U.S allegations against Iran: real or just fairy tales?

Did an elite branch of Iran's military handpick
a divorced, 56-year-old Iranian-American
used-car salesman from Texas to hire a
hitman from a Mexican drug cartel to
assassinate the ambassador to Saudi Arabia
by blowing up a bomb in a crowded
restaurant in Washington?
U.S. officials say they are certain the bizarre
plot against Ambassador Adel Jubeir was
real.
But some analysts say they are not. They find
it unlikely that the Iranian government, or
legitimate factions within, would be involved
in such a tangled plot.
Iran slams plot allegations
They cite five reasons why:
1. The alleged plot doesn't fit Iran's style
In the 32-year history of the Islamic Republic
of Iran, its Quds Force -- the branch
implicated in the alleged plot -- has never
been publicly linked to an assassination plot
or an attack on U.S. soil. In cases where Quds
Force members have been accused of
plotting attacks, they had gone to great
lengths to cover their tracks and hire proxy
groups of the highest caliber, like the
Lebanese Hezbollah.
Hiring an Iranian-American used-car
salesman who, according to investigators,
openly talked about his connections to the
Iranian military and brazenly made a
$100,000 wire transfer doesn't fit the Quds
Force's modus operandi, analysts say.
"It would be completely uncharacteristic for
Iran to be caught red-handed," former CIA
operative Bob Baer told CNN.
"There are very few groups operationally
better than Iran's Quds Force. They know
what they are doing, The only proxies they
use are ones they've vetted. They don't let
their own citizens get involved."-CNN

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by OperaBloke:

Sorry, that's the best I could do on short notice. To be honest, I have so many things to worry about these days, impending nuclear war is the least of my worries.

Me, too. The wife made a mess of frosting the cake.

It's probably not her fault, the kryptonite frosting wasn't yielding enough due to Stuxnet. Blame Mossad.

I enjoy my Stuxnet with bananas and cream. Yummy!

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I enjoy my Stuxnet with bananas and cream. Yummy!

Yeah, but you wouldn't eat it for breakfast.

Affixed with a well fried egg!

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Affixed with a well fried egg!

Hmmm ... definitely could do with a bit of bacon.

Sure.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Sure.

That'll do it. I ate wild boar once. It just tasted like pork to me. I dunno what I was expecting. It was more fun (& less salty) than laver bread though.

I dated a wild bore years ago. Nothing to report.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I dated a wild bore years ago. Nothing to report.

Well, as long as she didn't make a pig of herself ...

Originally posted by OperaBloke:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I dated a wild bore years ago. Nothing to report.

Well, as long as she didn't make a pig of herself ...

At dinner she ate from both of our plates.

(edited)

Here we are together.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I just like the pic, eh.

"What a time to get itchy knackers!"

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

(edited)

Here we are together.

You have been lucky. Very gorgeous woman.
Imagine what might happen if you pick up a lady after some drinks:

703. War on Iran in February (1) (1/21/2012)

In last December I learned that my brother and sisters would have a trip to India and Dubai between Feb. 2 to Feb 15, 2012. Since my relatives used to be arranged for a trip when the Feds has a new plan, that means there will be a new framed case in February and it always comes with big events as distraction- false flag terror attack, war, natural disaster or all of them.

A news proved my allegation. It will be Iran war this time.

Russian military experts say the U.S. is likely to war against Iran in early February
Date:2012-01-17
http://www.9abc.net/index.php/archives/72360

Why does the Feds choose February as operation time? Because there was a president election in Taiwan on Jan 14. National Party competed with Democratic Progressive Party for that seat. National Party is pro-China while D.P.P. pushes for independence of Taiwan. Of course, Beijing wants to see the National Party to win the presidency of Taiwan.

On the other hand, China is a key component in war on Iran. China is a big customer of Iran. It shares 20% of exported oil of Iran. China opposed war on Iran for its own interest. So if US wants the Iran war, it must buy the agreement of China. The D.P.P. of Taiwan became the chip of the deal and was sacrificed in 1/14/2012 presidential election.

On 1/10, Treasury Secretary Geithner visited China to confirm the secret deal.
1/14, Payment confirmed

Taiwan's China-friendly president wins re-election
January 14, 2012 A.P.
|

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/14/taiwans-china-friendly-president-wins-re-election

1/15, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao started his trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United A.E. (all are US allies) to pick up other payments from the secret deal.

China, Saudi Arabia and the New Oil Alliance - 16 January 2012
http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/china_oil_011620126

1/19, China confirms the deal to turn against Iran.

China Begins to Turn Against Iran

January 19, 2012 2:26 PM
During Premier Wen Jiabao’s visit to the Persian Gulf, he struck deals with a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, many of whom are worried by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. China, which has long been one of Iran’s only allies and a major customer for its oil exports, now seems to be turning its back on Tehran. From the Telegraph:

“China adamantly opposes Iran developing and possessing nuclear weapons,” [Wen] said.

China appears to have sent a message to Iran that it could not rely on Beijing’s unstinting support by reducing its imports of oil at a time when the US and Europe are promoting an embargo on the country.

The Washington Post reported that China trimmed its oil imports from Iran in January from a daily average of around 550,000 barrels to 285,000 barrels a day.

Chinese foreign policy experts said the statement demonstrated that Beijing would not allow its international position to end up beholden to Iran.

http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2012/01/china-begins-to-turn-against-iran/

Originally posted by katsung47:

703. War on Iran in February (1) (1/21/2012)

In last December I learned that my brother and sisters would have a trip to India and Dubai between Feb. 2 to Feb 15, 2012. Since my relatives used to be arranged for a trip when the Feds has a new plan, that means there will be a new framed case in February and it always comes with big events as distraction- false flag terror attack, war, natural disaster or all of them.

Hmmm... OK, now we know how to insure peace in the Middle East. All we have to do is take away the passports of Kat's relatives. Simple, no? They don't travel, we don't have wars, natural disasters or presumably any other nonsense. I'm getting to like the idea more and more as I think about it.

Mothball all of our cost-plus aircraft carriers, don't need them anymore. Just make sure Kat's relatives stay home. What could be simpler?

I'll say this, I'm glad the Feds don't plan earthquakes when I travel. Especially a week back or so. I had a trip down to Memphis, and the route there and back took me through New Madrid, Missouri. Look that up on Google, and you'll see that a couple of centuries back there was a sizable earthquake there. It would have been my luck to have the feds stage another one there as a distraction for my trip to Memphis.

Special note: I really don't have it in me to pursue Kat all over the Internet as he sometimes has charged, and even here on D&D I find that challenging him on every jot and tittle takes more time that I care to give it. But, every now and then he comes up with a truly delicious piece of nonsense like that quoted here, and I would be remiss not to say something about it.

704. Iran war (2) (1/28/2011)

Be noticed that on 1/10, Treasury Secretary Geithner visited China. I allege it was to confirm the secret deal. Next day, there was such a news:

Harper to visit China, seeking higher oil sales
By David Ljunggren | Reuters – Wed, Jan 11, 2012


OTTAWA (Reuters) - Prime Minister Stephen Harper plans to visit China next month as his government looks to open new markets for oil sands crude in the wake of Washington's decision to delay approval of a major pipeline from Alberta to Texas.
After winning power in 2006, Harper's Conservatives initially took a cool line with China and cited what they described as Beijing's poor human rights record.

http://news.yahoo.com/harper-visit-china-seek-deeper-economic-ties-202731193.html

For the war on Iran, puppet Canada government ignores Beijing's poor human rights, now has a warm line to satisfy China's great appetite on oil.

On Jan. 18, news reported that "Obama rejects oil pipeline from Canada, triggering loud controversy". Of course, it is not for the consideration of environment as he said. It is part of the secret deal for Iran war.

All these events: Geithner's China visit, Harper's plan to visit China for oil export to China, Obama's reject of the oil pipeline from Canada, Chinese Premier Wen's visit to Gulf and new deals with these oil countries, were done within ten days - from Jan.10 to Jan. 18. The technical details must have been prepared in advance. That plan should have started from last November.

My last clear warning for Iran war date was October. see "691. October 21 plot (11/1/2011)". It signals with Harold Camping's World End Day prediction and FBI's case of "Iran plans to assassinate Saudi ambassador in US soil".

