See other Pious Perverts Articles
Title: BeAChooser Bozo Count at 40 Plus and Counting - A Possible Site Record
Source:
Minerva
URL Source: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45820&Disp=409#C409
Published: Feb 19, 2007
Author: Minerva
Post Date: 2007-02-19 21:59:28 by Minerva
Keywords: None
Views: 24097
Comments: 375
Last night I took a guess at Beachy's bozo count. Today he spilled the beans and indicated that the number I guessed, between 40 and 50, was substantially correct. What does this mean? Well .... it means he is a piss poor excuse for excuse for an advocate. Nobody takes him serious. This is probably why Goldi booted him.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-324) not displayed.
.
.
.
#325. To: robin, ALL (#320)
Now, robin, that is a complete misrepresentation of my posting history at LibertyPost. I have voiced many disagreements with Bush and the GOP. For starters, I was against their moving on where the crimes of the Clinton Administration and democRAT party are concerned. I even went so far as to accuse Bush and the GOP of being complicit in those crimes by ignoring them. And I've been on opposite sides of the fence in such matters as Campaign Finance Reform, the Senior Drug program, and working with Ted Kennedy to increase spending in schools (when all they do is propagandize children with democRAT ideas). I've been for building a fence along our southern borders to curtail illegal immigration and have made some very negative posts about Bush and the GOP for not doing that. And that's just off the top of my head. To claim that I am "always" siding with Bush and the GOP is only distortion and disinfo ... on your part. More disinfo. Those threads weren't on the "innocence" of Libby. They pointed out that the prosecution of Libby was POLITICALLY motivated, not a matter of law. They show that numerous others have done much worse and not been prosecuted (some would call that selective prosecution which is a violation of our Constitution). Also, those two articles show that others in this case (such as Wilson) actually did lie ... even lied to Congress. And nothing happened. But obviously you missed those little details in your *reading* of the two articles. I didn't smear her. I simply pointed out THE FACT that she claims (based on being there) that the hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across. Yet photos from that day (some of which I posted) clearly show the hole was much, much larger than that. She also claims (based on supposedly being there) that there was no debris from the plane. But again, photos and other eyewitnesses demonstrate that claim is untrue. So when she claims (based again on insider knowledge) that something about Iran is true, are we to believe her? She was inaccurate. Surely you aren't trying to claim the hole in the Pentagon was less than 20 feet across and there was no debris. Because I would be happy to post the photos proving that untrue again. ROTFLOL! You can't handle the notion that others, beside you, care about the truth? Rather than face that possibility, you'd rather believe that *someone* is paying *others* to post on tiny internet forums like FD4UM? ROTFLOL! I never threatened to report anyone, robin. More disinfo BY YOU.
So you think the only folks who read FD4UM are the hundred or so members who occasionally post?
I do believe readers who haven't been around the stage of life could be taken in by such a little tactic as putting in bold a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph as though that is the point while conveniently omitting anything which completes a person's thought on that particular matter. Imagine that......Disinformation 201. I am reposting the main part of rowdee's post, also highlighting the important part that makes Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski's eyewitness, (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means she was there at the Pentagon on 9/11), account totally believable and accurate. BAC highlighted the previous sentence, which is just another example of his disinfo technique as noted by rowdee in her post.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Why bold that part and not the part about the hole being "no larger than 20 feet in diameter", robin? Are you claiming she remained at the Pentagon for 30 to 40 minutes after the attack and watched the facade collapse? Maybe she did but does this in any way make her "no larger than 20 feet in diameter" hole claim accurate? Does the statement that the roof line remained relatively straight change that claim about hole size in any way? Isn't it the 20 foot diameter claim that is used to assert that a commercial jet didn't hit the Pentagon, not the claim that the facade didn't collapse right away or remained relatively straight? Why bold the part you did, robin? It doesn't seem to me the key claim. Now in case you missed the photos that prove the 20 foot claim is nonsense, here:
I do believe readers who haven't been around the stage of life could be taken in by such a little tactic as putting in bold a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph as though that is the point while conveniently omitting anything which completes a person's thought on that particular matter. Imagine that......Disinformation 201. I am reposting the main part of rowdee's post, also highlighting the important part that makes Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski's eyewitness, (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means she was there at the Pentagon on 9/11), account totally believable and accurate. BAC highlighted the previous sentence, which is just another example of his disinfo technique as noted by rowdee in her post. Since BAC only highlighted the previous sentence, and rowdee reposted his misleading post, she was counter-balancing that distortion by highlighting what the eyewitness, a Lt.Col. had also observed to show how he deliberately misled people in his "proof" that the Lt.Col. was inaccurate. And in the FULL CONTEXT, SHE WAS MOST ACCURATE. BAC is 100% DISINFO. He only makes my point with every post. BTW, the Scooter Libby threads BAC posted were trying to claim that Scooter was innocent AND that it was politically motivated. More disinfo. In I call for Justice" the author states: I call for justice for Scooter Libby because he has had none in this ridiculous matter. But at whose door do I stand to shout my curses? Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame who cooked up a series of lies to undermine the Administration in the middle of the war? Talk about disinfo on disinfo on disinfo. Where to begin? The facts, the courts, the judge and jury all say Scooter is guilty. The article claims he did not receive justice and then smears Wilson and his wife. Wow! The liars are in our midst trying to claim they haven't just posted disinfo before our very eyes.
Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Isn't the part about the hole being "no larger than 20 feet in diameter" the heart of her accusation, robin? Afterall, the supposed size of the hole is what makes it being caused by Flight77 *impossible*. Not the fact that that the facade didn't collapse for another 30 minutes or the roof line remained relatively straight. So why are your avoiding that part of her quote, robin? Do you believe the hole is "no larger than 20 feet in diameter"? Do you believe that one could still HONESTLY claim the hole was no larger than 20 feet given all the photos available showing a hole much larger than 20 feet? He did not say he was innocent. He said he didn't get JUSTICE. And there is a difference. Because JUSTICE should be blind. But it clearly wasn't in this case. Or a whole bunch of folks, including Wilson, would now be in jail. Hey robin, here's something for you to consider ... *********** http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OGZlYWYwMmVhMTQ1MDhkMWY3Zjc2MWI2NzgxMTVkYTQ= Libby [Bill Bennett] One simple observation about the Libby trial and the celebrations by the media, the Left, and the Joe Wilsons: Now that we have established that no rock and no expense will be left unturned and unspent, that no reporter involved will be left unsubpoenaed for leaking or even purportedly leaking a classified agent's name, when we have some suspicion that a person who works at the CIA might be covert (but turns out not to be): Can we please begin the investigation and subpoenaing of journalists—also known as witnesses to a crime—for leaking classified national-security information in a time of war?! —I'm not making a partisan point, I'm making a serious point about serious breaches of law and public endangerment; I'm not talking about disgruntled spouses with political differences with the president, I'm talking about the disclosure of the most serious war-time planning and procedures to keep our country safe. I'm talking about disclosing the secret detention facilities of high-value terrorists, I'm talking about the disclosure of terrorist surveillance programs, I'm talking about the disclosure of the Treasury Department's SWIFT program that tracked terrorist financing—all of which are now caput because insiders leaked to the press and the press willingly published these classified secrets—-NONE of the programs that were leaked were illegal, all of them were of great value, all of them are over or changed as a result of the disclosure. —Can we please start a serious investigation of those, and by all means subpoena the witnesses, that is to say the reporters. If you can do it to nail bit players in a seemingly innocent disclosure of Valerie Plame's name where her husband started the process, then you can certainly do it over serious anti-terrorism programs that were of the highest level of classification. —As for the import of Libby's conviction and Joe Wilson's allegations? I can't do better than Mark Steyn who wrote yesterday here on The Corner: "an anti-war deputy secretary of an anti-war department leaking to an anti-war reporter the name of an anti-war analyst who got her anti-war husband a job with an anti-war agency is supposedly an elaborate “conspiracy” by Cheney, Rove and the other warmongers. Looked at more prosaically, it’s a freak intersection of bad personnel decisions, which is one of the worst features of this presidency. So many of the Bush administration’s wounds come from its willingness to keep the wrong people in key positions: Tenet should not have been retained at the CIA, Armitage should not have been at State." **********
BAC - You and your freakin' lies! The purported entry hole is approximately 17 feet wide, with a broad range of peripheral damage - none of which allows for a 757 to enter. BAC, you are one slimy and stinking piece of shit!
