Baxter - Contamination Accident or Incident ??

[FORD]

Obama barely knew his father. Hardly a valid comparison to the direct line of political succession from Prescott to Poppy to Chimpy.

[ELVIS]

Obama barely knew his father.

That doesn't mean he didn't study his father and his father's education in economics from Harvard...

[Nickdfresh]

This is from Infowars.com (which I sometimes read) and depending on where they took it from I might take it seriously. Here the source is the Toronto Sun, which I suppose is like the British paper? I do think this sounds true, no one's going manufacture all those quotes and information out of thin air. I'm just saying because I'm used to seeing the reaction to anything from an Alex Jones site.

My reaction is that Alex Jones is a money-changing whore, 911-profiteer...

He can fuck himself and die any day of the week...

[FORD]

By the way, ELVIS.... what's up with the link to the "kinder gentler" white supremacist group ("European Americans United")??

[Andy Taylor]

My reaction is that Alex Jones is a money-changing whore, 911-profiteer...

He can fuck himself and die any day of the week...

He's not just about 9/11 but about anything to do with the NWO. I doubt he makes big bucks - he would've tried to get all his movies off youtube/google or stop ebay sellers from selling copies for a dollar. Now Michael Moore I have always felt was after money, I never took him seriously.

[Nickdfresh]

He's not just about 9/11 but about anything to do with the NWO. I doubt he makes big bucks - he would've tried to get all his movies off youtube/google or stop ebay sellers from selling copies for a dollar. Now Michael Moore I have always felt was after money, I never took him seriously.

Jones makes a shit load of money off his "anti-guber'ment" shtick. He might as well shit on the graves of 911 victims with his willful misinformation bullshit. And was the Moore comment supposed to hurt me? Oooohhhh!!!!

The difference is that Moore makes a valid point and can back up his assertions and opinions with a modicum of fact.

If you have specific complaints about Moore, go ahead. But can anyone deny his central "Fahrenheit 911" assertion that the Saudis got off fucking easy? Feel free to compare and contrast between the two with actual examples...

[Andy Taylor]

Whoa! I didn't know you liked Moore's stuff that much. No, I didn't mean it to offend I was comparing two people who do the same thing.

It's not Moore's findings that I'm against (I haven't seen a complete doc) but I felt he was simply in the documentary business and that's it. The anti-Bush sentiment was high then and he took advantage of it. He's even got a crooked look to his face just like Blair, even when he speaks of the tragedy.




Yeah, he sure looks sincere.

I also don't see how Moore should be accurate and Alex Jones isn't. His accent and Texan background has no relevance. Unlike most people he is atleast non-partisan and in the US he could have made more money by appealing to the right and red necks instead of bashing Bush.

And unless you want to believe Jones is part of the elite he's the only one who made it into the Bohemian Grove where the leaders conduct their strange rituals.

[Nickdfresh]

Whoa! I didn't know you liked Moore's stuff that much. No, I didn't mean it to offend I was comparing two people who do the same thing.

I don't. I've seen F911 once...

But the "same thing?" Are you really that fucking logically impaired?

Moore raises genuine questions regarding the Bush Admin's handling of 9/11 both before and after and Jones says they orchestrated it. Hardly the same fucking thing!!!!

It's not Moore's findings that I'm against (I haven't seen a complete doc) but I felt he was simply in the documentary business and that's it. The anti-Bush sentiment was high then and he took advantage of it. He's even got a crooked look to his face just like Blair, even when he speaks of the tragedy.

Oh, so you've never seen his work but yet have so many opinions on it? Really?

Yeah, he sure looks sincere.

I also don't see how Moore should be accurate and Alex Jones isn't.

How the fuck would you know? You've never even watched his documentary and have no idea what it actually says. It's on YouTube, so you have no excuse for your ignorance..

His accent and Texan background has no relevance. Unlike most people he is atleast non-partisan and in the US he could have made more money by appealing to the right and red necks instead of bashing Bush.

And unless you want to believe Jones is part of the elite he's the only one who made it into the Bohemian Grove where the leaders conduct their strange rituals.

Um. Jones is an asshole that peddles to the "Inside Job" conspiracy crowd niche. I highly doubt he even believes in half of the shit he airs...