Since November, they were preparing this big one - bribe China. Part of this plot is NDAA. It was proposed in late November. When Obama signed it into law on 12/31, I wrote on 1/2, "700. National Defense Authorization Act (1/2/2012)". On point 5, I said,

"5. War on Iran is their major goal. With great possibility, there will be false flag nuclear attacks on US cities to justify the Iran war. Most people realize the truth of the 911 attack. This law is created to deal with the people who won’t believe this government anymore when such “terror attack” happens again. "

I would say my observation was very accurate. One week later, we saw all these events relate to Iran war.

Kat, old boy, you really need to quit smoking the drapes. Now would be a real good time. If you're using Harold Camping's "End of the world" prophesies for more than comedy relief then you need more help than any of us can give you here. The guy has three failed prophesies that I know about, and maybe more. Seriously, if Camping tells you that the sun rises in the East you'd better look for yourself before you take his word on it. (The sun does, in fact rise more or less in the East-- but Camping is so unreliable that you can't even take his word for that without checking first.)

Not everything is about war with Iran. I have doubts that we'll be doing that any time soon. Certainly, you can't state that each and every time a rabbit blows gas in your back yard that this is a sure sign we're going to war with Iran. You really need to slow down a bit on that and think the thing through more clearly.

Now, I've heard recent reports that Israel might hit Iran. That sounds plausible, if Iran is developing nuclear weapons as some charge they may be doing, then Israel has a horse in that race and it's to their interest to see to it that Iran never gets a working nuclear weapon. I just don't see the US getting involved in that one at least not yet.

Hhm. Trouble is mjsmsprt40 that overly zealous critics like K here can be dismissed due to appearing highly eccentric even when they do raise salient and challenging points that are obvious. This allows them to be simply dismissed on not the substance but lack of some things that are in our faces or able to effectively challenge?

However I must say that I very firmly of the view that there is no way the USA is going to get involved in any direct miltary nonsense or more subtley such as Libya. Your President may well have said nothing is off the tablemonths ago merely as a political swipe and I think he has now made it more clear that an onvasion is not going to happen? I do hope he sticks to that and I think he will. He is astute enough to know this is not a Libya nor Iraq situation and all Hell would break loose.

You should be happy your country will not be invading Syria?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You should be happy your country will not be invading Syria?

Not this week, anyway. Stay tuned.

We visit, you went to stay.

Permit me to have a little conspiracy theory, I promise not to sound too much like Katsung for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

As some of you know, and as the rest of you can find out if you look it up, they're going to host the G-8 summit in Chicago this year. Some folk have suggested that the powers-that-be may try to jam cell phone communications (or even turn off power to the cell towers) to make it difficult for the organizers of protest to get things together. The officials say they have no plans to do this--- but--- a very strange thing is happening.

As some of you know, I'm a professional driver. I have a GPS unit, and up to a couple of weeks ago it worked flawlessly in the Chicago area. Now, during the day at least it can't find its way home from its left elbow. In much of this area it's dead as a doornail. Once out of the Chicago area, it will begin to work flawlessly again, and I trust it to get me where I'm going-- as long as I'm not in the Chicago Metro Area. It's obvious that it's being jammed around here, and it's not too big a stretch that the G-8 summit has more than a little to do with it, even though the summit is still months away. I have a half-baked theory, based only on my own observations, that they're jamming the signals to make it more difficult for the protesters to organize and get where they need to go. I could be wrong of course.. but if I am, then it's one heck of a coincidence that GPS should quit working at the time they're putting together one of the most protested events in Chicago.

OK, I'm off my soap-box, now back to Kat's half-baked conspiracy theories.

yours isn't a baked let alone half-baked theory. its fact that its whats happening.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Permit me to have a little conspiracy theory, I promise not to sound too much like Katsung for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

As some of you know, and as the rest of you can find out if you look it up, they're going to host the G-8 summit in Chicago this year. Some folk have suggested that the powers-that-be may try to jam cell phone communications (or even turn off power to the cell towers) to make it difficult for the organizers of protest to get things together. The officials say they have no plans to do this--- but--- a very strange thing is happening.

As some of you know, I'm a professional driver. I have a GPS unit, and up to a couple of weeks ago it worked flawlessly in the Chicago area. Now, during the day at least it can't find its way home from its left elbow. In much of this area it's dead as a doornail. Once out of the Chicago area, it will begin to work flawlessly again, and I trust it to get me where I'm going-- as long as I'm not in the Chicago Metro Area. It's obvious that it's being jammed around here, and it's not too big a stretch that the G-8 summit has more than a little to do with it, even though the summit is still months away. I have a half-baked theory, based only on my own observations, that they're jamming the signals to make it more difficult for the protesters to organize and get where they need to go. I could be wrong of course.. but if I am, then it's one heck of a coincidence that GPS should quit working at the time they're putting together one of the most protested events in Chicago.

Might be a test run.
Remember in the old days, some time before the previous ice age, when there was high precision military GPS and for everyone else there was jittery and imprecise civilian GPS. When they turned off the jamming for civilian GPS ( was that Clinton's first or second term? ) THEY ( as in, the Powers That Be ) said THEY will turn the jamming back on, or turn the civilian system off completely, whenever they think it's necessary. IIRC THEY also mentioned they can jam the signals for specific areas.
On the other hand, considering Hanlon's Razor, it may just be a malfunction and a funny coincidence.

There is another possibility. I wonder if any other major metropolitan areas are experiencing jamming right now, or is it a Chicago area only thing. The reason I ask is because I came across some information that a company might be responsible, and it has to do with 4-G phone signals. A company called Lightsquared managed to get the FCC to allow it to broadcast in the L_band that GPS uses. The signals are really close, and Lightsquared's signal is much more powerful than the weak signals we get from the satellites. So, how about it? Is anybody else having problems, or is this a Chicago-only phenomenon? If it's happening elsewhere too, then there's a chance that Lightsquared is causing the trouble, but if it's Chicago only then the smart money says that the G-8 organizers are trying to hobble the dissenters.

I have some chance to test this myself tonight, I have a run that takes me through Indianapolis and Cincinnati. If I get interference there, it's a chance that the company is at fault-- if not, then blame "them".

See here, now.

Actually, now that you mention it - yesterday we went to a nearby, bigger city ( well, 'bigger' by eastern TN standards, so nowhere near Chicago size ) and sure enough, my phone's GPS couldn't determine its position. Back home it Just Works.

Originally posted by johnogaziechi:

U.S allegations against Iran: real or just fairy tales?

Well well johnogaziechi... Iran has just invited His Sanctity to visit them...
According the Iranian ambassador at the Holy See:

If the Pope decides to come, we will welcome him in an excellent way, and, as far as the government is concerned, we will welcome him with enthusiasm

This is going to be interesting....

I hope His Sanctity will obviously accept such a kind invitation...

You may have something to worry you Jaybro. There was a pasing item in a news discussion programme on tv (This Week, BBC) that was suggesting that Israel may actually attack Iran in the spring. Now don't tell me the White House doesn't know what the puppets on the string are up to?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

You may have something to worry you Jaybro. There was a pasing item in a news discussion programme on tv (This Week, BBC) that was suggesting that Israel may actually attack Iran in the spring. Now don't tell me the White House doesn't know what the puppets on the string are up to?

This wouldn't surprise me. As already mentioned, there is talk that Iran either already has or is developing nuclear weapons. If so, then Israel has motivation to try to stop it, since Iran has already expressed a desire to rid the Earth of Israel. Here is a case where the puppet won't necessarily obey the puppetmaster: Washington can say whatever it likes, if Tel Aviv feels it's threatened it will defend itself regardless of Washington's desires.

To date and until someone produces something definite mjsmsprt40 (we only have well repeated theory), I don't believe Iran is working on a bomb. And anyway mjsmsprt40, why would Israel have some moral right considering their own best unkept secret of atomic secerets they have?! Okay for them but not a near neighbour? Maybe others have a right to attack them on that premise too??