Show me the entry "hole" bigger than 20 feet. There was a broad range of damage, but the central hole didn't exceed 20 feet. Well, asshole .............. ?
Looking to the purported There is no amount of damage to suggest anything "penetrating," greater than 20 feet. Notice the flames on the floor of the second story - the floor is still there. That also leaves less than 20 feet vertically, to fit the entirety of a 757. BUT - Let's say the wings folded. Did they spring back into shape, after penetrating the facade; like a switch-blade? If not, what caused that damage to the right side; you know, the part that collapsed? There is no forward-moving damage to the portion to the right of the purported entry hole - the damage is lateral. How does one do that, with a 300 Knot 757? C'mon, BAC, you fuck-face; give us your "facts!"
Just curious, SKYDRIFTER ... Which direction do you think the columns in this image have been displaced. To the left or the right?
i'm amused. ;)
boy, did you nail her/him on that one.
Which direction do you think the columns in this image have been displaced. To the left or the right? They are clearly displaced to the left - with no suggestion of 300 knot damage. Add that the obstructions deny that anything hit the columns from the front. Yeah, BAC, you continue to be a fucking LIAR!
The image isn't adequate to tell whether they are also displaced inward. But what would cause them to be displaced to the left, SKYDRIFTER?
But what would cause them to be displaced to the left, SKYDRIFTER? Bullshit, BAC! the columns are clearly not impacted by anything which approaches 300 knots - in any direction. Clearly some internal charges were used, thus the "event" time got displaced to a non-seismic time frame. Two fallen clocks say 9:31 - 9:32.
Internal charges would cause them to displace to the left?
Well, d'oh! The columns (wall panels) damned sure didn't displace to the right, on the right-hand side of the purported entry hole. That is to say, the wall panels, versus the 30-inch reinforced support columns, in the interior. Notice that the damage is at ground level, where the purported aircraft couldn't possibly reach. (Damn, BAC, you sure succeeded in getting this thread off-topic. But, you're still an asshole!)
Fewer than that, for anyone considering wading through your effluent.
Evidence and logic most certainly does support that assertion. The United States has spent more than a trillion to prosecute this conflict, and has incurred more than 40,000 casualties when mercenaries are included in the total. There have been tens of thousands of missions, both in the air and on the ground, and enormous quantities of ordnance expended which is continually being replaced with more ordnance that also gets expended. Yet magically all this ordnance never ever kills hardly anybody. There would be something seriously wrong with a supposedly powerful military spending tens of millions to kill every single person, and incurring casualties of its own at only a third of the casualties it causes. Your response is to bring in some wacky argument out of left field that it's really not a trillion because there are unspecified and unrealized "benefits" you make up out of the whole cloth, and to assert without any proof that if the casualties were that massive the Bush-hating media would surely report it. Even though all the media gave Bush free rein both to invade and continue the war. As far as you missing death certificate demagoguery, that has been completly annihilated on this thread. A newspaper simply added up the total deaths from a single Baghdad morgue, and the estimates from the Health Ministry for the violent deaths recorded at the hospitals, and said the total was far greater than those two numbers combined. But you in your typical spamming and obfuscatory style are trying to extrapolate those off-hand comments to an entire population. And again, last but not least, any death counts from hospitals and morgues has only a very tiny fraction of people killed by the Americans or their Iraqi puppets because military units do not kill people and then take their bodies to morgues and hospitals. So that means the military- caused deaths are a completely different number fron any hospital and morgue death totals.
Well I'm just curious about the forces involved. A displacement to the left would suggest a force coming from the right. Right? Have no idea what you are talking about, SKYDRIFTER. The plane could have reached everywhere there is damage in that image. You do know the dimensions of Flight77, don't you?
