Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 12:02 pm

DE FACTO wrote:This may seem to be thread drift, but I think English should be the dominant language, because english is evolving every second.

Email and text messaging is forever changing the rules everyday.

Just to bring this out of thread drift, G.W.B has not mastered the basics.
This makes it all the much more fun added the evolution of the text message and email language. (given the acronyms and all.)

Absolute rubbish.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Thu Dec 25, 2003 4:56 pm

Sweet Mithras, I actually agree with Joel about something. Miracles really do happen on Christmas after all. Peace, brotha.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:26 pm

The worst is yet to come!

Attacks are back up to pre-Saddam capture!

As if Saddam was really in control of the Bathing party.

Saddam was probably as much of a figurehead as Bush is.

Look at Israel.

50 years of Hell!

Now look at Iraq.

50 years of Hell to come!

A II Z

Last Real Burner · Post by **Last Real Burner** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:50 pm

I just don't trust them. Those damn French people have a different word for everything we say! (Steve Martin 1979)

"Pray for Antdisestablishmentarism!"
profuntly,
mr smith

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:26 pm

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:The worst is yet to come!

Attacks are back up to pre-Saddam capture!

As if Saddam was really in control of the Bathing party.

Saddam was probably as much of a figurehead as Bush is.

Look at Israel.

50 years of Hell!

Now look at Iraq.

50 years of Hell to come!

A II Z

I have been studying terrorism since 1979, and if you count history class... a few years before then... so this "terrorism thing" is nothing new.

Actually, I am surprised how long it took for terrorism to come home to the USA. Of course, terrorism was here long before George W. Bush...

"Our recent history reflects growing threats from a variety of groups and individuals. For example, religious extremists committed the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993; Khobar Towers in 1996; the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in October, 2000. More structured terrorist organizations were responsible for numerous other terrorist attacks. Hizballah, for example, killed more Americans prior to 9/11 than any other terrorist group, including al-Qaeda, with their 1983 truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy Annex in Beirut, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Also, right-wing terrorist groups espousing principles of racial supremacy and anti-government rhetoric have become a serious menace, as tragically evidenced by the April, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Excerpted Testimony By

Robert S. Mueller, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation

October 17, 2002

http://www.polanalysis.net/TerroristAtt ... 2002.shtml

So it isn't new, just new to some of you. Oh yeah, the president at the time of the escalation of terrorist attacks was William "Let me sleep with your daughter" Clinton.

Have a nice day.

joel the ornery being all too obvious.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:50 pm

If we include domestic terrorism, its been with us from day one that America was declared as a nation!

but under William "watch me pull a penis from under my pants" clinton and under Lewis "No more secrets" Freeh, terrorism was to be job one.
But under Bush and with John "I'm going to put all the sex perverts and druggies in jail", Ashcroft" that mission lapsed- remember at the time of 9/11 every field agent number one job was pedophiles for not only for a or two day but weeks and out of the thousands of probable child molestors only 90 was to charged and out of that a handful were to be convicted- he had a better record busting medical pot growers though! Under 3,000 people died in WTC were's the benefit for that action. And of course you know my position that wars need a reason and 9/11 played into that course whether intentionally or not.

Hmm, I toked one and forgot what we are talking about?

Oh yeah, so don't blame it on the clintons because he did make the directives to focus on terrorism!

But really irks me is that with this Administration no one has been held accountable for what has happened since 9/11 including the CIA and his own administration for the false reports of yellowcake, the so-called thousands of missiles filled with biological and chemical agents pointing at America and our allies!

Time to fill the Bong and head into a more pleasurable state!

A II Z

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:56 pm

joel the ornery wrote: I have been studying terrorism since 1979, and if you count history class... a few years before then... so this "terrorism thing" is nothing new.

Actually, I am surprised how long it took for terrorism to come home to the USA. Of course, terrorism was here long before George W. Bush...