As for your stooges in Tel Aviv, it would show the uncontrolled arrogance of that lot if they went ahead and attacked. They are funded by you politically and militarily. If they ignore the paymaster that keeps them in existence it is because they know that you won't stop the money as they would shut down the next day wouldn't they? After all the Jewish lobby and much of the financial control in the US gives them leverage which they would misuse. Amoral comes to mind. They would also be biting off something they cannot stomp over because Iran is no push over which will lead to a wider conflict and you would be dragged into it too. So if Israel was to attack and Iran replied and Israel looked like going under what are you then going to have to do for your pals as it spills over into a global mess?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And anyway mjsmsprt40, why would Israel have some moral right considering their own best unkept secret of atomic secerets they have?!

Nations don't arm themselves because they have moral rights, they do so for altogether different reasons.
See here.

Was Britain in India because of a moral imperative?
........
The U.S. ...
WWII
Korea
Vietnam Nam
Iraq
Afghanistan

War 1, Peace 0

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

There is another possibility. I wonder if any other major metropolitan areas are experiencing jamming right now, or is it a Chicago area only thing. The reason I ask is because I came across some information that a company might be responsible, and it has to do with 4-G phone signals. A company called Lightsquared managed to get the FCC to allow it to broadcast in the L_band that GPS uses. The signals are really close, and Lightsquared's signal is much more powerful than the weak signals we get from the satellites. So, how about it? Is anybody else having problems, or is this a Chicago-only phenomenon? If it's happening elsewhere too, then there's a chance that Lightsquared is causing the trouble, but if it's Chicago only then the smart money says that the G-8 organizers are trying to hobble the dissenters.

I have some chance to test this myself tonight, I have a run that takes me through Indianapolis and Cincinnati. If I get interference there, it's a chance that the company is at fault-- if not, then blame "them".

See here, now.

Forget about it. I ran the test last night and this morning. The results are in:
I had no trouble last night, even in and around Chicago. The GPS worked flawlessly in all the cities I passed through (Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Lexington, KY and back again). If Lightsquared's 4-G network had been to blame, this would not have been the case. I would have had interference somewhere, and last night I was still in Chicago during prime-time for cell phones. I got back today, just and hour or so ago and-- no interference. So, skip the cell-phone idea. That leaves the skunk in the henhouse idea, the one that says government agents are messing around to see if they can make it harder to protest the big summits that are coming to Chicago this year.

Now I have to get my aluminum-foil helmet and see if there's room for this conspiracy theory.

Two other possibilities have been brought to my attention. One is that sunspots may cause trouble with GPS, and we're at a maximum for sunspot activity. The other possibility is that my unit may be about to cash in and is flaking out prior to shutting down completely. Both are possible. But, neither has the conspiracy potential of spooks running around jamming signals so that protesters will have a harder time of it. Unless maybe God is conspiring, by causing sunspots that shut down GPS.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Unless maybe God is conspiring, by causing sunspots that shut down GPS.

Considering his usual lousy aim I wonder if he's for or against the protesters.

Still waiting!

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

And anyway mjsmsprt40, why would Israel have some moral right considering their own best unkept secret of atomic secerets they have?!

Nations don't arm themselves because they have moral rights, they do so for altogether different reasons.
See here.

Was Britain in India because of a moral imperative?
........
The U.S. ...
WWII
Korea
Vietnam Nam
Iraq
Afghanistan

War 1, Peace 0

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Still waiting!

From my viewpoint the answer to your question as to whether Britain was in India for moral reason, I would say mostly likely no, albeit hampered by my lack of knowledge of the period and how it all started etc. But I would make the general observation that one has to judge the true answer to a question like that in terms of the morals of the time, not today.

A good example of that would be the "moral" campaigns of missionaries, all very justifiable in their time from their standpoint of religious fervour, but questionable from the more live-and-let-live mindset of today (not universally the case, I agree, before you say it!). So that leads to another question - which is more moral, the zealot following what he believes to be his moral duty or the wish not to get involved. There are so many questions, none with simple answers.

An interesting parallel question to the one you chose is that of "Did Britain go to war with Germany for Moral reasons (WW 2)?

One could also ask the question "Did the US stay out of the war for moral reasons".

The question cuts both ways you see.

The British decision to go to war was, I think, based on the wish not to live in a Europe dominated by Germany plus a little bit of pro Polish sentiment or some other sentiment. One could call any of that a moral judgement at the time. As I mentioned for the India question, it depends on the morals of the time.

By the way, I'm not asking for any answers to these questions, merely making the point that yours was a very difficult question to answer and one where their answers depend on who is answering, not some universal truth.

My question was simple: "Was Britain in India because of a moral imperative?"

I think that the answer is also, on the whole, quite simple: No.

National morality is a non-starter. British colonization and imperial policies had nothing to do with moral values any more than corporate policies do today, although corporate practices today often find opponents based on moral premises.

Britiain was busy forming an empire, as were other nations, and that had nothing to do with morality. US intrusions into the affairs of others (I mentioned a number of them) following WWII have nothing to do with morals. Russia's attempt to form a permanent buffer between itself and the rest of Europe was a practical matter.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

US intrusions into the affairs of others (I mentioned a number of them) following WWII have nothing to do with morals. Russia's attempt to form a permanent buffer between itself and the rest of Europe was a practical matter.

Yes, but the question is if Iran acts or not with a moral perspective. If yes, what would you conclude? That their moral is wrong and entitled yourself as the Great Moral Definer?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

That their moral is wrong and entitled yourself as the Great Moral Definer?

You missed the "Ask God anything" thread.

Perhaps Jaybro will bring necropost in it for ya?

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

That their moral is wrong and entitled yourself as the Great Moral Definer?

You missed the "Ask God anything" thread.

Perhaps Jaybro will bring necropost in it for ya?

No I didn't, I remember that thread and it doesn't have nothing to do with my post. I was just re-centering the thread into it's title - a conflict between US and Iran. Since Jaybro was considering that England and US didn't acted for moral reasons on other occasions I wonder if we can say the same thing about Iran.
Keeping it short, my ultimate point is if we can recognize moral to the adversary allegations. And the answer to this question seems to me to be quiet uncomfortable.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

US intrusions into the affairs of others (I mentioned a number of them) following WWII have nothing to do with morals. Russia's attempt to form a permanent buffer between itself and the rest of Europe was a practical matter.

Yes, but the question is if Iran acts or not with a moral perspective. If yes, what would you conclude? That their moral is wrong and entitled yourself as the Great Moral Definer?

None of this nonsense has a thing to do with morality. The US has developed a bad habit of meddling, and the citizenry of following with banners. Sadly, the press fans the flames.

The NBC story — which begins with video shots of Iranians in lab coats lurking around complex, James-Bond-villain-like nuclear-ish machines — ends with twenty seconds of scary video footage of Iranian missiles being launched, accompanied with this narration: “U.S. officials warn that Iran’s massive stockpile of ballistic missiles is the more serious threat”; after all, “within just the past few days, Iranian leaders [cue video of a scary, ranting Ahmedinijad] have threatened that if attacked, they would launch those missiles at U.S. targets.”

Take a look at the following.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/?source=newsletter

And VirusBoy, maybe that is because that before the revolution the USA used Iran as a puppet. I liked th Sha but he was in your pocket -oil of course.
Now Iran is being blamed for two assainations elsewhere which is politically laughable when the American stooge in the Middle East, namely Israel has been knocking off scientists in Iran. Yep, great moral high ground!

USS Enterprise - Possible False Flag!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF0l5I5ZxdE

Do US and Israel want an excuse to start a war with Iran, and need to make it look like Iran started the hostilities, so it is more difficult for Russia and China to support Iran?

Israel has a past history of attacking US war ships and framing others, to trick the US into attacks on Israel's enemies.

The USS Enterprise is on her last legs and scheduled to be decommissioned next year. Decommissioning a nuclear air craft carrier is a very expensive process. The 8 nuclear reactors must all be disposed of as nuclear waste material.

The navy would save a great deal of money if the USS Enterprise was sunk in the Persian Gulf.

Why send an ancient war ship into harms way?

False flags can be preventing by alerting the public to the possibility, so the story would not be believable.

911 did the same way. The insulator of the WTC was asbestos. It was forbidden by the later rule of construction. WTC thus became a hot potato in real estate market. The cost to tear down WTC would be high - equal to build a new one. Then we saw 911, they let insurance company to pay for the money.