Well you've made your case, I've made mine. I'm content to let lurkers and visitors to FD4UM weigh the evidence presented by both of us and reach a conclusion. Not true. The US has not "spent" more than a trillion prosecuting the war in Iraq. No one is suggesting that. Hyperbole becomes you, AGAviator. No, because a trillion dollars has not been "spent" so far. I doubt you can find a responsible source that actually claims that. As to the benefits, the notion that there might be benefits is not wacky at all. What would be wacky is suggesting that there would be no benefit to turning Iraq into a wealthy, pro-American, anti-terrorist democratic republic in the middle of the arab world. What is wacky is suggesting there is no benefit to keeping Iraq from becoming a safe haven for al-Zarqawi style terrorists. The media has hardly given Bush a "free rein" to invade and continue the war. To even suggest that shows how out of touch you really are, AGAviator. Right. I'm more than content to let lurkers and visitors to FD4UM decide if that's really the case. The important thing is that now they know there were two sides to the story ... not just the one that FD4UMers have been spreading without debate. I'll close by repeating what IraqBodyCount had to say in summary (and they by no means point out all the problems with the John Hopkins work) and by directing folks to links that further explore the IBC points. ********** From http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php A new study has been released by the Lancet medical journal estimating over 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq. The Iraqi mortality estimates published in the Lancet in October 2006 imply, among other things, that: 1. On average, a thousand Iraqis have been violently killed every single day in the first half of 2006, with less than a tenth of them being noticed by any public surveillance mechanisms; 2. Some 800,000 or more Iraqis suffered blast wounds and other serious conflict-related injuries in the past two years, but less than a tenth of them received any kind of hospital treatment; 3. Over 7% of the entire adult male population of Iraq has already been killed in violence, with no less than 10% in the worst affected areas covering most of central Iraq; 4. Half a million death certificates were received by families which were never officially recorded as having been issued; 5. The Coalition has killed far more Iraqis in the last year than in earlier years containing the initial massive "Shock and Awe" invasion and the major assaults on Falluja. And this: If these assertions are true, they further imply: * incompetence and/or fraud on a truly massive scale by Iraqi officials in hospitals and ministries, on a local, regional and national level, perfectly coordinated from the moment the occupation began; * bizarre and self-destructive behaviour on the part of all but a small minority of 800,000 injured, mostly non-combatant, Iraqis; * the utter failure of local or external agencies to notice and respond to a decimation of the adult male population in key urban areas; * an abject failure of the media, Iraqi as well as international, to observe that Coalition-caused events of the scale they reported during the three-week invasion in 2003 have been occurring every month for over a year. In the light of such extreme and improbable implications, a rational alternative conclusion to be considered is that the authors have drawn conclusions from unrepresentative data. In addition, totals of the magnitude generated by this study are unnecessary to brand the invasion and occupation of Iraq a human and strategic tragedy. ************ http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/0.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/1.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/2.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/3.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/4.php
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
And what would those bozoing someone in order block receiving fact filled posts be?
that would be ignoring a fool. fuckwit. now put on your helmet and go outside and play, bitch.
“All of us should treasure his (John Dillinger) Oriental wisdom and his preaching of a Zen-like detachment, as exemplified by his constant reminder to clerks, tellers, or others who grew excited by his presence in their banks: "Just lie down on the floor and keep calm."” --- Robert Anton Wilson “Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.” --- Robert Anton Wilson
Let me tell you how it supposed to be; Should five per cent appear too small, (if speak about a car;) - I’ll spam about the whole damned street; Spam-man! 'Cause I’m the spam-man, Don't ask me what I do it for, (ah-ah, mister Bush) Now my advice about those who die, (spam-man) And you're working for no one but me. Never forget - I'm the Spam-man! Yeah, Yeah, Yeah - BAC's the Spam-Man!
A displacement to the left would suggest a force coming from the right. Right?
Well, d'oh; for sure, for sure! (Not to the tune of 300 knots at ground level! Something about no trenching in front of the building, add no obstacles pushed into the building.) Or, do you expect common sense to be 'credentialed?'
BAC'S story was a highly coordinated set-up with the help of goldilicks to get the spook and agent provacatuer an excuse to come here. He should be banned. He is not who he claims.
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may know peace." -Thomas Paine In a CorporoFascist capitalist society, there is no money in peace, freedom, or a healthy population, and therefore, no incentive to achieve these. BAC's on a mission, that's for sure. I suspect he was pre-placed for the Iran operation. Among other things, he's been way too polite for his usual style. I suspect Christine is keen to his possible motives and mission.
So what created that force if it wasn't from an impacting wing coming from the right?