Try watching "F911," then compare to Jones' shows. Then come back to us with an opinion that doesn't resemble something of a scowling, arrogant cluster-fuck. 'Kay?

If Moore made money, well fucking good for him! Cheney made money by getting US troops fucking killed in Iraq.

[Andy Taylor]

I've heard parts of what he talks about in his documentary. It's nothing very unexpected.Different conclusions, but they are both making documentaries that are critical of the US in the eyes of many. So it's ok for Moore to make money off it but not Cheney, yeah that makes sense. As for arrogance I see your posts aren't entirely lacking in it. Yes, all the conspiracy theorists are whackos... keep watching your favourite choice of mainstream media.

[FORD]

I'm not opposed to Alex Jones, and I believe he's right about many things. Where Alex goes wrong is that he's on the extreme right wing ditch of scary Libertarianism, and pretty much believes that ALL government is an evil NWO plot. Even if Ron Paul had been somehow elected, Alex Jones probably would have proclaimed him the new zombie overlord the next day.

Michael Moore believes in America the way it should be. The way it was, for the most part before 1980. And being from Flint Michigan, he had a personal stake in the economic devastation long before most of us did.

Moore's work is more anti-corporatism than anti-government. Problem is that over the last 28 years, the corporations have become the government.

[Nickdfresh]

I've heard parts of what he talks about in his documentary. It's nothing very unexpected.

Of course. The questions raised were academic...

Different conclusions, but they are both making documentaries that are critical of the US in the eyes of many.

Um, wrong. One was a conspiracy fantasist argument and the other was pretty solidly rooted in news and gov't reporting...

So it's ok for Moore to make money off it but not Cheney, yeah that makes sense. As for arrogance I see your posts aren't entirely lacking in it.

Oh, okay. So, you're apologizing for Cheney getting US and Iraqi people killed for profit for his former company Hallifucker, but somehow Moore is evil for making a film questioning it?

This is the widely discredited "hypocrite argument" BTW...

Yes, all the conspiracy theorists are whackos... keep watching your favourite choice of mainstream media.

Yeah, because science is a conspiracy, man!!!

Let's get that alternative media shit, man! Because if it is on the internet, it must be true!!!

Who needs things like facts, the scientific method, or basic logic?

[Andy Taylor]

Of course. The questions raised were academic...

And so were the ones on the other side.

Um, wrong. One was a conspiracy fantasist argument and the other was pretty solidly rooted in news and gov't reporting...

Govt reporting? The same govt Moore and yourself are critical of? The media has it's ties with the military and who knows who else.

Oh, okay. So, you're apologizing for Cheney getting US and Iraqi people killed for profit for his former company Hallifucker, but somehow Moore is evil for making a film questioning it? This is the widely discredited "hypocrite argument" BTW...

No, I think both are condemnable, Cheney far more than Moore.

Yeah, because science is a conspiracy, man!!!

Let's get that alternative media shit, man! Because if it is on the internet, it must be true!!!

Who needs things like facts, the scientific method, or basic logic?

This is where you go wrong, because this 'science' that you swear by can be faulty in the official theory. Just because Snopes (oh that's an accurate website) says so it doesn't mean it's accurate.

Fact is, there is nothing conclusive scientifically on the alternative side as to how the buildings went down. AND the same applies for the official version. Is there enough shady evidence of a coverup and a motive for it? Plenty! And till the media gets into any of this, it is totally unreliable. As if Adolf wouldn't have controlled the media if he could have in his day. We're talking about a country where former govts have had similar plans with Northwoods, used nukes to make a point on superiority and manufactures wars in Vietnam, Iraq and a near miss in Iran. With zero regard for even American life (this thread has news of Rumsfeld endangering MORE American life), so let's not doubt they would do this.

[Andy Taylor]

I'm not opposed to Alex Jones, and I believe he's right about many things. Where Alex goes wrong is that he's on the extreme right wing ditch of scary Libertarianism, and pretty much believes that ALL government is an evil NWO plot. Even if Ron Paul had been somehow elected, Alex Jones probably would have proclaimed him the new zombie overlord the next day.