Originally posted by katsung47:

911 did the same way. The insulator of the WTC was asbestos. It was forbidden by the later rule of construction. WTC thus became a hot potato in real estate market. The cost to tear down WTC would be high - equal to build a new one. Then we saw 911, they let insurance company to pay for the money.

no. just stop looking like a dumbfuck before you turn into a fucktard.
the reason 911 happened, it wasn't the "cancer" causing issue, it was the gov't wanting more control.

There is still no proof at all that Iran wants to build a bomb even though they have atomic neighbours near them including the US puppet, Israel. Pride is an important thing in a country and especially in the Middle East as things change. Remember the Iraq fiasco? The accusations of weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Now it's a bomb that isn't there. The West thinks it can economically block Iran which the rest of the world isn't that happy about. Now two countries including Great Britain have had oil cancelled so it has bounced back. I am no fan of the Iranian President but if anything more physical happens towards Iran the opposition that the West hopes to use will however line up with the rest of Iranians and take the enemy on. We must hope that Israel listens to the country that pays them to even exist (Israel) and it doesn't try to attack Iran. The outcome would be disastrous. This isn't a 6-Day War situation and Iran no easy walk over like Iraq. Israel would take on something that would threaten their very existance.

It also seems the Atomic agency lot wanted to look at places that were not part of the atomic infrastructure which is a bit much. People in the West are being pysched into this idea of a bomb being built in Iran. No proof just theories and propaganda. Why aren't we seeing the same pogrom against Tel Aviv?

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by katsung47:

911 did the same way. The insulator of the WTC was asbestos. It was forbidden by the later rule of construction. WTC thus became a hot potato in real estate market. The cost to tear down WTC would be high - equal to build a new one. Then we saw 911, they let insurance company to pay for the money.

no. just stop looking like a dumbfuck before you turn into a fucktard.
the reason 911 happened, it wasn't the "cancer" causing issue, it was the gov't wanting more control.

A thief planned to steal a car. When he committed the crime, he found there was a motercycle, so he stole that motorcycle along with the car. The main purpose of 911 was to passing through the Patriot Act and to justify the war on Mid-east. To pick up WTC as target was for side economic benefit. What I talked about was about a sub-factor of 911 which can repeat in coming Iran war. Nobody would think that Iran war originates from "saving money to decompose Enterprise". That's your misundersanding.

We now have to worry about that loose cannon that continues to call itself a democracy - namely the USA's difficult to control lot in Tel Aviv. Their temeptation to be gung-ho should be re-looked by them as Iran will puncture their balloon and put Israel in a difficult spot. And serve them right as Israel is amoral. A closer look at Israel internally will show much that punctures the democracy credentials. Both it and the USA are two big dangers to world peace.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

A closer look at Israel internally will show much that punctures the democracy credentials. Both it and the USA are two big dangers to world peace.

Mr Hammond said Afghanistan was his "first priority" Britain is not trying to create a "perfect Afghanistan", Defence Secretary Philip Hammond has said. But he said plans to hand over responsibility for security to the Afghan government by the end of 2014 were "on track". He also confirmed military operations in Libya had cost £212m - less than was estimated at one stage.

A ceremony has been held in Basra to mark the official end of the six-year British military mission in Iraq. UK combat operations ended as 20th Armoured Brigade took part in a flag-lowering ceremony with a US brigade. Gordon Brown said the operation in Iraq had been a "success story" because of UK troops' efforts.

I'm sick of it, too, but we're accompanied by enabling allies. Had we just stayed out of that earlier European conflict, it's likely we'd not have taken this lamentable path.

That middle chair should have been unnecessary.

Katsung keeps saying we're trying to go to war with Iran. RJH keeps saying that either the US or Israel or both are itching for war with Iran. Now we have reports that a beagle is getting his doghouse ready for another mid-air shoot-out. Should we confirm that?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2X76f-GgNSE

And you are perhaps right that the middle chair should have been empty Jaybro because the man in it was a sneaky git. He was so damn sure that he had secret meetings with Stalin behind Churchill's back because he thought 'cock of the walk' and that he could get the mass murderer to dance to his tune. Talk about being naive? Instead we got as Churchill aptly put it an Iron Curtain and wider dictatorships foisted on people. Don't know why you are moaning about WW2 after all you got well out of the Depression by making a financial killing.

However on the general principle of things America in the thirties and forties was determined that they would replace Gt Britain - good luck and all that's the luck of the game but unfortunately your country got carried away with itself and chest beating and it decided it would be the moral concience of the world and Heaven help anyone who denied the right. We might differ on issues but I do wish that the country would start back peddling a bit and let the world get on with itself. In that the American people might get a better deal internally but somehow it may be a long time coming. Now run by money kings, it's corporates have no intention of giving up power nor the men in uniform. They run the country and give you poor saps elections to make you feel you are running it. It is a throwaway and a con. It's what they decide you can have off the plate and elections are there to keep you happy and sitracted. No-one ever thoughtn that Empires would disappear or Imperial Russia or eventhe USSR. You need to accept that no-one can be on top for ever so stop bankrupting yourselves for what? Glory?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well Jaybro considering the width of military involvement which backs up American political and influence stances it is empirical. 

Obviously not in a having colonies in practice but a different type of wanting control over everyone else.  The country is in the business of extending the corporate interests and has the military to back it up. Anything specific? GM was bailed out to the tune of $8 billion. The military wasn't used, thankfully. If you don't succumb to US economic pressure or commercialism sure as fate there will be a damn excuse to ostracise the country being aimed at and underminded or invaded. Once again, a couple of examples would help, particularly cases where invasions ensued because of commercial interests. Why do you think America has such a big military budget and troops everywhere? Bad habits die, Oh, so slowly. Our silly involvement in Europe's affairs in WWII got the ball rolling. The USSR and your Lancaster bombers would have put Herr Hitler to rest nicely.

At any rate who would know more about empire than...well, you know.

It isn't even the usual fear they plonk into American minds it is more than that. There is utterly no good reason for such a big budget nor such a military presence. However you are right in that nothing will change in a lifetime as the military and corporate partners run the country not the people.

 

It could be that both Katsung and RJH are wrong. If it can be proven either that Iran has no nukes or that they're open to negotiations, we might be able to stay Israel's hand in the deal. In any case, it appears that President Obama is still very much on the "negotiations" trail, and I think he really doesn't want war with Iran no matter how much Katsung says otherwise. Right now it would be hard to imagine anything worse for Obama's chances for re-election if we got into a shooting match with Iran right now, and I'm certain as I can be that he's considering that. The price of oil would skyrocket within hours of shooting getting started, and that, plus the peaceniks in the Democratic Party who won't countenance war for any reason, would seal Obama's loss in November.

Obama wants peace

Oh we could all be wrong I dare say but my accusation is based on the situation mjsmsprt40. Every friction somehwere is an exzcuse for America to flag up "National Security" at risk. As I said months ago if there were people on the damn Moon the US would jump up with the nedd for a military base for "National Security". Unfortunately your country is run by those two big baron groups - the Cororpates and the Military via the Pentagon. How come the proprition of the super rich percentage has whittled down over the decades from in the twenties to 1%, eh? Elections are a sop to keep the mass of children happy. You media is controlled by the Coroprates and they dish up propaganda all the time worrying Americans about security or would-be threats. In a general sense with exceptions to be fair the bulk of the people are ignorant when it comes to politicval awareness and especially of outside the country. They rely on the Corporate media and the Generals out at that giant spider the Pentagon.

You do not need bases everywhere nor the huge costs that are crippling you. You bail out the banks that continue to use the systemt for their own ends. They do not give a damn to the million Americans losing a home every year or the tens of millions frightened to go to a doctor. They control the country and the elections are there as a formal Constitutional thing to give the appearance of democracy. The Americans I have met and meet tend to be friendly and reasonable family minded but they are usually vague on world affairs and a trifle naive. I think you border on that yourself in a way. Have a goodly military for home defence, spend more on the people and don't be put off by screaming nutters shouting "Socialism". Did the Banks? Nah it kept them going to get on with their fiddling your money. Even ex-miltary advisors are getting worried about this using the miltary all the time and espeically dragged into the ME mess.