ROTFLOL! Here's the real story, folks: http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=45230&Disp=75#C75 Isn't it amazing that so many FD4UM members are anxious to get rid of a poster who has been courteous, who hasn't labeled anyone or called anyone a name while at FD4UM, who hasn't been the least bit vulgar, who has posted hundreds of sourced facts about topics that should be of interest, and who has been willing to debate their accuracy whenever challenged? Instead of responding in kind, FD4UMers have used the bozo filter in large numbers to avoid reading any of those posts, have thrown out mountains of adhominems and directed rivers of vulgar language at that poster, have begged that poster to leave, have called for his banning, and are now suggesting without any proof whatsoever that he's part of some zionist conspiracy. ROTFLOL! Beware the dot!
Nobody likes or respects you, BAC; take a freakin' hint! In fact, I have to stand in line to despise you!
So what created that force if it wasn't from an impacting wing coming from the right?
Oh, you really wanted an answer - Obviously explosive charges. Note that the vertical members are displaced in near parallel. They are NOT compressed into each other. (Didn't notice, did you, asshole! That's not forward-moving energy from a 300- knot 757.) OR; would you have someone believe that the wing turned into a razor blade & slid underneath the breached members, at ground level? BAC, you're out-gunned on this one, cut your losses!
Obviously explosive charges. Note that the vertical members are displaced in near parallel. They are NOT compressed into each other. Hmmmm. I guess I left that out of my web site - Thanks for another editing lesson, BAC! You did it AGAIN! {:-)) {You just don't fucking learn, BAC!}
So you think they placed explosive charges on the face of the building and then set them off in coordination with whatever it was that hit the Pentagon? What did hit the Pentagon and what created the hole on the left side of the central hole? More explosives?
Your pretend audience again. Wise up. The treatment you got on ElPee is the rule, not the exception, of people reacting to you and your posts. It is true. Incurring debts, regardless of whether they are paid at the time of incurring the debt, is spending money under the accrual method of accounting which every reputable corporation uses. How many combatants and non-combatants have been killed? January 7 2006: Iraq War Could Cost $2 Trillion, Says Nobel-Prize-Winning Economist Ignoring for the moment the sheer lunacy of trying to offset real money spent with hypothetical feel-good arm-waving about Iraq being America-friendly...What evidence do you have at all that Iraq is on its way to your desired outcome of being wealthy, anti-terrorist, and not a safe haven for jihadis - Or Mahdi Army types. Cite some major publications or media outlets opposing the invasion in 2003, or even advocating an immediate and unconditional pullout at this late date, instead of trying to bluster and bluff your way out of this. Yes, Freedom4um has a "Silent Majority!" "ROTFLOL!" Iraq Body Count sits in its offices and compiles online media reports in English-speaking websites. If nobody bothered to post any reports of deaths in Iraq onto an English speaking website, as far as Iraq Body Count is concerned the deaths never happened.
COULD cost. Corporations do that all the time. Invest in POTENTIAL future returns. So do countries. Well up until recently, the statements of the soldiers over there. But now they are getting disheartened (curiously, since democRATS took over the House and Senate) so perhaps that outcome is looking a little less likely. How about Democracy Now's Amy Goodman? It airs on over 500 radio and television stations, on cable TV, and on satellite television networks in North America. You think she favored the invasion? http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/mooney-war.asp "Here’s what these six editorial pages did write, during the crucial six-week period between Powell’s speech and the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003. They ranged from hawkish without a shade of doubt (The Wall Street Journal and, to a lesser extent, the Chicago Tribune), to prowar but conflicted (The Washington Post and USA Today), to antiwar without United Nations approval (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times). None of these six unconditionally opposed war. Neither did any of them throw their weight behind intellectually appealing, but nevertheless unofficial, prowar arguments." And here's an example of how quickly major media began the effort to weaken America's will in what the administration was even then saying was going to be a long struggle: "The Death of Innocents",The New York Times, April 1, 2003. "It wasn't supposed to be like this. The Bush administration had envisioned a different kind of invasion in Iraq, one that would flood the Arab world with pictures of American soldiers feeding hungry people and giving medical attention to sick children. Instead, billions around the globe are seeing and hearing reports that women and children were gunned down yesterday while riding in a civilian van at an American checkpoint." The invasion was still underway. The focus was already on every possible bad thing they could highlight. And it still is... Here's another: The Washington Post , April 3, 2003, "The weekend before the war started, President Bush signed on to a statement with British Prime Minister Tony Blair pledging to "work in close partnership with international institutions, including the United Nations," in postwar Iraq and to seek a Security Council resolution to "endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration." Yet a secretive Pentagon-led group is already far advanced in plans to unilaterally install a postwar regime dominated by Americans and Iraqi exiles -- one that would effectively exclude not only the United Nations but also European and Middle Eastern allies whose support will be essential to stabilizing the country." How about this: The New York Times, April 9, 2003, "American broke Iraq." Or this: The Washington Post , April 16, 2003, "While about 100 Iraqi leaders met under U.S. auspices near Nasiriyah to talk about a democratic future for their country, thousands more were on the streets protesting the meeting, saying they objected equally to Saddam Hussein and to U.S. control over Iraq." The truth, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that most of the mainstream media's attention from day one has been focused on finding fault. Weakening America's will. Making America the bad guy. And if the American media had done the same thing in WW2, we'd have lost that war.
