC news who was covering the president's reading session reported that shortly after arriving, bush was notified of the terrorist attacks. instead of hiding him immediately, bush was allowed to remain in his highly publicized location for 30 minutes, before moving to yet another HIGHLY PUBLICIZED location.
why? possibily because he knew he wouldn't be attacked.
exhibit c. "against the rules"
the fbi did not look at the laptop of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks leading up to 9/11 because they did not have a valid warrant. however, it turns out that in other cases, like, 90% of other cases, the fbi could really care less if they have a warrant or not. lockers are searched, phones are tapped etc., all illegally.
why play by the rules in this one case, but not any of the others?
exhibit d. "o canada"
last august toronto prisons were holding a man that claimed he had worked with the american CIA on a mission to help canadian CSIS agents obtain some non consequential russian intelligence. when the CSIS partner turned up dead, the cia agent was captured and sent to canada where he was imprisioned. the usa, as to be expected, disavowed all knowledge of him.
the man claimed his partner was murdered, despite reports that the death was of natural causes. two months later, after the autopsy was performed, it was discovered that the man was, in fact, killed.
this brings us to august, when the "cia agent" declared that there was going to be a massive attack on the us, invovling "hijacked" planes. when no one paid any mind to him, he wrote the information down, sealed in an envelope and gave it to one of the guards. on september 17th, it was opened, and a detailed description of the attacks was written.
rumsfeld and cheney have already said that there will be another massive terrorist attack, and that when it happens, and i quote "there will be a public outcry to banish civil rights all together".
gee. how comforting. open your eyes people.
point 2. war with iraq
with every great revolution of past, the beginning has been the same. a nation with a tremendous amount of poor people finally begins to gain a little bit of economic might, and the middle class arises.
the middle class becomes increasingly agitated by the unfair laws of the regime that governs it, and, using their increased financial powers, they overthrow the government.
there is a growing, agitated middle class in iraq. if there is no war, there WILL be a revolution.
"regime change". is that really what you think bush wants? do you not understand who they will put in the place of saddam? probably another guy exactly like him. maybe bush will make kissinger the president of iraq. it's one of the few countries he can go with about being arrested for war crimes.
so, now that we've effectively ripped bush's current reason to go to iraq into tiny pieces and set it on fire, let's see if we can figure out the real reason.
oil: probably not. if bush only wanted the oil in the region he could probably lay hands on it without a war. besides, that's too easy.
geographic control: the middle east, i believe, really does hate america and the bankers cartel. for this reason, it is a possibility that bush has been instructed to gain another foothold in the reason. this could be the first step in a series of steps to eliminate all opposition to america, anywhere.
saddam won't play ball anymore: perhaps the us/bilderbergers can't get saddy to play with them anymore, so they're blowing him up to replace him with some one more friendly.
drop bush not bombs.
point 1. 9/11
exhibit a. "home run"
in the 1970's the NSA developed a data piggybacking system to combat the hijacking of commercial flights in america. nicknamed "home run", the system worked by using the data transpoders in the black box recorder to recieve and send signals from computers in the control tower. this allowed people on the ground to manually seize control of the airplane.
proof of this fact: not much. however, when the home run system is activated, the black box stops recording data. the last 30 minutes of each plane's black box recorder is blank.
exhibit b. "bulletproof president"
shortly after the planes crashed, dick cheney was moved to an unknown location and held there safely. where was the president? reading to small children.
a reporter with ABC news who was covering the president's reading session reported that shortly after arriving, bush was notified of the terrorist attacks. instead of hiding him immediately, bush was allowed to remain in his highly publicized location for 30 minutes, before moving to yet another HIGHLY PUBLICIZED location.
why? possibily because he knew he wouldn't be attacked.
exhibit c. "against the rules"
the fbi did not look at the laptop of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks leading up to 9/11 because they did not have a valid warrant. however, it turns out that in other cases, like, 90% of other cases, the fbi could really care less if they have a warrant or not. lockers are searched, phones are tapped etc., all illegally.