As for your bosom buddie, Israel it is the giant Jewish lobby over the pond (amongst the biggest I understand) that you r leader has to fawn to and they along with the Israeli Prime Minister (a real war dog) are keen to get the jackboots and helments. Never mind the excesses of the Israelis in the ME that doesn't count in America and it is a ixture of that giant Jew lobby and the Messianic attitude of the Christian Rioght (that gives Christ a bad name) that ratches up the tension. Well if Tel Aviv attacks Iran I hope they retaliate but the Israelis will need to draw in the US military and the nearby fleet and is what they are counting on. However in that sad process a wider conflict and economic meltfown in the world at large would follow. You are basically a decent people but you have been taken over by your own kind of ruthless aristocracy that has no interest in elections, apple pie except as sweets for the people to keep them happy.

And Jaybro - what an unfortunate choice situ landed with. I would say go vote for Cameron?!

RJ, don't hold back--- tell us what you REALLY think. Now that it appears you've gone as far over the edge as Katsung has, I promise to pretty much take it with a large grain of salt.

After the elections, after the Inauguration, if one of the Republicans gets in (there are a couple of those guys who scare me) we may have more of a chance of war with Iran. Right now, though, it's in Obama's best interest to keep that from happening. Really, for a number of good reasons it's in the United States best interest to keep war with Iran from happening. So, I think we're going to seek negotiation if at all possible.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

If it can be proven either that Iran has no nukes

That's funny
It couldn't be proved that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction either. At least not before the 'mission was accomplished'
Fact is that even U.S Agencies admit that they see no move by Iran to build a bomb.
Besides, the Iranian uranium enrichment program at the stage as it is for now doesn't qualify for the build of a nuclear bomb.
Furthermore:

The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Right now it would be hard to imagine anything worse for Obama's chances for re-election if we got into a shooting match with Iran right now, and I'm certain as I can be that he's considering that.

Agreed.
However long time interests might differ and have little if anything to do with the Iranian uranium enrichment program.
The US tries by all means (intimidation, isolation, economic sanctions/embargo, destabilisation and probably even military strikes as a last resort) to prevent the rise of a new geostrategical player that doesn't conform to its own interests.
Business as usual...

I may have to sneak into Canada, the land of my four-bears,

Momma bear, Pappa bear, Baby bear, and Jay bear.

The latest CIA cartoon?

Well you have to cae the obvious mjsmsprt40. I don't see where I am being wrong but your cop-out is to push my opinion into Katsung's corner as a handy excuse not to face up to what is the situation. The average America is dumb when it comes to international affairs (so if you are not average breathe a sigh of relief?!). He picks up news bytes on tv then rushes to work. On coming home he does the same thing again as he hasn't the inclination or be bothered to go into a situation. Instead the short bits of controlled coroprate media proganada fills the gap. Rather than sidestep my forthright opinion tell me where I am way out.

Of course I note that you are a bit queasy as the outside world is about the opposition who will not I submit solve the US's internal mess and only frighten the rest of the world by continuin to destabilise or destroy countries not like.

Oh-oh. Take away that turban and beard Jaybro and expect the Gestapo, oops, CIA goons to come a-knocking.

Why are there Hungarian MIG-29 in Israel?

English| We already dealt with this question once. The thing was brought up on the hook of why Israeli airplanes drill above Romania. We dissected the issue, that presumably they practice the high hill conditions similar to Iran, and with the Hungarian aircraft they are training under desert conditions, since Iran has this aerial flight at his disposal.

Carrying of MIG aircraft to Israel gained a more dangerous meaning according to the recent happenings. It appears much more logical that the Hungarian aircraft will be sacrificed. Iran is not that fool that he would leap into a war in such a way voluntarily that he attacks the American ships threatening him. The Israeli pilots will do this with the Hungarian aircraft.

They are transformed into Iranian aircraft supplied with colours and ensigns like that, as if they would be Iranian aircraft. A spectacular, well recorded attack against the american ships when Iranian ensign are visible on the planes would be enough for the public opinion to require immediate counterattack by NATO. One or two of them would be shot, and the TV reporters would be allowed to pass at a close range then they can see Iranian ensign on the planes - this would be the final, perfect propaganda of war against Iran.

Ejected and caught pilots would admit they were truly Iranian pilots and everyone would know about it. By this the war would be inescapable, and legally solid. Iran would expound the truth, but nobody would be interested on the West because they already are only waiting for some kind of minor excuse.

This may be easily the new Pearl Harbor case, and this is why those planes were carried just next to Iran.

http://www.jovonk.info/2012/02/10/why-are-there-hungarian-mig-29-israel

Originally posted by katsung47:

A thief planned to steal a car. When he committed the crime, he found there was a motercycle, so he stole that motorcycle along with the car. The main purpose of 911 was to passing through the Patriot Act and to justify the war on Mid-east. To pick up WTC as target was for side economic benefit. What I talked about was about a sub-factor of 911 which can repeat in coming Iran war. Nobody would think that Iran war originates from "saving money to decompose Enterprise". That's your misundersanding.

no. Your thinking money is a factor when in this isn't a money issue. This is a control issue. How can we make trouble for Americans to kill for us and make our lives easier?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well you have to cae the obvious mjsmsprt40. I don't see where I am being wrong but your cop-out is to push my opinion into Katsung's corner as a handy excuse not to face up to what is the situation. The average America is dumb when it comes to international affairs (so if you are not average breathe a sigh of relief?!). He picks up news bytes on tv then rushes to work. On coming home he does the same thing again as he hasn't the inclination or be bothered to go into a situation. Instead the short bits of controlled coroprate media proganada fills the gap. Rather than sidestep my forthright opinion tell me where I am way out.

Of course I note that you are a bit queasy as the outside world is about the opposition who will not I submit solve the US's internal mess and only frighten the rest of the world by continuin to destabilise or destroy countries not like.

Oh-oh. Take away that turban and beard Jaybro and expect the Gestapo, oops, CIA goons to come a-knocking.

RJ, I put you in Katsung's camp because you both operate the same way. With absolutely no proof whatsoever, you both assume the United States is itching to go to war with Iran. You assume, again with only the scantiest proof if any, that the big banks and the military are trying to engineer this war. Might as well throw in big oil too, seems they get blamed for everything else so we might as well pin war with Iran on them too.

Problem is, it's in nobody's best interest to stir up trouble there. If war breaks out with Iran, you can expect the Straits of Hormuz to be shut by default. Shooting wars and oil tankers aren't exactly friends, if you get my drift. So, nobody in the Gulf gets to ship any oil while the war drags on, which makes all the states bordering the Gulf unhappy. Nobody who depends on oil shipped from the Gulf gets any oil. That makes much of the rest of the world-- including the USA-- unhappy. In case you haven't noticed, the natives around here are already getting restless due to high fuel prices and war with Iran will not improve matters.

The only people interested in starting a ruckus there are the head honchos in Israel-- and we just might be able to talk them out of it if it can be proven that Iran has no nukes and no desire to build any. Israel's interest is based on their own survival, and the fear that if Iran has nukes it would use them on Israel. So, defusing that powderkeg is in everybody's best interest.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The average America is dumb when it comes to international affairs (so if you are not average breathe a sigh of relief?!)

The average anybody anywhere is dumb on most issues in any field of knowledge. How knowledgeable are you in string theory or cosmology? Calculus?

You shouldn't cast your net too widely, as we're all deficient in many areas. What does the "average" Scot know about Korea, Uigur unrest in china, or living conditions in Grand Rapids?

You know much less about Americans than you think you do, as I hinted earlier.

Originally posted by rjhowie: Well Jaybro considering the width of military involvement which backs up American political and influence stances it is empirical. Obviously not in a having colonies in practice but a different type of wanting control over everyone else. The country is in the business of extending the corporate interests and has the military to back it up. Anything specific? GM was bailed out to the tune of $8 billion. The military wasn't used, thankfully. If you don't succumb to US economic pressure or commercialism sure as fate there will be a damn excuse to ostracise the country being aimed at and underminded or invaded. Once again, a couple of examples would help, particularly cases where invasions ensued because of commercial interests. Why do you think America has such a big military budget and troops everywhere? Bad habits die, Oh, so slowly. Our silly involvement in Europe's affairs in WWII got the ball rolling. The USSR and your Lancaster bombers would have put Herr Hitler to rest nicely. At any rate who would know more about empire than...well, you know. It isn't even the usual fear they plonk into American minds it is more than that. There is utterly no good reason for such a big budget nor such a military presence. However you are right in that nothing will change in a lifetime as the military and corporate partners run the country not the people.