Fifteen months ago. Bass-ackwards. The Democrats got voted in because the soldiers and the general public started saying the war and the Administration's managment of it is a failure. She's a guest columnist. I'm referring to editorials, as evidence of your alleged Bush-hating/America-hating bias. Do you think there should be no guest columnists expressing contrarian views? In other words, they did not stand in Bush's way. Publicizing when American troops commit massacres weakens America's will? Yet you want your own free speech on this website. Absolutely correct. After the invasion So publishing stories about problems is anti-American. Real Americans just accept whatever the government says is true. You really are a sorry POS, and on a free speech website, yet. So people do whatever the media tells them. They can't think for themselves, which is why you want to control the media.
No, soldiers by and large still voted for Republicans. And the general public have been force fed the "we are losing line" by the mainstream media since almost the beginning of the war. Eventually, that had to take a toll on morale and will. Link ANYTHING at Democracy Now that has ever been favorable to the war. "prowar but conflicted (The Washington Post and USA Today), to antiwar without United Nations approval (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times)." And what they ALL proceeded to do was second guess everything the administration and military have done in Iraq. What they ALL preceeded to do was highlight the negative and virtually ignore the positive. If the media in WW2 had reported the war the way this group have, we'd have lost WW2. Massacres is YOUR characterization of it, AGAviator. The sad truth is that innocents die in wars. Always have and always will. In WW2 tens of millions of innocents died. We killed millions. And if the media had reported that conflict the way they've reported this one, the Axis would have won. And then what would the world look like today ... if there even was a world to look at? The Constitution is not a suicide pact. No, the invasion was still underway on April 9, 2003. This is a great example why the mainstream media was negative about US efforts from the beginning. And that has never changed. The US military and administration has been fighting 2 wars since the beginning. One in Iraq and one at home. And the one at home is the one that is losing the one in Iraq. Yes. It can be. War is about Will. Do things that harm your sides will and you are helping the enemy. Do things to bolster the will of the other side and you are helping the enemy. You may not call that anti-American but I do. Is POS a substitute for substantive arguments?
Comments (366 - 375) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest His history on LP and now here is one of only distortion and disinfo, always siding with the Bush regime and GOP talking points;
his two recent threads on the "innocence" of convicted Scooter Libby.
Or the smearing of anyone who presents facts that make the Bush regime look bad, like Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski.
In this post, rowdee displays the disinfo tactics employed by BAC, to try and make Karen Kwiatkowski appear inaccurate.
Since it is unlikely that anyone would waste their time doing this for free, it is a safe assumption that he is a paid shill.
On LP, patriots who tried to present the truth were threatened with being "reported" by posters just like BAC.
#326. To: AGAviator, ALL (#321)
With no support from posters, (s)he addresses remarks to a pretend audience of non-posters and claims to be winning the discussion.
#327. To: All, rowdee (#320)
"I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft constructed of relatively lightweight materials and designed for lift, loaded with passenger seating, luggage, odds and ends and passengers, going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the wide swath of the side of the building and the entire area of impact. But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this façade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#328. To: robin, ALL (#327)
"Rather, the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this façade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
... snip ...
I am reposting the main part of rowdee's post, also highlighting the important part that makes Lt. Col Karen Kwiatkowski's eyewitness, (for those of you in Rio Linda, that means she was there at the Pentagon on 9/11), account totally believable and accurate.