why play by the rules in this one case, but not any of the others?
exhibit d. "o canada"
last august toronto prisons were holding a man that claimed he had worked with the american CIA on a mission to help canadian CSIS agents obtain some non consequential russian intelligence. when the CSIS partner turned up dead, the cia agent was captured and sent to canada where he was imprisioned. the usa, as to be expected, disavowed all knowledge of him.
the man claimed his partner was murdered, despite reports that the death was of natural causes. two months later, after the autopsy was performed, it was discovered that the man was, in fact, killed.
this brings us to august, when the "cia agent" declared that there was going to be a massive attack on the us, invovling "hijacked" planes. when no one paid any mind to him, he wrote the information down, sealed in an envelope and gave it to one of the guards. on september 17th, it was opened, and a detailed description of the attacks was written.
rumsfeld and cheney have already said that there will be another massive terrorist attack, and that when it happens, and i quote "there will be a public outcry to banish civil rights all together".
gee. how comforting. open your eyes people.
point 2. war with iraq
with every great revolution of past, the beginning has been the same. a nation with a tremendous amount of poor people finally begins to gain a little bit of economic might, and the middle class arises.
the middle class becomes increasingly agitated by the unfair laws of the regime that governs it, and, using their increased financial powers, they overthrow the government.
there is a growing, agitated middle class in iraq. if there is no war, there WILL be a revolution.
"regime change". is that really what you think bush wants? do you not understand who they will put in the place of saddam? probably another guy exactly like him. maybe bush will make kissinger the president of iraq. it's one of the few countries he can go with about being arrested for war crimes.
so, now that we've effectively ripped bush's current reason to go to iraq into tiny pieces and set it on fire, let's see if we can figure out the real reason.
oil: probably not. if bush only wanted the oil in the region he could probably lay hands on it without a war. besides, that's too easy.
geographic control: the middle east, i believe, really does hate america and the bankers cartel. for this reason, it is a possibility that bush has been instructed to gain another foothold in the reason. this could be the first step in a series of steps to eliminate all opposition to america, anywhere.
saddam won't play ball anymore: perhaps the us/bilderbergers can't get saddy to play with them anymore, so they're blowing him up to replace him with some one more friendly.
drop bush not bombs.
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
o yeah, and as for people who think "saddam is going to sell his weaponw to terrorists"
1. there are no fucking terrorists. in 1998 the cia negoiated the release of everyone's favorite asset, osama bin laden, from the sudanese government who were planning to execute him. obl = cia asset, now and forever.
2. even if there was a terrorist organization bent on destroying the states, saddam hussein wouldn't sell them weapons. why? because these groups are all highly religious. saddam is an atheist socialist. he hates religion, and in fact, outlaws it, ALL OF IT. saddam hussein is not a muslim. not all of "'dem pakis" are, you know.
1. there are no fucking terrorists. in 1998 the cia negoiated the release of everyone's favorite asset, osama bin laden, from the sudanese government who were planning to execute him. obl = cia asset, now and forever.
2. even if there was a terrorist organization bent on destroying the states, saddam hussein wouldn't sell them weapons. why? because these groups are all highly religious. saddam is an atheist socialist. he hates religion, and in fact, outlaws it, ALL OF IT. saddam hussein is not a muslim. not all of "'dem pakis" are, you know.
good grief.
None of that is "evidence". That's you pulling whatever conclusions you want to believe true from random factoids. Honestly, you try too hard.
Anything can be warped into what you want to believe. And the rest of the sheep here will believe it with you.
None of that is "evidence". That's you pulling whatever conclusions you want to believe true from random factoids. Honestly, you try too hard.
Anything can be warped into what you want to believe. And the rest of the sheep here will believe it with you.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
xchrisx wrote:here i come, to save the day
point 1. 9/11
exhibit a. "home run"
in the 1970's the NSA developed a data piggybacking system to combat the hijacking of commercial flights in america. nicknamed "home run", the system worked by using the data transpoders in the black box recorder to recieve and send signals from computers in the control tower. this allowed people on the ground to manually seize control of the airplane.
proof of this fact: not much. however, when the home run system is activated, the black box stops recording data. the last 30 minutes of each plane's black box recorder is blank.