"Our recent history reflects growing threats from a variety of groups and individuals. For example, religious extremists committed the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993; Khobar Towers in 1996; the Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and the U.S.S. Cole in October, 2000. More structured terrorist organizations were responsible for numerous other terrorist attacks. Hizballah, for example, killed more Americans prior to 9/11 than any other terrorist group, including al-Qaeda, with their 1983 truck bombings of the U.S. Embassy and U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon, the 1984 bombing of the U.S. Embassy Annex in Beirut, and the 1985 hijacking of TWA Flight 847. Also, right-wing terrorist groups espousing principles of racial supremacy and anti-government rhetoric have become a serious menace, as tragically evidenced by the April, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Excerpted Testimony By

Robert S. Mueller, Director,
Federal Bureau of Investigation

October 17, 2002

http://www.polanalysis.net/TerroristAtt ... 2002.shtml

So it isn't new, just new to some of you. Oh yeah, the president at the time of the escalation of terrorist attacks was William "Let me sleep with your daughter" Clinton.

Have a nice day.

joel the ornery being all too obvious.

This post you posted has some obvious holes. I dont have time now to make all of my points for every line you've written (because there is a point for every line you've written.) but almost every senerio you've just pointed out in this post the CIA had something to do with it and other "good ol boys" americans financed them and supplied them with equiptment at one time or another. In essence, Americans, for the most part created them.

I have to continue this another time. Hope someone has the guts to pick up on what I'm talking about.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:01 pm

Apollonaris Zeus wrote:Oh yeah, so don't blame it on the clintons because he did make the directives to focus on terrorism!
A II Z

You may not blame former President Clinton for misdeeds and inaction against terrorism, but I certainly do.

As for John Ashcroft, a guy beat by a dead man in an election... he doesn't represent me or my beliefs in any manner.

I believe in marijuana, legal or otherwise...

No, I don't agree with the current administration's handling of many matters, but I know all I have to do is wait unitl the next election to vote.

I recommend that activity to everyone, I believe one can change the world...

And I wish my bog were full.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:07 pm

but almost every senerio you've just pointed out in this post the CIA had something to do with it and other "good ol boys" americans financed them and supplied them with equiptment at one time or another. In essence, Americans, for the most part created them.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Try killing two birds with one stone the next time by providing cites please. That way you don't have to jump in with no ammo when you take exception to a post and then beg off with the '...dont' have time to post a reasoned, focused counter point' for issues which you take exception with.

Short of making up facts, it's intellectual sloth of the worst kind.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 3:22 pm

Badger wrote: Try killing two birds with one stone the next time by providing cites please. That way you don't have to jump in with no ammo when you take exception to a post and then beg off with the '...dont' have time to post a reasoned, focused counter point' for issues which you take exception with.

Short of making up facts, it's intellectual sloth of the worst kind.

Yep, I totally agree. that's why I'm taking the time to gather all the info and also wanted to let someonelse pop in thier 2 cents till I got back with the second stone that would finish off the thesis.

Plus I gotta go to the store.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:45 pm

AZ/DF -- you guy(s) take Abbie Hoffman out of your Rolodex(es) yet?

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:55 pm

<snort>

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 7:39 am

DE FACTO wrote:
Yep, I totally agree. that's why I'm taking the time to gather all the info and also wanted to let someonelse pop in thier 2 cents till I got back with the second stone that would finish off the thesis.

Plus I gotta go to the store.

Mr. T. Perez... In my humble opinion most everything you have posted above but the "gotta go the store" is absolute rubbish.

Have a nice day.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:06 am

joel the ornery wrote:
Mr. T. Perez... In my humble opinion most everything you have posted above but the "gotta go the store" is absolute rubbish.

Have a nice day.

Ok. You guys win. I cant make a justifiable argument without taking up a considerable amount of your bandwidth. I can post what I have so far but it would take up at least a page or 2, not to mention trying to make my point sucessfully without being placed in the common catagory of "conspiracy theorist". Plus it really was a lot of work and research to do for someone like myself. (that has a life.) It is rather a complex topic.

So call me what you may or take what I have so far. Either way you all win.

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 8:30 am

This is where you can find the unfinished work

Once there you can scroll down to the bottom and click to go to the links for the research.

I'll update the reply to your post on that site every now and then till it gets finished.
Comment on it as you like. As long as you know it is not finished and wont be till i say it is.

Yes I have actually been working on it.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:43 am

Either way you all win.

It's not about winning anything.

It's about an exchange of ideas and observations that have a foundation of fact or reasoned argument to support your opinion - or objections to the claims of others.

That's all.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:46 am

DE FACTO wrote: Once there you can scroll down to the bottom and click to go to the links for the research.

I'll update the reply to your post on that site every now and then till it gets finished.

