See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 9174
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 111.
#1. To: Hayek Fan (#0)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front. and here we were just talking about weird shit, 'they talk of days for which they sit and wait, when all will be revealed' Led Zeppelin, Kashmir. again, the old control paradigms evaporate in the face of novelty.
Wow! You maybe right, gengis, about spooky spooks operating on or perhaps even running (?) LP. I wonder if lurkers in addition to LP posters are nabbed by this sly gif ploy. Holy moley. Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm... A. And more... 26. To: Scrivener (#23) The meat of it starts here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178235&Disp=192#C192 After I caught PA hiding a one pixel .gif in his post, one of his responses to me was, "The question is, what are you hiding? What do you think you are hiding or hiding from?" The old "if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't mind me snooping around in your business." Also here: http://69.55.11.240/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=178117&Disp=115#C115 s2m seen2much posted on 2007-03-08 10:56:54 ET Reply Trace B. AND more.... 19. To: add925, PatrioticAmerican, seen2much, liberator, goldi-lox, Johnny99 (#17) What gives? Why the use of these imbedded images? Whats their purpose? Mighty suspicious, indeed. How companies track surfers The most common way to track surfers is a combination of images (sometimes called beacons, 1-pixel GIFs, tracking GIFs and so forth) and cookies. Company X’s website will have an image embedded in it. The image is hosted by Tracker Inc, so every time you view a page on Company X’s site, Tracker Inc gets a request for an image. The request typically contains encoded information. As a simple example, when you request http://www.companyx.com/shoppi ngcart.html, your browser might also request an image from http://www.trackerinc.com/tracker.gif? cartitem=ipod40gb. At the same time, your browser gets a cookie set on it, such as globalid=1234. This cookie identifies you when you go to Company Y’s website. Scrivener posted on 2007-03-09 14:05:47 ET Reply Trace
hmmm... is right
I was thrown off LP as well - hmmmm
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
In light of this information,if this was my site, I would dump BAC.
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
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!
THe reaction to you is not about whether you call somebody names. It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
Like this one?
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming. Carry on, fuckwit.
No, it's actually a perfect example of you not knowing what you are talking about and being unwilling to be corrected when you are wrong.
No, that would be these BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 07 02:13:00 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-07 19:39:19 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11- 08 12:51:48 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-09 10:28:44 ET So I accidently wrote billion instead of trillion a few times BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 20:25:08 ET” “I suspect all of us at one time or another in the heat of a debate [!!] have switched billions and millions and even trillions. BeALooser posted on 2006-12-01 19:19:29 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-12 22:48:21 ET” BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:00:34 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET BeALooser posted on 2006-11-13 00:25:26 ET Yet, intelligent people [!!] still knew what I meant. Still could see my point. They could tell I just transposed two similar words in the rush to respond to you BeALooser posted on 2006-11-30 14:39:06 ET "You tell us when that civil war happens because so far there is no sign of it." BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "Iraqi units made up of Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis are routinely operating together quite well" BeALooser posted on 2006-06-30 01:48:13 ET "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.." BeALooser posted on 2006-12-28 13:30:47 ET “I think you are a K**K if you think a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
No, unlike you I immediately acknowledged that I incorrectly wrote billion instead of trillion the moment it was pointed out. And of course, everyone on those threads knew what I had meant to say anyway. You, however, INSISTED that chart showed a 16 percent drop in housing prices despite multiple attempts to point out "the obvious". True. You really think this true? Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period?
b. Well how in the world did we manage to stay in a war that cost America 300,000 dead and missing over a 3 year period? a. Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not? You mean our soldiers would die eventually at old age around 75-80 like every one else? Or do you mean if our soldiers were not in Iraq your heroes, the war monger DC elites, would just have them fighting another useless war for lies elsewhere? b. Uh...hello, BAC, anyone home? We fought in World War II along with 2 other allies, who suffered incredible losses, against nations with standing armies in uniforms that had declared war on us. Iraq did not declare war on us. Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day for a nebulus war with no end in sight that we started for lies? Not to mention the fact that we are the laughing stock of the universe for having caused this war and our so called "coalition of the willing" ( say what?) pals are dropping off like flies because their own public are so pissed off at being a part of this Iraq invasion for Israel/Halliburton/Exxon charade.
Thousands and thousands of islamo-fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him? The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years? Why in my opinion, that is just as silly as AGAviator claiming housing prices went down 16% in that graph I posted.
The why is not the issue here. AGAviator (and you?) object to the notion that this country could sustain 9 KIA a day for years and years? Let me be clearer to you - why SHOULD we sustain 9 KIA American citizens for a war for lies? Your Zarqawi tale ( even if it were true) did not give us authority to invade Iraq, which was no threat to our nation. We invaded Iraq for Israel mainly and the defense industry and oil industry were served as secondary interests. Our American citizen soldiers should not be fighting and dying at 1 KIA per day never mind 9 KIA per day for the national security interests of a foreign nation, which does not even want to sign a mutual defense treaty with America. BeAChooser, do you feel our American soldiers should die for Israel's national security interests? http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 "IRAQ:War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser" ...Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow...