Is there proof that this system exists on current planes? What was the deal with all the cell phone calls to loved ones describing hijackers? Even if this system was used, who is to say who actually would have been controlling the aircrafts? The flights were longer than 30 minutes, if that is supposed to be indication of how long the planes were taken over, the time that the flights went off route was longer than that. That theory is bogus.
Why would the US target the Pentagon anyways? That would be just stupid. The WTC maybe.. but not the Pentagon.
xchrisx wrote:exhibit b. "bulletproof president"
shortly after the planes crashed, dick cheney was moved to an unknown location and held there safely. where was the president? reading to small children.
a reporter with ABC news who was covering the president's reading session reported that shortly after arriving, bush was notified of the terrorist attacks. instead of hiding him immediately, bush was allowed to remain in his highly publicized location for 30 minutes, before moving to yet another HIGHLY PUBLICIZED location.
why? possibily because he knew he wouldn't be attacked.
The country can not afford to lose both presidents. They will always be kept separate. This is why they travel separate because if something happens, one will remain. Cheney was kept hidden to protect him. Meanwhile, the country still needs to be comforted by the president. There is nothing more comforting than the voice of the president in times of need. Besides, he did keep moving from place to place with heavy security. He was guarded all the same.
xchrisx wrote:exhibit c. "against the rules"
the fbi did not look at the laptop of alleged terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui in the weeks leading up to 9/11 because they did not have a valid warrant. however, it turns out that in other cases, like, 90% of other cases, the fbi could really care less if they have a warrant or not. lockers are searched, phones are tapped etc., all illegally.
why play by the rules in this one case, but not any of the others?
Now this is just a lame try. Why would the FBI ask to see the files in the first place if they didn't really want to? You're also grossly misrepresenting the FBI with your "like, 90%" statistic. Like for sure.
xchrisx wrote:exhibit d. "o canada"
last august toronto prisons were holding a man that claimed he had worked with the american CIA on a mission to help canadian CSIS agents obtain some non consequential russian intelligence. when the CSIS partner turned up dead, the cia agent was captured and sent to canada where he was imprisioned. the usa, as to be expected, disavowed all knowledge of him.
the man claimed his partner was murdered, despite reports that the death was of natural causes. two months later, after the autopsy was performed, it was discovered that the man was, in fact, killed.
this brings us to august, when the "cia agent" declared that there was going to be a massive attack on the us, invovling "hijacked" planes. when no one paid any mind to him, he wrote the information down, sealed in an envelope and gave it to one of the guards. on september 17th, it was opened, and a detailed description of the attacks was written.
Interesting how it took someone that long to open it. So quick to believe everything you read? Sure, I could say I knew it was going to happen AFTER it happens.... duh. Why exactly did Canada imprison him anyways? I would like to see this letter.
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
-
Venom
- Posts: 678
- Joined: 1/14/2003, 3:27 pm
- Location: Reality....you should all try it sometime
- Contact:
2. even if there was a terrorist organization bent on destroying the states, saddam hussein wouldn't sell them weapons. why? because these groups are all highly religious. saddam is an atheist socialist. he hates religion, and in fact, outlaws it, ALL OF IT. saddam hussein is not a muslim. not all of "'dem pakis" are, you know.
This is the biggest line of BS in ur whole conspiracy theory arguement. Saddam is a Muslim. I have seen him pictured preying hundreds of times and seen him say that "Allah" will strike down any US attack hundreds more. Go back to ur conspiracy website ur getting this crap from and bring us some more. Have you even seen a psychologist about paranoid schizophrenia before? I think you should if you believe all this.
Venom wrote:Saddam is a Muslim. I have seen him pictured preying hundreds of times and seen him say that "Allah" will strike down any US attack hundreds more.
of course he is. after all, we know all arabs are muslims, all muslims are evil, and saddam is evil so therefore he must be a muslim.
can't we just kill all those brown-skins in the dessert there and then party and wave old glory?