So you want people to go research your claims? WTF? If you can't back something up when you post it, don't bother.

This bullshit that America is responsible, and has provided the materials for terrorism is nothing more than naive liberal guilt. When was the last time you saw one using an M-16? Or a stinger for that matter? Every weapon you see them use comes from Russia, China, or even France. As much as you like to think so, we're not responsible for all the worlds wrongs.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:59 am

naive liberal guilt

Haven't seen that one tossed here in a while.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:18 am

Well, I couldn't think of a better tag line for some people's reasoning.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 11:44 am

[Joel -- Not Perez. Sheesh.]

DE FACTO · Post by **DE FACTO** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 2:14 pm

Ok Ok. glad to see a response....but really I have some things that came up, even as we speak and I cant write but what I am writting right now. then i have to finish some work for some clients, ( yes today) then I can spend more time to finish what my thought was on the topic.

It's not like what was put fourth was not something that could just be whipped up in a day with no thought and re read. I just cant dedicate the time at the moment.

I will finish the thought asap.

Thanks for the response. I'll try to finish it tonight.

whoa. just after christmas too

And I'm gonna take the link offline.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:46 am

ecliptic wrote:[This bullshit that America is responsible, and has provided the materials for terrorism is nothing more than naive liberal guilt.

In a very real sense, terrorism is a strategy, a tactic, an adverb that describes a set of actions, not a noun. (Got that from a Harper's article, can't claim it as original.)

Americans have committed, fostered and encouraged terrorism in countless places and times. Including in the USA and by-and-against our own citizens. Geez, just look at some of the things opponents of a particular political viewpoint have advocated and done. For decades or centuries, depending on your viewpoint.

Burning crosses or hanging Irish men in Nyc, it goes way back.

If you really think that people in power in America have never held some responsibility for terrorism, then i think you may need to reconsider calling others naive.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:36 am

You're right about parts of that. I should have been more specific. I was talking about the main threat towards the US, Al Queda. There are domestic terrorists too, and they're no better. However why should I as an American hold any responsibility for what these fucks bring to us? These other countries that harbor them need to get their own shit together. I have no sympathy for them, and I'd kill them myself if ever given the opportunity. That's where I stand. As far as this countries' leaders encouraging terrorism, I don't doubt that it hasn't happened, but I have to believe it was for the good of this country. I also believe that it is nothing more than any other country has done for their own interests.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:50 am

> ...There are domestic terrorists too, and they're no better...

An ex-gf back in the day was a member of the cult that poisoned a local water system up in OR. Not sure whether the concurrent president or AG matter a bit in such cases, nor the national origins or (alleged) religious leanings of the perps.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 11:52 am

As far as this countries' leaders encouraging terrorism, I don't doubt that it hasn't happened, but I have to believe it was for the good of this country.

Boy I'd take exception to that.

Any country's leader that encourages terrorism either domestic or outside of the boundary does so primarily to keep his ass in power. Every other 'benefit' that might arise out of such a policy is just frosting on the cake.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 12:06 pm

Damn.

Only 13 minutes go by & the eplaya hits me w/ a "Last edited by..." tag.

Is that fair, given that it sometimes takes five minutes for pages to generate?

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 1:14 pm

Repeat after me:

The Nicaraguan Contras were freedom fighters.

Osama Bin Laden was a freedom fighter when he fought the Russians, a terrorist when he fights us.

The Chechen separatists are terrorists, the Texans who separated from Mexico were freedom fighters.

When Libya bombed a nightclub and killed two American soldiers and one civilian woman, it was terrorism. When the U.S. bombed Tripoli and killed 40 civilians 10 days later, it was just retaliation.

Continued, unconditional support and militiary aid for Israel is in NO WAY a valid reason for anyone in the Middle East to be annoyed with us.

Killing thousands of civilians in massive bombing raids will never cause anybody, especially not surviving family and friends of said dead civilians, to think of acting violently towards the U.S.