Not the issue. AGAviator claimed we could NOT sustain such losses. 300,000 plus dead and missing in WW2 proves that isn't true. It is true. Didn't you pay any attention to the news? The terrorists were even convicted of the plot. One of those convicted was al-Zarqawi. Not the question. What would you have done about al-Zarqawi if he'd killed a few hundred or thousand Americans in such a plot (not to mention tens of thousands of Jordanians) given that Saddam wasn't doing anything to curtail his activities? Well, that's your opinion. Again, your opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. So are "advisors".
a. Oh my, do I detect seething white hot anger in the ever so polite and civil, BeAChooser, because I used the name of Precious ( aka Israel) in vain? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Do you wuv Israel, BAC, so much that you believe American citizen-soldiers should fight and die in ME wars for Israel's benefit? Please answer my question. b. As for Philip Zelikow's position and stature... I got news for you, Boozer, Philip Zelikow is not just a run of the mill "advisor" as you would like the lurkers/visitors to think. Professor Philip Zelikow was appointed by the President of the U-S-A ( the highest elected officer in the land)to be the Executive Director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on America in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission. Professor Zelikow is a big shot. Get it, BAC? Also, Professor Zelikow is Jewish American so don't try to claim he is a KKK white supremacist or an anti-semite ( favorite character assassination techniques). "...Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda. "And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow..." c. Also, the highly esteemed Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, from U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research study in March 2006 that confirmed what Zelikow said - the Iraq invasion was mainly for Israel's benefit. Israel refuses to sign a mutual defense treaty with America. It would appear that Israel can't be bothered to fight and die for America. Nice.
Psychoanalysis is obviously not your forte. I don't believe I've ever actually used those techniques. Could setting up strawmen be one of your favorite debating techniques? But let's see what one can find on Zelikow that doesn't involve the KKK or charges of anti-semitism. Well first, because he was executive director of the 9/11 Commission, I'll bet he doesn't think bombs/missiles/DU/energybeams/nukes brought down the WTC or damaged the Pentagon. Should I use him as a reference when debunking those accusations? I also bet he doesn't think Bush lied us into war. And found this from none other than Zelikow regarding your assertion: ********** http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n10/letters.html From Philip Zelikow In their essay ‘The Israel Lobby’, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt invoke comments made by me as evidence for a controversial assertion of their own concerning the motives for the US invasion of Iraq (LRB, 23 March): Readers may find it interesting to know what I actually said and how Mearsheimer and Walt appear to have misused my comments. My talk was on 10 September 2002 at a 9/11 anniversary symposium. I argued that possession of nuclear (or biological) weapons by Saddam Hussein would be very dangerous. Reflecting on my White House work during the Gulf War in 1990-91, I did point out that I believed then, and later, that the most likely direct target of an Iraqi WMD attack would be Israel, but that policymakers had no wish to emphasise this. That said, any US or European government, in 1991 or later, would rightly have regarded an Iraqi nuclear attack on Israel – or on any other country – as a horrific prospect they would do much to prevent. Neither of these conclusions – that Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons would be dangerous, or that Israel might be most directly threatened by such weapons – was especially remarkable. These things were understood in 1991. Iraq tried very hard to pull Israel into that war and its politics, ultimately even bombarding Israel with ballistic missiles. The coalition laboured successfully to thwart Saddam and keep Israel out of that war. None of this, though, bore on the question of what to do about a possible Iraqi WMD programme in 2002. On that issue – whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq – I expressed no view in my September 2002 talk, or on any other public occasion during those years. Nor did I try to explain why the Bush administration went to war, either in 2002 or after the invasion in 2003 or 2004. And in those years I had little special knowledge of those motives. My work on the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (from which I resigned in February 2003) had not involved Iraq. So how did my views wind up in Mearsheimer and Walt’s essay as evidence that Bush went to war in part for Israel? In 2004, local reports of my September 2002 comments were discovered by the Inter Press Service. To put it mildly, that body has a strong political point of view. It circulated on the web an article headlined ‘War Launched to Protect Israel – Bush Adviser’. Without any evidence other than the old September 2002 quotes, the article’s lead was: ‘Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.’ The claim has bounced around the internet ever since. Mearsheimer and Walt cite this article, which they found in Asia Times Online, as their source for my comments. The original slur did not deserve a response, but the situation is different when it is repeated by two accredited scholars, and endorsed by publication in the LRB. The claim still has three holes. First, like most of the world, I did think that, if Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, this would endanger the interests of America and the world in several ways, including the direct threat of a possible strike on Israel. Second, I did not state an opinion about whether this should be a cause for war in 2002-03. Third, I did not state an opinion – or even have any special knowledge – about the motives of the Bush administration in going to war in 2003. I hope that readers will contrast these points with what Mearsheimer and Walt wrote in the passage quoted above. Readers will also notice that the passage leads with a reference to the ‘Lobby’, of which I am clearly presumed to be a part. There is no evidence for that either. Philip Zelikow *********** Well ... I guess the above letter from Zelikow shows the falseness of that claim and casts further doubt on the credibility of those two "esteemed" professors. I'm surprised you hadn't seen this letter, scrapper. It was linked in the very first hit I encountered when I used my web browser with the search phrase "Philip Zelikow". Gee ... wish I wasn't on a self-imposed laugh ban.