*giggles cause doug said dessert, and not desert, and because he likes dessert*
we are the brand new beatniks. we are the down and outers.
we are the bleeding hearts, beating syncopated, broken rhythm.
our speed is often break neck. we need to slow it down.
tired of being sleepless. tired of being broken.
we are the bleeding hearts, beating syncopated, broken rhythm.
our speed is often break neck. we need to slow it down.
tired of being sleepless. tired of being broken.
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
corey i will readily admit that there is no hard proof that "home run" exists. or at least, no proof that has been confirmed by anything even remotely mainstream.
but consider that cell phone calls are easily faked.
why would the FBI willingly break the law in other cases but not this one? illegal privacy invasions are pretty run of the mill for them.
heavily guarded or not, the weapon of choice was a jetliner. if the "terrorists" knew where the president is, they can kill him no matter what he's got for security.
canada imprisoned the agent for espionage. i think he was deported there, russia wanted him. i honestly don't recall.
unfortunately no copy of the letter is available. what i will do is see if i can't dig up the toronto star article where i read about this. it will provide way more information than i ever could given i read it over a year ago. i really need to start saving this stuff.
and skippy - don't fucking talk to me about palestine. those people are hardly terrorists. they're fighting for their lives.
but consider that cell phone calls are easily faked.
why would the FBI willingly break the law in other cases but not this one? illegal privacy invasions are pretty run of the mill for them.
heavily guarded or not, the weapon of choice was a jetliner. if the "terrorists" knew where the president is, they can kill him no matter what he's got for security.
canada imprisoned the agent for espionage. i think he was deported there, russia wanted him. i honestly don't recall.
unfortunately no copy of the letter is available. what i will do is see if i can't dig up the toronto star article where i read about this. it will provide way more information than i ever could given i read it over a year ago. i really need to start saving this stuff.
and skippy - don't fucking talk to me about palestine. those people are hardly terrorists. they're fighting for their lives.
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
-
areusad831
- Posts: 5427
- Joined: 4/14/2002, 9:40 pm
- Location: Palmerton, PA
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
on september 14th, when vreeland's memo was opened, the us government issued a statement saying that he had never worked in intelligence and was discharged in 1986, pretty much ending vreeland's story.
on jan 10, 2002.
"In a call from a speaker phone in open court, attorneys for Mike Vreeland call the Pentagon's switchboard operator, who confirms that Vreeland is indeed a naval lieutenant on active duty. She provides an office number and a direct dial phone extension to his office in the Pentagon. [Source: Attorney Rocco Galati; Toronto Superior Court records] "
so the us government LIED about vreeland's discharge. why would they do that?
on jan 10, 2002.
"In a call from a speaker phone in open court, attorneys for Mike Vreeland call the Pentagon's switchboard operator, who confirms that Vreeland is indeed a naval lieutenant on active duty. She provides an office number and a direct dial phone extension to his office in the Pentagon. [Source: Attorney Rocco Galati; Toronto Superior Court records] "
so the us government LIED about vreeland's discharge. why would they do that?
i was going to say something about the dessert thing... but then i saw jeff's post. 
!EMiLY!
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
sweet blasphemy my giving tree
it hasn't rained in years
i bring to you this sacrificial offering of virgin ears
leave it to me i remain free from all the comforts of home
and where that is i'm pleased as piss to say
i'll never really know
-
starvingeyes
- Posts: 2009
- Joined: 5/8/2002, 3:44 pm
- Location: california's not very far
areusad831 wrote:chris is brilliant
and i dont want to move out of the US i just dont get why you come to the clumsy monkey to preach your pro-war views...did you see this was an Our Lady Peace website not a pro-war message board.
since when is it an anti-war messageboard?
<img src="http://www.clumsymonkey.net/phpBB2/download.php?id=4500">
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare
#define QUESTION (bb || !bb) --william shakespeare