Left side and center hole damage 
central hole and right side damage 
Right side damage. 
Collage of what the damage looked like pre-collapse 
region impacted compared to size of plane 
light pole damage and damaged columns
#329. To: All (#327)
"I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft constructed of relatively lightweight materials and designed for lift, loaded with passenger seating, luggage, odds and ends and passengers, going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the wide swath of the side of the building and the entire area of impact. But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the façade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this façade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#330. To: robin, all (#329)
And in the FULL CONTEXT, SHE WAS MOST ACCURATE.
I call for justice for Scooter Libby because he has had none in this ridiculous matter.
#331. To: beachooser (#323)
For example, when SKYDRIFTER claims the hole in the pentagon was only 17 or 20 feet in diameter, and photos show that is totally untrue, does he get a suspension or termination?
#332. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#330)
..... showing a hole much larger than 20 feet?
#333. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#328)
#334. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#333)
There is no forward-moving damage to the portion to the right of the purported entry hole - the damage is lateral.
#335. To: AGAviator (#321)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#336. To: AGAviator (#321)
With no support from posters, (s)he addresses remarks to a pretend audience of non-posters and claims to be winning the discussion.
#337. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#334)
#338. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#337)
They are clearly displaced to the left
#339. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#338)
The image isn't adequate to tell whether they are also displaced inward.
#340. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#339)
Clearly some internal charges were used,
#341. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#340)
Internal charges would cause them to displace to the left?
#342. To: BeAChooser (#326)
So you think the only folks who read FD4UM are the hundred or so members who occasionally post?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#343. To: BeAChooser (#322)
I've made it quite clear numerous times that I don't object to the notion the number is twice or even three times that. Just not ten times that number. Because the evidence (and logic) simply does not support that assertion.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#344. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#341)
"Internal charges would cause them to displace to the left?"
Well, d'oh!
Notice that the damage is at ground level, where the purported aircraft couldn't possibly reach.
#345. To: AGAviator, ALL (#343)
"I've made it quite clear numerous times that I don't object to the notion the number is twice or even three times that. Just not ten times that number. Because the evidence (and logic) simply does not support that assertion."
Evidence and logic most certainly does support that assertion.
The United States has spent more than a trillion to prosecute this conflict,
Yet magically all this ordnance never ever kills hardly anybody.
Your response is to bring in some wacky argument out of left field that it's really not a trillion because there are unspecified and unrealized "benefits" you make up out of the whole cloth,
and to assert without any proof that if the casualties were that massive the Bush-hating media would surely report it. Even though all the media gave Bush free rein both to invade and continue the war.
As far as you missing death certificate demagoguery, that has been completly annihilated on this thread.
#346. To: christine (#336)
#347. To: gengis gandhi, christine, all (#346)
Intelligence is the capacity to receive, decode and transmit information efficiently. Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point. Bigotry, ideologies etc. block the ability to receive; robotic reality-tunnels block the ability to decode or integrate new signals; censorship blocks transmission.”
#348. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#349. To: gengis gandhi, ALL (#348)
"Stupidity is blockage of this process at any point.
#350. To: AGAviator, Christine, Critter, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#343)
There's line one from you, nineteen from me.
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
Be thankful I don't spam it all.
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
(if you try to stay put;) - I’ll spam about your feet;
(if you start to get cold;) - I’ll spam with all the heat;
(if you take a short walk;) - I'll spam about your feet.
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
If you don't want to pay attention. (ah-ah, mister Blair)
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
I’ll put a penny over each eye. (spam-man)
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
#351. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#350)
#352. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#351)
A displacement to the left would suggest a force coming from the right. Right?
#353. To: SKYDRIFTER, christine (#352)
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
- - IndieTX
#354. To: IndieTX (#353)
#355. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#352)
A displacement to the left would suggest a force coming from the right. Right?
Well, d'oh; for sure, for sure!
#356. To: IndieTX, ALL (#353)
BAC'S story was a highly coordinated set-up with the help of goldilicks to get the spook and agent provacatuer an excuse to come here. He should be banned. He is not who he claims.
#357. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#356)
ROTFLOL!
#358. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#357)
#359. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#358)
So what created that force if it wasn't from an impacting wing coming from the right?