Gee ... wish I wasn't on a self-imposed laugh ban. I read all the letters of American Jews that disputed or attacked Drs. Mearsheimer and Walt's study findings, including Philip Zelikow's. Duh. And why are we not surprised? I got news for you - other Jewish Americans whom one might consider to be unorthodox voices in the Jewish academic community all did their perfunctory letters or articles or statements to dismiss M&W research paper including Dr. Finkelstein and Dr. Chomsky. Btw,you can also read wikipedia's article on Zelikow and what he said at the Foreign Intel Conference and how he later back pedalled. It's not so hidden an event, Inspector Clouseau- BAC. Regardless, where's the incongruity to what I said earlier? I showed that Zelikow was the first and a very high up person in DC political affairs to say that the Iraq War was for Israel's benefit and Mearsheimer and Walt later published a study that confirmed what Zelikow said. If Zelikow tries to recant what he said - uh how does that take away from M&W's research paper? Their text was 40 pages long and their bibliography with a host of various sources was 38 pages long. Zelikow was one of hundreds of sources of information for their paper. Btw, here's the full text of the article I quoted Zelikow's statements, which you did not read obviously. It puts his remarks in very good context. http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23083 IRAQ: War Launched to Protect Israel - Bush Adviser By Emad Mekay WASHINGTON, Mar 29 (IPS) - IPS uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the United States in September 2001 -- the 9/11 commission -- in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch U.S. ally in the Middle East. Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of President George W. Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of former president Hussein and its concern for Israel's security. The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States. Zelikow made his statements about ”the unstated threat” during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003. ”Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel,” Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation. ”And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,” said Zelikow. The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state. The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ”war on terrorism” it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States. Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars. Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as ”Piffy-ab”, the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as ”code word” that is higher than top secret. The national security adviser to former President George H.W. Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office. Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and email messages from IPS for this story. Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganising and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritising its work. Richard A. Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor President Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings, said Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000. Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany. Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official -- Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the ”Muslim Middle East”. Aside from his position at the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Centre of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body. In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of ”scarce hard currency” to harness ”communications against electromagnetic pulse”, a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications. That was ”a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange -- they (Iraqi officials) were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis”, according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the United States, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas. ”Play out those scenarios,” he told his audience, ”and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it”. ”Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel'? Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant.” To date, the possibility of the United States attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up. ”Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component,” said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. ”But this is a very good piece of evidence of that.” Others say the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. ”They (the administration) made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it,” said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East. But he downplayed the Israel link. ”In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat,” he said. Still, Brown says Zelikow's words carried weight. ”Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than Wolfowitz, or Rice or Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made,” Brown said. (END/2004) Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
#113. To: BeAChooser, All (#111)
BeAChooser, let your fingers do the tapping on your keyboard and ask those very questions of the men who referenced Emad Mekay's article and who praised him. Here are the email address(es) you should use: a. John J. Mearsheimer University of Chicago - Department of Political Science j-mearsheimer@uchicago.edu b. Stephen M. Walt Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government stephen_walt@harvard.edu Postscript: To enhance author privacy, SSRN uses software to prevent mechanical harvesting of email addresses. Anonymous users are allowed 3 email address requests each day.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#3. To: gengis gandhi, Hayek Fan, robin, christine, Brian S, Neil McIver, aristeides, AGAviator, BeAChooser, bluedogtxn, leveller, Burkeman1 (#1)
don't need a crystal ball to see that place as a spook front.
#5. To: scrapper2 (#3)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#6. To: robin, scrapper2 (#5)
Good thing for you, BAC, that you were thrown off LP by Goldi and you came here to 4um or you could be part of a spook operation...hmmm....or you would be part of a spook op...or you are part of ...hmmm...
#8. To: Destro (#6)
#9. To: robin (#8)
Many posters were thown off LP, but none with BAC's posting history.
#14. To: honway, christine, skydrifter (#9)
(Edited)
#23. To: IndieTX, honway, christine, SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#14)
BAC's false story about being "thrown off LP" was a set-up and coordinated with "goldilicks"...whoever he or she REALLY is..to give him an excuse to come here and invade. He is a spook and agent provacteur. I would BAN him if I owned this forum as well. As it is, all should BOZO him immediately.
