"Al Qaeda" does not exist

"Baldin Pramer" > wrote in message
...
> Erich wrote:
>
> >>Relatively easy to do if keeping them secret was not an objective.
> >>
> >>We have our entire missile defense infrastructure housed underground,
what
> >>makes you think that only Americans know how to dig a tunnel complex? It
> >
> > is
> >
> >>absurd to suggest that hiding stuff in tunnels and caves is nuts.
> >
> >
> > If you had seen the clip and the illustrations of these supposed
underground
> > fortresses, you would know how absurd it was.
>
> http://www.idleworm.com/nws/2004/osm01.shtml
>
> --
> Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.

HA! That's the one. Excellent find, my friend. :-)

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Very insightful and to the point. Good job. You even managed to bash
> Bush
>> > and look smart while doing it ;-)
>>
>> I wasn't trying to bash Bush. I didn't vote for him and I think he is
>> tactically efficient while also being strategically inane, but I wasn't
>> trying to minimize him.
>>
>
> I understand, hense the winky-smiley thing that followed the "bash"
> charge.
>
>
>
>> > I agree with you almost entirely. It isn't about Bush, its about the
> rest
>> > of
>> > the world understanding that the USA is tops on the hit list, and
>> > everybody
>> > else is next. I guess our only disagreement is that I agree with Bush's
>> > actions because I get that everybody else is next if Bush doesn't do
>> > something. Perhaps the specific action can be called into question,
> that's
>> > certainly fair. But the idea of sitting on ones hands is simply
> untenable.
>>
>> I didn't say he shouldn't have done anything, I said I disagree with his
>> actions. He had it right the first time, but then insisted on attacking
>> Iraq. You see, tactically efficient, but strategically stupid. Iraq will
> not
>> ever be Democratic. The power Islam guarantees that.
>>
>
> I hope you are wrong here. I hope that democracy and Islam can find a way
> to
> peacefully co-exist so that civil war does not break out as the last
> planeload of our troops lifts off the end of the runway.
>
> I agree that Iraq - in hindsight - was not a very smart move. That is, it
> turns out to be a very costly decision in terms of life and money, and the
> objective is elusive at best. But, since we are there and we have spread
> the
> seeds of freedom and democracy, then we need to stay until the seeds
> sprout
> and can weather the coming storms.
>
>
>
>
>> I think that unless we stay there forever, civil war is inevitable. Think
> of
>> all the places we have engaged in country building, at least those that
> have
>> been successful, and then consider if our military presence has ever left
>> those countries. I mean go back as far as you want, and the standard will
>> not change.
>>
>
> I am not sure you are correct here. We built democracy of sorts in Japan,
> but we obligated ourselves to provide the continuing defense of that
> country. We did pretty much the same in Germany and South Korea. These
> countries support our cause by allowing our troops the forward stations to
> get to any hot spots that might develop. Our troops are not occupation
> forces in the respect that they are not part of the governments. I think
> the
> American goal is to create forward bases in Iraq that mimic the kinds of
> bases we have in Japan and Germany, however I do not think this strategy
> will sit well with the Arab World and the goal may not be acheived.
>
> I hope, as I said earlier, that the Arab world will support its Iraqi
> neighbors in setting democracy on the fast track. It would be a shame if
> for
> any reason, democracy and Islam can not live together. In a perfect world,
> the government and the religion of the people could peacably coexist. The
> religion is a part of society, and hense a part of the culture and the
> legal
> system, but there is no reason in theory that an Islamic government can
> not
> be democratically elected, and represent all of the people.
>
> To the extent that I am right, civil war will not break out as the last
> plane carrying our tropps home lifts off the end of the runway.
>

I've kept out of this debate until now, I'd just like to add one point of
note here. Before I do, let it be known that I am speaking as an individual,
although I have served in the Gulf region twice now, as a member of the
so-called coallition.

One day, certain blinkered so-called superpower leaders will wake up and
this reality will dawn upon them :- You cannot un-democratically enforce a
democracy upon an undemocratic people! It has never and will never work, it
is a way of life that they cannot understand and so they resort to the
violence of past years.
Badger.