And the military runs the country, how? Corporations, how?

Verbal diarrhea, no substance.

How's this for reversing stereotypes? All Scots are cheap.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Verbal diarrhea, no substance.

Yes, from Americans only arrives enlightenment to the world...

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

And the military runs the country, how? Corporations, how?

American military only distributes love all over the world and American Corporations social redistributing...

What would be about the entire world if was not for such intelligent, enlightened Americans....

When Americans get miffed about the outside world not appreciating them they fall back on putting you in the corner as some kind of menatl leper. How can anyone of any sense over there not understand that the Corporate and military runs the damn place?! Proof? Let me remind you both especially our Chicagoan friend.

The financial community gets away with financial murder and impropriety continually and very few end up behind bars or chased up. Americans - the other 99% who don't control your system lose homes, work, health in the tens of millions. Lose out through no fault of your own - fleeced by corrupt morgage practice or fraud then - tough. The Corproates are so heavily influencing on what passes for a "democratic" parliament in DC it is a farce. For a land that bounces about the globe telling everyone about freedoms and rights your ownpopulation in that wonderful exam,ple of democratic Utopia has sen the population have to fight for the rights and freedoms wheezed about. The corproates lobby and the political masters on the 'Hill run the place to suit themselves. Liewise the military. You just have to mention that word and eyes glaze over about the wonderful military nachine. Yeah tell that to the poor mugs in Afghanistan repeatedly done in by the US military and those wonderful Marines. The military is now so big and in financial control because of once again the hand-in-hand situation with the builders of military equipment. Surprise, surprise the Cororpates there too. Electionsprocedures are a [icture of amusement to the real world outside. What pases for party conferences is a rally for the simple minded.

So the giant military and associated corporate interests work hand in hand. They brain dead the population with patriotic war cries. They constasntly create fear tactics to say the USA is undere threat. That gives the chance to maintain a giant military bunch and provide the money to start countles wars to justify and keep control. Even the recent French murder situation see the NYPD immediately rush into protection mode. It is so much of the parcel over there that fear issue and the constant need for more and more security. Recently whispers circulate that Iran may have hundreds of folk inside America ready to pounce if you go on another stupid damn war. Talk about child-like. It is your military and corporate giant brothers who run the place take the money and give you superficial elections to keep the bairns happy and think they are in control. Talk about how Lincoln's guff is exposed?! How come it is now down to 1% controlling the economy? You are fooled.

How come you need to spend half the world's military budget? How come your corporates get off with so much whilst the ordinary man loses everything? You are spied on by a myriad of your own agencies and as I portrayed a couple of years back more spying on your own people than the Third Reich. For a country that always boasted about how it set up the world's greatest democracy and broke the mould it is such a down right lie that the world knows and sees continually. Your history right up until today is folk having to fight for rights and freedoms and continually see them whittled away by that wee group of money men and the pariah military industry block.And once more for "security" blah, blah. How you cannot see that dear man from Chicago and even more so the returned Michiganian is beyond my ken. Many outside America will see what I see. Why I need to repeat the obvious to adults is really staggering. Try and refute what I say instead of trying to neutralise with simply ignoring the obvious and I put that down to the inability to do so.

That you put me in a corner with Katsung is not a problem for me it is only handy for you rather than answer the charges. As it happens I don't know Katsung but what I do know is that apart from the woolly comments from across the pond he is often hitting the mark. I don't whether there is an inherent naiviety over there or an inherent dumbness about trying to contend with honest charges that cannot be dismissed?

Have a nice day.......

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by katsung47:

A thief planned to steal a car. When he committed the crime, he found there was a motercycle, so he stole that motorcycle along with the car. The main purpose of 911 was to passing through the Patriot Act and to justify the war on Mid-east. To pick up WTC as target was for side economic benefit. What I talked about was about a sub-factor of 911 which can repeat in coming Iran war. Nobody would think that Iran war originates from "saving money to decompose Enterprise". That's your misundersanding.

no. Your thinking money is a factor when in this isn't a money issue. This is a control issue. How can we make trouble for Americans to kill for us and make our lives easier?

"Conrol issue"? Control for what. The last purpose is still for money. Or in general - economic issue.

Defintely we are getting fairy tales on Iran. A Primary school child can see it.

About USA spending half of world's military budget. What if we'd calculate GDP with a method which counts amount of money spent on military, espionage, contracts and industry related to military as negatives, ie. the more money spent on those the more GDP falls? USA maintains largest military budget, is by far the largest weapons manufacturer, and has unparalled espionage organisations in size & funding.

I've been wondering for a while now would USA fall to second, third or even 4th place in GDP if it were calculated like that. As it is now, the USA has a ridiculous gap in GDP when compared to Japan & Germany, but coincidentally it also spends ridiculously more money on military and things related to it. Even more amazing that GDP gap is when considering how USA has the worst energy efficiency of so-called developed nations (excluding former east-block), which leads to severe handicap in export markets.

EDIT: Oops, originally I was just going to post this one but my mind wandered haha
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4212656,00.html
"Israel asks US for $700 million in military aid"
Jerusalem requests Washington to allocate funds for more Iron Dome, Magic Wand anti-missile batteries. Deal will provide Israel with near-complete missile defense until 2015
If US support for Israel is removed, just exactly how prosperous & powerful would it remain?

Originally posted by beiren:

EDIT: Oops, originally I was just going to post this one but my mind wandered haha
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4212656,00.html
"Israel asks US for $700 million in military aid"
Jerusalem requests Washington to allocate funds for more Iron Dome, Magic Wand anti-missile batteries. Deal will provide Israel with near-complete missile defense until 2015
If US support for Israel is removed, just exactly how prosperous & powerful would it remain?

I blame U.S. support for Israel on Germany. No Germany, no Holocaust, no Israel.

.....
From the BBC,

The Free Forces are attracting a new crowd, including students and middle-class professionals. Germans speak of a new generation of Kravattennazis, literally "Tie Nazis", as opposed to the traditional Stiefelnazis, or "Boot Nazis".

Apparently, it ain't over until it's over.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I blame U.S. support for Israel on Germany. No Germany, no Holocaust, no Israel.

In other words, it's all Bismarck's fault

Yup.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Yup.

Sink the Bismarck in a cup of coffee. That'll show em.

Israel and Judiasm in general has well milked the second world war. Interestingly the figures Jaybro for Auschwitz have been reduced yet again but it won't stop the misuses of stats. There have other Holcausts elsewhere. Cambodia comes to mind with over a million. Then there is of course the USSR which can on a H of a lot more than the Nazi bunch. Those starved to death multiply the couple of million dead under the Nazis even before you get to the Kulags.

Will Israel get even more money and military aid than it already gets? Of course it will! The Jewish lobby is amongst the big boys when it come to lobbying on the 'Hill then throw in the fanatical evangelicals on the far rightist mob misusing Bible history and everything will be Kosha. Why stop at Bismarck? Let's keep going back to the Holy Roman Empire or the Huns.Yeah that sounds about right. Heavens the Yanks will be blaming us next for letting them win the Revolution and being responsible for the utter mess made of the place today. And before the Grand Rapids sage slips it in you can expect that to be the case.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Interestingly the figures Jaybro for Auschwitz have been reduced yet again but it won't stop the misuses of stats.

It sure won't stop your misuse of stats....

Originally posted by rjhowie:

There have other Holcausts elsewhere. Cambodia comes to mind with over a million. Then there is of course the USSR which can on a H of a lot more than the Nazi bunch. Those starved to death multiply the couple of million dead under the Nazis even before you get to the Kulags.

You didn't mention the British Empire, Mr Howie. Why not? It potentially killed more than Hitler and Stalin put together. Surely in a list of genocidal regimes, you'd have to mention the British Empire....

You're not embarrassed are you? Or was your education found wanting in this regards?

Originally posted by katsung47:

Originally posted by Virusboy:

Originally posted by katsung47:

911 did the same way. The insulator of the WTC was asbestos. It was forbidden by the later rule of construction. WTC thus became a hot potato in real estate market. The cost to tear down WTC would be high - equal to build a new one. Then we saw 911, they let insurance company to pay for the money.

no. just stop looking like a dumbfuck before you turn into a fucktard.
the reason 911 happened, it wasn't the "cancer" causing issue, it was the gov't wanting more control.