#360. To: beachooser, Critter, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#359)
#361. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#359)
""So what created that force if it wasn't from an impacting wing coming from the right?"
Obviously explosive charges.
#362. To: BeAChooser (#345)
I'm content to let lurkers and visitors to FD4UM weigh the evidence presented by both of us and reach a conclusion.
The US has not "spent" more than a trillion prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Yet magically all this ordnance never ever kills hardly anybody.
No one is suggesting that. Hyperbole becomes you, AGAviator.
No, because a trillion dollars has not been "spent" so far. I doubt you can find a responsible source that actually claims that.
As to the benefits, the notion that there might be benefits is not wacky at all. What would be wacky is suggesting that there would be no benefit to turning Iraq into a wealthy, pro-American, anti-terrorist democratic republic in the middle of the arab world. What is wacky is suggesting there is no benefit to keeping Iraq from becoming a safe haven for al-Zarqawi style terrorists.
The media has hardly given Bush a "free rein" to invade and continue the war. To even suggest that shows how out of touch you really are, AGAviator.
Right. I'm more than content to let lurkers and visitors to FD4UM decide if that's really the case.
I'll close by repeating what Iraq Body Count had to say in summary
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#363. To: AGAviator, ALL (#362)
No, because a trillion dollars has not been "spent" so far. I doubt you can find a responsible source that actually claims that.
January 7 2006: Iraq War Could Cost $2 Trillion, Says Nobel-Prize-Winning Economist
Ignoring for the moment the sheer lunacy of trying to offset real money spent with hypothetical feel-good arm-waving about Iraq being America-friendly
What evidence do you have at all that Iraq is on its way to your desired outcome of being wealthy, anti-terrorist, and not a safe haven for jihadis - Or Mahdi Army types.
Cite some major publications or media outlets opposing the invasion in 2003,
#364. To: BeAChooser (#363)
January 7 2006: Iraq War Could Cost $2 Trillion, Says Nobel-Prize-Winning Economist
COULD cost.
What evidence do you have at all that Iraq is on its way to your desired outcome of being wealthy, anti-terrorist, and not a safe haven for jihadis - Or Mahdi Army types.
Well up until recently, the statements of the soldiers over there. But now they are getting disheartened (curiously, since democRATS took over the House and Senate)
Cite some major publications or media outlets opposing the invasion in 2003,
How about Democracy Now's Amy Goodman? It airs on over 500 radio and television stations, on cable TV, and on satellite television networks in North America. You think she favored the invasion?
Here’s what these six editorial pages did write, during the crucial six-week period between Powell’s speech and the beginning of hostilities on March 19, 2003. They ranged from hawkish without a shade of doubt (The Wall Street Journal and, to a lesser extent, the Chicago Tribune), to prowar but conflicted (The Washington Post and USA Today), to antiwar without United Nations approval (The New York Times and Los Angeles Times). None of these six unconditionally opposed war.
And here's an example of how quickly major media began the effort to weaken America's will in what the administration was even then saying was going to be a long struggle: "The Death of Innocents"
Yet a secretive Pentagon-led group is already far advanced in plans to unilaterally install a postwar regime dominated by Americans and Iraqi exiles -- one that would effectively exclude not only the United Nations but also European and Middle Eastern allies whose support will be essential to stabilizing the country."
How about this: The New York Times, April 9, 2003, "American broke Iraq."
The truth, whether you acknowledge it or not, is that most of the mainstream media's attention from day one has been focused on finding fault. Weakening America's will. Making America the bad guy.
And if the American media had done the same thing in WW2, we'd have lost that war.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#365. To: AGAviator, ALL (#364)
Bass-ackwards. The Democrats got voted in because the soldiers and the general public started saying the war and the Administration's managment of it is a failure.
How about Democracy Now's Amy Goodman? It airs on over 500 radio and television stations, on cable TV, and on satellite television networks in North America. You think she favored the invasion?
She's a guest columnist.
In other words, they did not stand in Bush's way.
Publicizing when American troops commit massacres weakens America's will?
Yet you want your own free speech on this website.
"How about this: The New York Times, April 9, 2003, "American broke Iraq.""
After the invasion
So publishing stories about problems is anti-American.
You really are a sorry POS, and on a free speech website, yet.
.
.
.