"Badger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bradburn Fentress" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >>
> >> > Very insightful and to the point. Good job. You even managed to bash
> > Bush
> >> > and look smart while doing it ;-)
> >>
> >> I wasn't trying to bash Bush. I didn't vote for him and I think he is
> >> tactically efficient while also being strategically inane, but I wasn't
> >> trying to minimize him.
> >>
> >
> > I understand, hense the winky-smiley thing that followed the "bash"
> > charge.
> >
> >
> >
> >> > I agree with you almost entirely. It isn't about Bush, its about the
> > rest
> >> > of
> >> > the world understanding that the USA is tops on the hit list, and
> >> > everybody
> >> > else is next. I guess our only disagreement is that I agree with
Bush's
> >> > actions because I get that everybody else is next if Bush doesn't do
> >> > something. Perhaps the specific action can be called into question,
> > that's
> >> > certainly fair. But the idea of sitting on ones hands is simply
> > untenable.
> >>
> >> I didn't say he shouldn't have done anything, I said I disagree with
his
> >> actions. He had it right the first time, but then insisted on attacking
> >> Iraq. You see, tactically efficient, but strategically stupid. Iraq
will
> > not
> >> ever be Democratic. The power Islam guarantees that.
> >>
> >
> > I hope you are wrong here. I hope that democracy and Islam can find a
way
> > to
> > peacefully co-exist so that civil war does not break out as the last
> > planeload of our troops lifts off the end of the runway.
> >
> > I agree that Iraq - in hindsight - was not a very smart move. That is,
it
> > turns out to be a very costly decision in terms of life and money, and
the
> > objective is elusive at best. But, since we are there and we have spread
> > the
> > seeds of freedom and democracy, then we need to stay until the seeds
> > sprout
> > and can weather the coming storms.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> I think that unless we stay there forever, civil war is inevitable.
Think
> > of
> >> all the places we have engaged in country building, at least those that
> > have
> >> been successful, and then consider if our military presence has ever
left
> >> those countries. I mean go back as far as you want, and the standard
will
> >> not change.
> >>
> >
> > I am not sure you are correct here. We built democracy of sorts in
Japan,
> > but we obligated ourselves to provide the continuing defense of that
> > country. We did pretty much the same in Germany and South Korea. These
> > countries support our cause by allowing our troops the forward stations
to
> > get to any hot spots that might develop. Our troops are not occupation
> > forces in the respect that they are not part of the governments. I think
> > the
> > American goal is to create forward bases in Iraq that mimic the kinds of
> > bases we have in Japan and Germany, however I do not think this strategy
> > will sit well with the Arab World and the goal may not be acheived.
> >
> > I hope, as I said earlier, that the Arab world will support its Iraqi
> > neighbors in setting democracy on the fast track. It would be a shame if
> > for
> > any reason, democracy and Islam can not live together. In a perfect
world,
> > the government and the religion of the people could peacably coexist.
The
> > religion is a part of society, and hense a part of the culture and the
> > legal
> > system, but there is no reason in theory that an Islamic government can
> > not
> > be democratically elected, and represent all of the people.
> >
> > To the extent that I am right, civil war will not break out as the last
> > plane carrying our tropps home lifts off the end of the runway.
> >
>
> I've kept out of this debate until now, I'd just like to add one point of
> note here. Before I do, let it be known that I am speaking as an
individual,
> although I have served in the Gulf region twice now, as a member of the
> so-called coallition.
>
> One day, certain blinkered so-called superpower leaders will wake up and
> this reality will dawn upon them :- You cannot un-democratically enforce
a
> democracy upon an undemocratic people! It has never and will never work,
it
> is a way of life that they cannot understand and so they resort to the
> violence of past years.
> Badger.

Sadly, I agree with your assessment. On the other hand, if there is any
truth to the notion that people want to be free, then removing the tyranical
leaders in an effort to let democracy take root, then we should be on the
tight track.

Just because there are a few hundred or a few thousand that reject democracy
doesn't mean that our efforts are a failure. There are 25 million that want
democracy, and a few thousand that do not. My suspicion is that democracy
can work, if we do not cave into the demands of the very few.

"Awake" > wrote in message
news:6FLO0WWQ38410.8029282407@anonymous...
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
> >
> >Government control of the media. Let's explore that for a moment.
> >
> >ABC. CBS. NBC. CNN. MSNBC. FOX
> >
> >At least one of these dances to a different drummer, and therefore is not
> >controlled by the government. Pick one.
>
>
> They are all the same.
>
> FOX simply turns up the rightist rhetoric a notch drawing in
> more assholes. Strip away the loudness and FOX is exactly
> like CNN, attacking anyone who points out the truth of 9-11,
> that it was an inside job from start to finish accomplished with
> carefully planned and placed demolitions rather than jet planes.
>
> ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC repeat the big lie,
> FOX shouts it.


They can't all be the same and be "controlled by government" because the
content and editorial views are significnatly different. Plus, I didn't even
begin to look at print media, which is equally charged as being the
mouthpiece of the government.

"Jeff Strickland" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I've kept out of this debate until now, I'd just like to add one point of
>> note here. Before I do, let it be known that I am speaking as an
> individual,
>> although I have served in the Gulf region twice now, as a member of the
>> so-called coallition.
>>
>> One day, certain blinkered so-called superpower leaders will wake up and
>> this reality will dawn upon them :- You cannot un-democratically enforce
> a
>> democracy upon an undemocratic people! It has never and will never work,
> it
>> is a way of life that they cannot understand and so they resort to the
>> violence of past years.
>> Badger.
>
> Sadly, I agree with your assessment. On the other hand, if there is any
> truth to the notion that people want to be free, then removing the
> tyranical
> leaders in an effort to let democracy take root, then we should be on the
> tight track.

I agree, but not by wading in and doing the job for them. They must want it
bad enough to do the task themselves, with "quiet" support if needs be. As
soon as "we" enter another country and place it effectively under a state of
martial law we are no longer democratic ourselves, we are seen then as the
agressors, no better than the previous dictator(s) and are ourselves
therefore not wanted by the people of that country.