A thief planned to steal a car. When he committed the crime, he found there was a motercycle, so he stole that motorcycle along with the car. The main purpose of 911 was to passing through the Patriot Act and to justify the war on Mid-east. To pick up WTC as target was for side economic benefit. What I talked about was about a sub-factor of 911 which can repeat in coming Iran war. Nobody would think that Iran war originates from "saving money to decompose Enterprise". That's your misundersanding.

Are you implying that 9/11 was an inside job to destroy the world trade center because of the asbestos issue and so that they can pass the Patriot Act and declare war on the middle east. Great reasoning. Kill millions of people, incite a public scare, just so they can save money, snoop on people, and declare war. Did you know one of the targets is the Pentagon and the White House (possible target for the downed plane)?

Asbestos is still in hundreds of thousands of buildings across the States. Anything built before the mid 1980s probably has asbestos. If Katsung were right, it would take an apocalypse to bring down all the buildings in NYC alone that have asbestos, much less the rest of the country. The apartment I lived in in Carol Stream, IL was built in the mid-1970s, and amongst the instructions in the lease was a warning about drilling holes greater than a quarter-inch in diameter because of asbestos. So, asbestos as a reason for destroying the WTC simply won't do. It's in way too many older buildings, and to accept that as the reason is to have to ask why no other buildings are being hit with airliners, since that seems to be the accepted method for bringing down old buildings with asbestos.

(Funny thing: I've seen a high school recently being remodeled, and in the course of the remodeling asbestos removal was a big part of the job. Not an airliner in sight, but plenty of plastic sheeting and guys in hazmat suits removing the material.)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Asbestos is still in hundreds of thousands of buildings across the States. Anything built before the mid 1980s probably has asbestos. If Katsung were right, it would take an apocalypse to bring down all the buildings in NYC alone that have asbestos, much less the rest of the country. The apartment I lived in in Carol Stream, IL was built in the mid-1970s, and amongst the instructions in the lease was a warning about drilling holes greater than a quarter-inch in diameter because of asbestos. So, asbestos as a reason for destroying the WTC simply won't do. It's in way too many older buildings, and to accept that as the reason is to have to ask why no other buildings are being hit with airliners, since that seems to be the accepted method for bringing down old buildings with asbestos.

(Funny thing: I've seen a high school recently being remodeled, and in the course of the remodeling asbestos removal was a big part of the job. Not an airliner in sight, but plenty of plastic sheeting and guys in hazmat suits removing the material.)

Strange that we are agreeing on something for once. It seems quite strange to think that September 11 was an inside job to destroy the World Trade Center because of asbestos. How about the Pentagon? No body mention that in this thread. Was it chosen as a target because as asbestos as well? Also, millions of people died due to the action of the terrorists. Iran may not be involved directly but their aggressive war like attitude is of concern. But the 9/11 attacks was carried out by the bin Laden's al quida terrorist group and not Iran.

On a side note, if aliens attack the Earth, can we count on Iran, North Korea, and the terrorists to help defend it or will they side with the aliens to destroy it.

Ever see them detonate a building? First, of course, the old tenants have moved out. Anything salvageable is stripped from the building. Anything that might create a hazmat situation will be removed. Then, explosives are carefully placed in the building. On the day of the blast, everybody in buildings surrounding the building to be brought down are evacuated, since even on the most controlled blast there's a chance of something going wrong.

You don't choose commercial airliners to bring down a building in a controlled demolition. Too many chances of something going wrong, too many chances of the situation getting out of control. You do not bring down a building with tenants still in it. Sorry, Kat-- this theory won't work.

Edit, add-on: Kat mentions having the Enterprise sunk in an "act of war" to justify war with Iran. I have doubts that this would be done. Ship-breaking in the yards is well established. The Enterprise has eight reactors (the only carrier with this many reactors, all the other carriers are powered by two reactors). Deliberately sinking this ship creates a huge atomic problem, with reactors at the bottom of the ocean that would have to be monitored forever. It's better to bring her into the yard, break her up properly, remove the atomic fuel and deal with it in a way that can be monitored as safely as possible.

These days, sometimes they may choose to remove the reactors, remove hazardous materials, and then sink the rest of the ship as a man-made reef. It's also possible, after the sensitive stuff has been removed, to turn the rest of the ship into a museum. Enterprise is one of the first nuclear-powered surface ships, and therefore historic.

It is interesting to note here that Americans seem just to accept in parrot fashion what they are told about Iran or swerve off into something else. One assumes that is because they cannot justify their political and media masters stupidity over Iran. What else can we do but assume that?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It is interesting to note here that Americans seem just to accept in parrot fashion what they are told about Iran or swerve off into something else. One assumes that is because they cannot justify their political and media masters stupidity over Iran. What else can we do but assume that?

RJ, I reckon the same might be said about your parroting whatever nonsense Katsung cooks up because neither of you have much use for "the ex-colonies". These days, I figure you both for about the same degree of reliability concerning this kind of thing.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It is interesting to note here that Americans seem just to accept in parrot fashion what they are told about Iran or swerve off into something else. One assumes that is because they cannot justify their political and media masters stupidity over Iran. What else can we do but assume that?

RJ, I reckon the same might be said about your parroting whatever nonsense Katsung cooks up because neither of you have much use for "the ex-colonies". These days, I figure you both for about the same degree of reliability concerning this kind of thing.

I wonder why rjhowie hates the US so much.

There are many many rumors about 9/11 and that it's an inside job.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories for ALL conspiracies regarding 9/11 .

Originally posted by wikipedian:

There are many many rumors about 9/11 and that it's an inside job.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Great reasoning. Kill millions of people, incite a public scare,...

Millions???
Did you plan in advance all victims of Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever might be on the to-do list as well?

Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations

According to a survey from January 2011, conducted by TNS Emnid, one of the largest polling institutes in Germany, nearly 89,5 percent of Germans do not believe the U.S. government explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001.

Interesting the discrepancy with the findings for Germany at least, from the University of Maryland, College Park presented by Wikipedia.
However, the TNS Emnid survey was made 2 years later.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

There are many many rumors about 9/11 and that it's an inside job.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Great reasoning. Kill millions of people, incite a public scare,...

Millions???
Did you plan in advance all victims of Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever might be on the to-do list as well?

Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations

According to a survey from January 2011, conducted by TNS Emnid, one of the largest polling institutes in Germany, nearly 89,5 percent of Germans do not believe the U.S. government explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001.

Interesting the discrepancy with the findings for Germany at least, from the University of Maryland, College Park presented by Wikipedia.
However, the TNS Emnid survey was made 2 years later.

But you can't deny many people died that day. I was under impression that it was millions. Also, didn't the terrorists declare they did it? Are you saying the government hired the terrorists?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

There are many many rumors about 9/11 and that it's an inside job.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Great reasoning. Kill millions of people, incite a public scare,...

Millions???
Did you plan in advance all victims of Iraq, Afghanistan and whatever might be on the to-do list as well?

Polls Show Widespread Doubt About Official Explanations

According to a survey from January 2011, conducted by TNS Emnid, one of the largest polling institutes in Germany, nearly 89,5 percent of Germans do not believe the U.S. government explanation of what happened on September 11, 2001.

Interesting the discrepancy with the findings for Germany at least, from the University of Maryland, College Park presented by Wikipedia.
However, the TNS Emnid survey was made 2 years later.

But you can't deny many people died that day. I was under impression that it was millions. Also, didn't the terrorists declare they did it? Are you saying the government hired the terrorists?

Krake might have you on that one. I don't have exact figures, but I remember the death toll on 9/11 was somewhere between two and three thousand. Most of them died at the Twin Towers.


Edit, quickie update: The number was 2,996, including the 19 hijackers. 2,977 not counting them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

Originally posted by wikipedian:

I was under impression that it was millions.

Never bothered to look up during the past ten years?

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, didn't the terrorists declare they did it? Are you saying the government hired the terrorists?

What I think is nonrelevant. Rather important might be what people all over the world are thinking.

Yeah we all know about the master mind named Usama from our mainstream. That's why Afghanistan was bombed first of all. Wasn't it? Allegedly they didn't want to hand him over.

Now try a Google search for "bin laden never charged for 9/11" and see what you get.