Definitely he takes it too far looking for an angle, it's a weakness people have when trying to prove a point. Besides he's hardly from a professional media background. The thing though is more than half the stuff on infowars is linked to other places, a lot of leftist sites and a lot of mainstream news.

People have been able to say for maybe decades that so and so isn't true, it's whacko. But we went from not acknowledging the existence of the Bilders to the BBC uncovering that they planned the EU in the 50s. Kissinger was around recently (I posted this here) talking about further integration in Asia with China at its head.

Maybe it's whacko, but... FT is on the 'conspiracy' bandwagon too. As are a few heads of nations.

FT.com / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - And now for a world government

[Andy Taylor]

Once you accept that real madman did make it into power and maybe are still there somewhere, the unofficial theories are the ones that makes more sense.


Two years ago a project set up by the men who now surround George W Bush said what America needed was "a new Pearl Harbor". Its published aims have come alarmingly true

John Pilger

16 Dec 2002

The threat posed by US terrorism to the security of nations and individuals was outlined in prophetic detail in a document written more than two years ago and disclosed only recently. What was needed for America to dominate much of humanity and the world's resources, it said, was "some catastrophic and catalysing event - like a new Pearl Harbor".

The attacks of 11 September 2001 provided the "new Pearl Harbor", described as "the opportunity of ages". The extremists who have since exploited 11 September come from the era of Ronald Reagan, when far-right groups and "think-tanks" were established to avenge the American "defeat" in Vietnam. In the 1990s, there was an added agenda: to justify the denial of a "peace dividend" following the cold war. The Project for the New American Century was formed, along with the American Enterprise Institute, the Hudson Institute and others that have since merged the ambitions of the Reagan administration with those of the current Bush regime.

One of George W Bush's "thinkers" is Richard Perle. I interviewed Perle when he was advising Reagan; and when he spoke about "total war", I mistakenly dismissed him as mad. He recently used the term again in describing America's "war on terror". "No stages," he said. "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Perle is one of the founders of the Project for the New American Century, the PNAC. Other founders include Dick Cheney, now vice-president, Donald Rumsfeld, defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, I Lewis Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, William J Bennett, Reagan's education secretary, and Zalmay Khalilzad, Bush's ambassador to Afghanistan. These are the modern chartists of American terrorism.

The PNAC's seminal report, Rebuilding America's Defences: strategy, forces and resources for a new century, was a blueprint of American aims in all but name. Two years ago it recommended an increase in arms-spending by $48bn so that Washington could "fight and win multiple, simultaneous major theatre wars". This has happened. It said the United States should develop "bunker-buster" nuclear weapons and make "star wars" a national priority. This is happening. It said that, in the event of Bush taking power, Iraq should be a target. And so it is.

As for Iraq's alleged "weapons of mass destruction", these were dismissed, in so many words, as a convenient excuse, which it is. "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification," it says, "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

How has this grand strategy been implemented? A series of articles in the Washington Post, co-authored by Bob Woodward of Watergate fame and based on long interviews with senior members of the Bush administration, reveals how 11 September was manipulated.

On the morning of 12 September 2001, without any evidence of who the hijackers were, Rumsfeld demanded that the US attack Iraq. According to Woodward, Rumsfeld told a cabinet meeting that Iraq should be "a principal target of the first round in the war against terrorism". Iraq was temporarily spared only because Colin Powell, the secretary of state, persuaded Bush that "public opinion has to be prepared before a move against Iraq is possible". Afghanistan was chosen as the softer option. If Jonathan Steele's estimate in the Guardian is correct, some 20,000 people in Afghanistan paid the price of this debate with their lives.

Time and again, 11 September is described as an "opportunity". In last April's New Yorker, the investigative reporter Nicholas Lemann wrote that Bush's most senior adviser, Condoleezza Rice, told him she had called together senior members of the National Security Council and asked them "to think about 'how do you capitalise on these opportunities'", which she compared with those of "1945 to 1947": the start of the cold war.

Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

In the Los Angeles Times, the military analyst William Arkin describes a secret army set up by Donald Rumsfeld, similar to those run by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger and which Congress outlawed. This "super-intelligence support activity" will bring together the "CIA and military covert action, information warfare, and deception". According to a classified document prepared for Rumsfeld, the new organisation, known by its Orwellian moniker as the Proactive Pre-emptive Operations Group, or P2OG, will provoke terrorist attacks which would then require "counter-attack" by the United States on countries "harbouring the terrorists".