#59. To: BeAChooser (#23)
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?
#62. To: AGAviator, ALL (#59)
It's about your obnoxious, thread-spamming, and frequently irrelevant remarks which you repeat over, and over, and over, and over - combined with a shameless acceptance of any claims the Bush Administation has to make explaining its actions.
#63. To: BeAChooser (#62)
#64. To: AGAviator, ALL (#63)
Your use of that chart on this thread is a perfect example of your thread- spamming.
#65. To: BeAChooser (#64)
Post #92
"Since 9/11, the GDP of the US has increased by something on the order of 2 TRILLION dollars a year."
"You clearly made the claim that the rise in government expenditures was responsible for the tremendous increase in GDP (to the tune of 2 billion a year) by the end of the five years since 9/11."
"You made the claim that the 2 trillion dollar increase per year in GDP is mostly government spending."
"Yet, the GDP has gone from about 10 billion to about 12 billion a year ... a 20 percent increase"
“Obviously I meant $2 trillion"
“Total government spending… was roughly 2.75 trillion dollars. A 33 percent increase would amount to 900 million
"OK. So I was wrong...Big deal. "
“But it is clearly what I meant" [!!]
“So my language was sloppy. Sue me."
“I meant billion. Sue me."
“I'm just tired"
You were off by a factor of a thousand.
BeALooser posted on 2006-06-29 19:16:07 ET
BeALooser posted on 2007-01-21 17:27:20 ET
#66. To: AGAviator, ALL (#65)
No, that would be these
"American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
“ a country this size can't sustain 9 KIA a day in a global war."
#67. To: BeAChooser (#66)
(Edited)
a. "American soldiers are going to die whether we are in Iraq or not. That's one of the facts the American public needs to face.."
#69. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, all (#67)
Uh...why would our soldiers die whether we were in Iraq or not?
Why should we be wanting to sustain a loss of 9 KIA a day
#74. To: BeAChooser (#69)
BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him?
#80. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#74)
why SHOULD we sustain 9 KIA American citizens for a war
Your Zarqawi tale ( even if it were true)
did not give us authority to invade Iraq, which was no threat to our nation.
We invaded Iraq for Israel
the defense industry and oil industry were served as secondary interests
#87. To: BeAChooser, All (#80)
(Edited)
Again, your opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen. So are "advisors".
#95. To: scrapper2, AGAviator, ALL (#87)
do I detect seething white hot anger in the ever so polite and civil
don't try to claim he is a KKK white supremacist or an anti-semite ( favorite character assassination techniques)
Pressure from Israel and the Lobby was not the only factor behind the decision to attack Iraq in March 2003, but it was critical . . . The war was motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure. According to Philip Zelikow, a former member of the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and now a counsellor to Condoleezza Rice, the ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The ‘unstated threat’ was the ‘threat against Israel’, Zelikow told an audience at the University of Virginia in September 2002. ‘The American government,’ he added, ‘doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell.’
Washington DC c. Also, the highly esteemed Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, from U of Chicago and Harvard, just published a research study in March 2006 that confirmed what Zelikow said - the Iraq invasion was mainly for Israel's benefit.
#106. To: BeAChooser (#95)
I'm surprised you hadn't seen this letter, scrapper. It was linked in the very first hit I encountered when I used my web browser with the search phrase "Philip Zelikow".
#111. To: scrapper2, ALL (#106)
Philip Zelikow claims he did not say in September 2002 that the present war in Iraq was motivated in good part by concerns about Israel’s security. He suggests that our reference to his remarks came from an unreliable source and says we ‘misused’ his comments. He implies that he was talking mainly about the 1990-91 Gulf War, not the US decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Furthermore, he maintains that he ‘expressed no view’ on ‘whether or when the US ought to go to war with Iraq’. None of these assertions is correct.
Emad Mekay, who wrote the Asia Times Online article we referenced, is a well- regarded journalist who worked for Reuters and the New York Times before moving to Inter Press Service, a legitimate news agency. He did not rely on ‘local reports’ in writing his story, but had access to a complete and unimpeachable record of Zelikow’s talk. He repeatedly tried to contact Zelikow while writing his story, but his inquiries were not returned.
Replies to Comment # 111. Why is Emad Mekay well regarded? What sort of corroboration did he get for his story? Is anyone else at the meeting quoted saying that's what he claims Zelikow said? I noticed in a little search that he and Asia Times have been unwilling to give his source for the supposed transcript he has. Hmmmmmm ... just curious. Why would this unnamed source decide to leak such an explosive story to a relatively unknown journalist working for a relatively unknown news outlet? And most of his articles concern financial matters so again, why him?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 111.