>
> Just because there are a few hundred or a few thousand that reject
> democracy
> doesn't mean that our efforts are a failure.

But I feel they have failed, certainly if we resort to enforcing a
democracy, the very act of which degrades and devalues the ideals of a
democratic society.

> There are 25 million that want
> democracy, and a few thousand that do not. My suspicion is that democracy
> can work, if we do not cave into the demands of the very few.

Indeed, but personally I cannot see how it can be achieved. If there are 25
million that think they want democracy, out of that 25 million how many
actually understand what democracy really is, and what percentage of the
numbers left have any idea how to achieve it themselves, or enough trust
towards those genuinely trying to help them?
I'm going to leave this O.T. chat as it stands now, I really dont feel
(personally) that this is the right place for a conversation of this nature
so I'll quit before I'm told to shutup <grin>.
Getting back to something approaching topic, I saw on some newsreel footage
a blown-apart 7 series (or at least I think it was!), what a sin!
Badger.

On 28 Feb 2005 00:16:13 -0000, er
(Awake) wrote:

>On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, "Jeff Strickland" > wrote:
>>
>>Government control of the media. Let's explore that for a moment.
>>
>>ABC. CBS. NBC. CNN. MSNBC. FOX
>>
>>At least one of these dances to a different drummer, and therefore is not
>>controlled by the government. Pick one.
>
>
>They are all the same.
>
>FOX simply turns up the rightist rhetoric a notch drawing in
>more assholes. Strip away the loudness and FOX is exactly
>like CNN, attacking anyone who points out the truth of 9-11,
>that it was an inside job from start to finish accomplished with
>carefully planned and placed demolitions rather than jet planes.
>
>ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC repeat the big lie,
>FOX shouts it.

I see Awake, the newsgroup terrorist, has returned...

"Awake" > wrote in message >>> FOX
simply turns up the rightist rhetoric a notch drawing in
>>> more assholes. Strip away the loudness and FOX is exactly
>>> like CNN, attacking anyone who points out the truth of 9-11,
>>> that it was an inside job from start to finish accomplished with
>>> carefully planned and placed demolitions rather than jet planes.

Yeah, those jets and the people who died on them were, what, special
effects? Idiot.
> Read "Into the Buzzsaw" edited by former "60 Minutes" producer
> Kristina Borjesson. James Kallstrom of the FBI visited CBS
> and ordered her firing for trying to present the viewpoint of the
> more than _600_ eyewitnesses on Long Island who all saw
> a missile strike TWA 800.

Yeah, that's how they would do it. Get someone fired for talking about
something they want kept quiet. That should make her forget about it. No ill
will there. Why not just kill her. >

> The book is widely available in libraries in America.
> It is widely available because they understand that
> Americans do not read such books and all avenues
> for discussing this and any book like it on TV are closed
> off.

Yeah, they can pull of 911 and get a reporter fired, but can't keep a book
of the shelves. Are you REALLY THAT STUPID?
> -=-
> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

Because the poster is being sought by the mental institution he escaped
from.

"tech27" > wrote in message
o.verio.net...
>
> "Awake" > wrote in message >>> FOX
> simply turns up the rightist rhetoric a notch drawing in
>>>> more assholes. Strip away the loudness and FOX is exactly
>>>> like CNN, attacking anyone who points out the truth of 9-11,
>>>> that it was an inside job from start to finish accomplished with
>>>> carefully planned and placed demolitions rather than jet planes.
>
> Yeah, those jets and the people who died on them were, what, special
> effects? Idiot.
>> Read "Into the Buzzsaw" edited by former "60 Minutes" producer
>> Kristina Borjesson. James Kallstrom of the FBI visited CBS
>> and ordered her firing for trying to present the viewpoint of the
>> more than _600_ eyewitnesses on Long Island who all saw
>> a missile strike TWA 800.
>
> Yeah, that's how they would do it. Get someone fired for talking about
> something they want kept quiet. That should make her forget about it. No
> ill will there. Why not just kill her. >
>
>> The book is widely available in libraries in America.
>> It is widely available because they understand that
>> Americans do not read such books and all avenues
>> for discussing this and any book like it on TV are closed
>> off.
>
> Yeah, they can pull of 911 and get a reporter fired, but can't keep a book
> of the shelves. Are you REALLY THAT STUPID?
>> -=-
>> This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.
>
> Because the poster is being sought by the mental institution he escaped
> from.

****! You beat me to it!

I bet this guy thinks that Taco Bell is the name of Mexico's phone company
too.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"tech27" > wrote in message
o.verio.net...

> Because the poster is being sought by the mental institution he escaped
> from.

Hey tech,....you've got to stop feeding the animals :^)

Awake wrote:
>
> No one but you suggested that the planes were not real.
>
> The planes did not touch Building Seven.
>
> Since you are so intelligent, explain what Building Seven was
> and how exactly it came to collapse pancake style, just as a
> building brought down by demolitions does, just as the two towers
> before it came down.
>
> Did you notice the same type of structure which the Spanish
> torched a week ago to show the world that such buildings
> do not collapse in 9-11 fashion due to fire?


I thought it was common knowledge that building 7 was demolished, it
was admitted to.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html