I hope that clears some things up.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 7:52 pm

yeah, well I guess it's all in the way you look at it. We could go tit for tat for days on who's fucked with who. As far as I'm concerned those fuckers can all go to hell. and don't think i'm talking about middle easterners in general. let's get that straight. i have never actually met someone from the middle east that i didn't like. this is al queda specifically i'm talking about, and it concerns me that you actually seem to have sympathy for them.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 8:04 pm

"Any country's leader that encourages terrorism either domestic or outside of the boundary does so primarily to keep his ass in power"

i agree with that for the most part. when we trained bin laden he wasn't a terrorist, he was a freedom fighter. We had a common enemy, the Soviet Union. relationships change. bin laden didn't have to attack us, and it goes way beond our relationship with israel. they'd just as soon kill any of you as me. it's all in the name of religion for them.

Sorry for the edit, accidently said iran instead of SU.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Dec 28, 2003 10:29 pm

> ....when we trained bin laden....

Forbes People Search - Osama bin Laden
Occupation: Head of Al Qaeda; Terrorist
Education: Degree in Civil Engineering, Abdul-Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (1979)
Date of Birth: 1955 or 1957
Stock symbol: (blank)

Herbert Hoover was a civil engineer too, you know.

Software may have mapped N.Y. hit
FBI asks Bay Area experts about programs' capability
Suzanne Espinosa Solis, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 12, 2001
San Francisco Chronicle

The FBI has been looking into whether terrorists used computer analysis
to figure out how to cause the most damage to the World Trade Center,
according to structural engineering experts who were interviewed by
federal agents.

Several engineers said they were contacted in the weeks after the Sept.
11 attacks by FBI agents seeking information about what computer
programs a terrorist might use to study building destruction.

"Our company was contacted about what the various programs on the market
were and if someone might be able to use these to predict what would
happen if a plane struck the World Trade Center -- and whether that was
a feasible undertaking," said John Osteraas, director of civil
engineering practices for Exponent Failure Analysis Associates. His
Menlo Park firm earlier helped the FBI study how explosives collapsed
the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

Osteraas said that although there are hundreds of software programs
commercially available for the structural analysis of buildings, fewer
than 20 of those programs are powerful enough to accurately portray the
effect of a plane crash on a building.

A recently found videotape of accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin
Laden may renew the FBI's interest in whether terrorists used computer
programs to study their attacks. According to officials who read
transcripts of the video, bin Laden says he expected a partial collapse
of the World Trade Center towers.

In the tape, bin Laden -- citing his knowledge of structural engineering
and his family's construction businesses in Saudi Arabia -- talks about
the World Trade Center "as if it were an engineering challenge," Sen.
Bob Graham, D-Fla., told the Los Angeles Times.

Engineers agree that it was the fire from the full load of jet fuel
aboard the hijacked planes that destroyed the 110-story twin towers. At
more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the fire melted the steel columns
and beams, sending the top floors plunging downward in what is known as
a progressive collapse.

Some have speculated that the path the pilots flew, into the upper
floors of the twin towers, was so precise that the terrorists must have
known precisely how to destroy the huge steel-and-concrete landmarks.

Osteraas said some of the highly specialized programs that could have
been used to plot an attack have been available to the public only for
about a decade and cost anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000 in annual
licensing fees to firms that use the programs in their business. But
they could be available at universities worldwide, he said.

He added, however, that the use of such programs for the analysis of a
plane hitting the World Trade Center is a tremendous undertaking,
requiring minutely detailed information about both the building and the
airplane.

"It's a very complex analysis," Osteraas said. "I don't see the
terrorists investing heavily in structural analysis of these buildings
to figure out what sort of havoc they would wreak."

Ephraim Hirsch, a San Francisco structural engineer, said a terrorist
would need information on the geometry of the building, the dimensions
of beams and supports, and the types of building materials used. The
terrorist would also need details such as the weight and speed of the
plane and the temperature of the heat generated by the subsequent fire.

"It would be a real hypothetical model," Hirsch said. "It's not
impossible, but it would take quite a lot of work."

In Osteraas' opinion, the terrorists were just looking for a way to
cause a lot of damage to the twin towers -- and a plane full of fuel was
clearly one way.

"They tried the truck bombing in the basement and that didn't do the
trick, so they were probably looking at, 'How can we get more energy
into this building?' -- certainly they were not going to get a bigger
truck into the basement," he said.

Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

Re: English as the dominant language.

The WMD's are lying just ove the next sand dune!

................Blame it on the French....

Re: The WMD's are lying just ove the next sand dune!

right you are Joel the Ornery!

Re: The WMD's are lying just ove the next sand dune!

Re: right you are Joel the Ornery!