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

I was under impression that it was millions.

Never bothered to look up during the past ten years?

I did and I forgot. I think I was doing some wars during my history class and must have mixed up the numbers

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, didn't the terrorists declare they did it? Are you saying the government hired the terrorists?

What I think is nonrelevant. Rather important might be what people all over the world are thinking.

Yeah we all know about the master mind named Usama from our mainstream. That's why Afghanistan was bombed first of all. Wasn't it? Allegedly they didn't want to hand him over.

Now try a Google search for "bin laden never charged for 9/11" and see what you get.

What you think is relevent since you are wrong. Osama himself declare war on the west.

Also have you seen this video:


Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ky2WKqmrnnI

715. War as a distraction in April 14 plot (4/14/2012)

The Feds used to create big events to distract the framed case as I always said. In this April 14 plot they prepared a war.

1. War crisis in Korea Peninsula. North Korea announced to launch a ballistical missile between 4/12 to 4/16. The core date is 4/14.

2. War on Iran.

World powers to hold talks with Iran on April 14:
BRUSSELS | Sun Apr 8, 2012
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/04/08/us-iran-nuclear-ashton-idUKBRE8370BD20120408

It's not a talk. It's an ultimatun. A war could have happened any time at US' will when April 14 talks started. Simply because Iran won't accept a "surrender" demand. Here is the rare report news:

US Gives Iran 'Last Chance' Warning

Obama demands concessions as crucial talks begin in Istanbul later this week

By Guy Adams

April 09, 2012 "The Independent" - -Iran must immediately close a large nuclear facility built underneath a mountain if it is to take what President Obama has called a "last chance" to resolve its escalating dispute with the West via diplomacy.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31029.htm

US Offers to 'Negotiate' if Iran Surrenders;

Thoughts on Negotiation Tactics; Obama Threatens War

By Mike Shedlock

April 09, 2012 "Information Clearing House" --- President Obama has stepped up the rhetoric against Iran with an offer to "negotiate". His offer is no offer at all, it is a demand to surrender.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article31034.htm

3. Eliminate any possible anti-war voice. Based on his religious stance, Pope will certainly against any new war. At this time, if the Iran war happens, his voice will be absent. Watch the time coincidence.

Could it Be? Another Resignation? “Pope Benedict to step down April 15 2012″ from Kauilapele's Blog

Posted by Ram Arjuna on March 9, 2012 at 12:00pm

http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.com/profiles/blogs/could-it-be-another-resignation-pope-benedict-to-step-down-april-

So all those events, INCLUDING 9/11 are orchestrated by the feds?

Originally posted by katsung47:

3. Eliminate any possible anti-war voice. Based on his religious stance, Pope will certainly against any new war. At this time, if the Iran war happens, his voice will be absent. Watch the time coincidence.

Could it Be? Another Resignation? “Pope Benedict to step down April 15 2012″ from Kauilapele's Blog

Posted by Ram Arjuna on March 9, 2012 at 12:00pm

http://2013rainbowroundtable.ning.com/profiles/blogs/could-it-be-another-resignation-pope-benedict-to-step-down-april-

Popes don't resign and when they die, another one is nominated. White smoke at the Vatican and habemus Papam.
The Feds will have to change their plans, unlike many others, Pope's voice will not be absent.

April 15, 2012 has come and gone. The Pope hasn't resigned. If he had, there's no possible chance the major media would have missed it. Everybody-- and I do mean everybody-- would know about it.

I guess Katsung is going to have to see the person who sold him that crystal ball and see about getting a refund.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

April 15, 2012 has come and gone. The Pope hasn't resigned. If he had, there's no possible chance the major media would have missed it. Everybody-- and I do mean everybody-- would know about it.

I guess Katsung is going to have to see the person who sold him that crystal ball and see about getting a refund.

You mean you haven't heard mjm? April 15th was cancelled by order of the industrial complex behind the US Government and a fake April 15th was substituted by one of their subsidiaries, the alqueda CIA LIasion Committee. The result was that April 15th came and went with no-one the wiser for it.

That is except thee and me and I'm not sure about thee.

None of you could survive even a cursory sniff test.

Didn't know the Papal white smoke could be sniffed...........gee.

Anyway had old Ratty resigned I would have been told.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

So all those events, INCLUDING 9/11 are orchestrated by the feds?

Of course, and the sole purpose is to inconvenience katsung and his wife

I say we have to find a way to make Kat's wife stay home! Every time she travels, the Feds cause earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes and wars to distract from it. So, make her stay home and maybe we can have a bit of peace.

1: the pope resigns with death.
2: katsung your hopeless cause
3: anyone who puts faith in the pope or his insane aspects are only fooling themselves.
can anyone tell me the god of which the fools speak of?

Whatever you said, there is a pressure of resignation on Pope. That's rarely seen before.

Quote, "Should Pope Benedict XVI resign as he grows older?

Sun, Apr 15, 2012 12:01 PM EDT - FOX News 1:32

The Pope turns 85 on Monday

http://screen.yahoo.com/should-pope-benedict-xvi-resign-as-he-grows-older-28959398.html

Just for a wee change thought I would drift back to the actual thread.....

For me, I don't think that the USA will militarily attack as it is too stretched trying to rule or influence th rest of the world (250,000 peronell across the globe!). It does need to control Israeland there is no point saying that would be difficult. America funds not only their military but as it cannot finance itself through aid there too. If the Israelis are stupid enough to do an attack say in the summer they would have big problems and so would the USA. Firstly, Iran ' defence shiled is well protected and not eassy meat. Secondly, it would respond in kind. Thirdly thatfantical rightist nut who is the Israeli Prime Minister does not have all of his country behind him in any attack. American intelligencde agencies and indeed senior military men ahve actionally said that Iran does not have the bomb and not moving to it. However any attack by America's puppeteer in the Middle East could result in the Iranians maybe saying "Hell, let's just go for it." On a more local basis there are Iranian sleepers in the USA that could spread panic (usually quite easy there) by all sorts of outrages.

Not so long agao there was a daft report of an oil pipe vlown up in Saudi Arabia and you know what? The oild prices whent shooting up even before the truth came out. What the deuce do you thing would happen with any assault on Iran militarily? All Hell would break out across the world. This would effect the fragile economic state in America and other places. The final thing is that not all Iraniains want to go to war with Israel in return. They want to live reasonably normal lives, get on with life, get modern things and progre4ss. However an attack would unite them. Should any tragic happen before the US Presidential thing then there would be deep political upheaval in the land of the free.

RJ, i actually see Iran throwing the first punch. But not in a nuclear dawn of the sorts.

I'm not sure I see either Iran or the US starting things there. Both countries have too much to lose, since war there would almost certainly mean shutting the Straits of Hormuz. All the oil in the Persian Gulf has to pass through there, and shutting that strait would be catastrophic for both countries- as well as much of the rest of the world. If a truck driver from the American Midwest can figure that out, I'm reasonably certain the powers-that-be have that figured out too.

So, the problem comes from a renegade country. Somebody who wants to start some trouble.

Well there is an argument that your own country acts like a regenade often but masks it as freedom fighting. The more you and us get involved the more retaliation comes back at you. We could have learned that from the Israelis with their constant wish to do an eye for an eye which only gets you on a roundabout. What the excuse is for having 250,000 troops all over the globe apart from wanting to be imperial and top dog even if teetoring on the edge of a financial cliff.

Very gracious of you there dear Chicagoan confessing that view as a humble lorry driver. I am sure you work long and hard but your grey cells are not reposing so something to be grateful for. Anyway back to the routine. I do agree with you that the USA will not strike and have given a clear picture I reckon of the situation? However Israel is a different kettle of fish. It is not the first time they have caused irk in the oval office by going off at a tangent and knowing that their lobby is one of the biggest in the carnival-on-the-hill. Your president must behind the scense make it abundently clear to the jackboots in Tel Aviv chiefed by that rabid loose cannon of a Prime Minister that no attack must be made on any stupid pretext. Israel would be taking on a much more determined enemy in Iran and would suffer and so would the rest of us in the financial debacle that would as I said, follow. Maybe an everyday bloke like a Chicago lorry driver should have stood in the election. It would make a more genuine change than the big money backers and corporates who damn well run the Hill which is full of their trained monkeys.