In other words, innocent people will be killed by the United States. This is reminiscent of Operation Northwoods, the plan put to President Kennedy by his military chiefs for a phoney terrorist campaign - complete with bombings, hijackings, plane crashes and dead Americans - as justification for an invasion of Cuba. Kennedy rejected it. He was assassinated a few months later. Now Rumsfeld has resurrected Northwoods, but with resources undreamt of in 1963 and with no global rival to invite caution.

You have to keep reminding yourself this is not fantasy: that truly dangerous men, such as Perle and Rumsfeld and Cheney, have power. The thread running through their ruminations is the importance of the media: "the prioritised task of bringing on board journalists of repute to accept our position".

"Our position" is code for lying. Certainly, as a journalist, I have never known official lying to be more pervasive than today. We may laugh at the vacuities in Tony Blair's "Iraq dossier" and Jack Straw's inept lie that Iraq has developed a nuclear bomb (which his minions rushed to "explain"). But the more insidious lies, justifying an unprovoked attack on Iraq and linking it to would-be terrorists who are said to lurk in every Tube station, are routinely channelled as news. They are not news; they are black propaganda.

This corruption makes journalists and broadcasters mere ventriloquists' dummies. An attack on a nation of 22 million suffering people is discussed by liberal commentators as if it were a subject at an academic seminar, at which pieces can be pushed around a map, as the old imperialists used to do.

The issue for these humanitarians is not primarily the brutality of modern imperial domination, but how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. There is no admission that their decision to join the war party further seals the fate of perhaps thousands of innocent Iraqis condemned to wait on America's international death row. Their doublethink will not work. You cannot support murderous piracy in the name of humanitarianism. Moreover, the extremes of American fundamentalism that we now face have been staring at us for too long for those of good heart and sense not to recognise them.

With thanks to Norm Dixon and Chris Floyd

[Nickdfresh]

And so were the ones on the other side.

Which "ones?" You wouldn't know since you never bothered to look...

Govt reporting? The same govt Moore and yourself are critical of? The media has it's ties with the military and who knows who else.

Um, the "govt" isn't some giant monolithic omnipotent power.

If you actually bother to read the "911 Report," you'll see that. They actually disclosed the previously secret CIA "Rendition" program in it...

No, I think both are condemnable, Cheney far more than Moore.

But you think Moore is "condemnable" based on a film you haven't bothered to watch (for free on YouTube).

Thanks for not providing any "specifics" I asked for. Maybe you can get around to watching when you're done masturbating to the "Hungry Like a Wolf" video...

This is where you go wrong, because this 'science' that you swear by can be faulty in the official theory. Just because Snopes (oh that's an accurate website) says so it doesn't mean it's accurate.

No, not "Snopes." Actual structural engineers and scientists on that bastion of conservatism, PBS.ORG. And as far as Snopes, they also debunk populist right wing fantasies as well...

Fact is, there is nothing conclusive scientifically on the alternative side as to how the buildings went down. AND the same applies for the official version. Is there enough shady evidence of a coverup and a motive for it? Plenty! And till the media gets into any of this, it is totally unreliable. As if Adolf wouldn't have controlled the media if he could have in his day. We're talking about a country where former govts have had similar plans with Northwoods, used nukes to make a point on superiority and manufactures wars in Vietnam, Iraq and a near miss in Iran. With zero regard for even American life (this thread has news of Rumsfeld endangering MORE American life), so let's not doubt they would do this.

Um, the "fact" is that the "inside job" crowd are fundamentally "anti-scientific method" (not my words) because they ASSUME a conclusion that something fishy must of happened, THEN use ever morphing arguments based on inherent preexisting bias to "prove" their preexisting conclusions rather than letting the evidence lead them to a conclusion. And most of the inside job sites purporting to be scientific and engineering based are shown to be completely disingenuous in their claims...

Northwoods? Fucking please! 2+2=5

That argument is the same pseudo-logic that Bush used to rationalize the second Gulf War!