See other World News Articles
Title: British Backtrack on Iraq death toll
Source:
Independent
URL Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2396031.ece
Published: Mar 27, 2007
Author: Jill Lawless
Post Date: 2007-03-27 06:38:41 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 29668
Comments: 394
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday. The Government publicly rejected the findings, published in The Lancet in October. But the BBC said documents obtained under freedom of information legislation showed advisers concluded that the much-criticised study had used sound methods. The study, conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and the Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, estimated that 655,000 more Iraqis had died since March 2003 than one would expect without the war. The study estimated that 601,027 of those deaths were from violence. The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636. The conclusion, based on interviews and not a body count, was disputed by some experts, and rejected by the US and British governments. But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice". Another official said it was "a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones".
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Bump
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win." --Mahatma K. Gandhi
Which of course means the death toll is probably double 600,000- at least.
But only one name is given. Who are the others? Did he address any of these concerns? No? Well then, ping me when he does. In fact, ping me if the full text of his "memo" is ever available. ****************** 1. The 655,000 estimate is many, many times larger than any other estimate out there (and there are about half a dozen others). Those other estimates were more like 50,000 at the time the John Hopkins study was published. Are they all wrong and only John Hopkins right? Even various anti-war groups such as Human Rights Watch and IraqBodyCount have indicated the John Hopkins' figures are outlandish. So why are FD4UMers so voraciously defending JH's estimates? 2. The report and the peer reviewer of the report (the Lancet) ignored a major discrepancy between the pre-war mortality estimate derived by the John Hopkins team and the estimates derived by other organizations such as the UN and WHO. The UN and WHO, in largers studies, came up with rates between 7-8 per 1000 per year compared to the John Hopkins rate of 5-5.5 per 1000 per year. And these larger rates were estimates that the Lancet had previously endorsed as accurate. This pre-war mortality number is one of the key numbers used in determining excess deaths. If it were as high as the UN and WHO found, then the number of excess deaths would be far less, perhaps a tenth as much. 3. A recent UN Development Program study, http://www.iq.undp.org/ILCS/PDF/Analytical%20Report%20-%20English.pdf, states that there were 24,000 war-related deaths (18,000-29,000, with a 95% confidence level) during the time covered by the Hopkins report. This is approximately ONE-FOURTH the number of excess deaths that Les Roberts' 2004 John Hopkins study found. And the UN used similar techniques - clusters, etc. - but with a much larger data set than John Hopkins. Why is there no mention of this study in the lastest John Hopkin's report (which claims its results verify the first JH report)? Why was this discrepancy not addressed by the Lancet *peer* reviewers? 4. According to the latest John Hopkins report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even if that investigation were off a factor of two, there is still a huge discrepancy. To take the Johns Hopkins results seriously, you have to believe that the Iraqi government recorded deaths occurring since the invasion with an accuracy of 92 percent, but then suppressed the bulk of those deaths when releasing official figures, with no one blowing the whistle. And you have to believe that all those dead bodies went unnoticed by the mainstream media and everyone else trying to keep track of the war casualties. Alternatively, you have to believe that the Iraqi government only issues death certificates for a small percentage of deaths, but this random sample happened to get 92 percent by pure chance. 5. A principle author of both John Hopkins studies, Les Roberts, has publically stated he disliked Bush (not unexpected given that he is an active democRAT) and the war. He has admitted that he released the study when he did to negatively influence the election against Bush and the GOP. And he has admitted that most of those he hired to conduct the study in Iraq "HATE" (that was his word) the Americans. None of that is a good basis for conducting a non-partisan study. 6. Nor is the behavior of the Lancet. They've not only failed to ask important questions during their *peer* reviews, they admit they greatly abbreviated that peer review process for the 2004 report so the results could be published in time to influence the 2004 election. They also reported on their own website in 2004, that the deaths estimated by John Hopkins were comprised solely of civilians. But the study made no such claim. In fact, it clearly states that the investigators did not ask those interviewed if the dead were civilians, Saddam military or insurgents. Which leads one to wonder if the Lancet actually read the report they claimed to review. 7. When media interviewers of the lead researchers completely misrepresented the results (for example, calling all the dead "civilians"), those researchers (one being Les Robert) made no effort to correct those falsehoods. And they went on to lie, both directly and by omission, about the methodology they used. This is indisputable. For example, here is what another of the John Hopkins researchers, Richard Garfield, told an interviewer: "First of all, very few people refused or were unable to take part in the sample, to our surprise most people had death certificates and we were able to confirm most of the deaths we investigated." That is a LIE since the first study (which is what he was talking about) indicates they only confirmed 7% of the deaths. And Les Roberts did the exact same thing in another interview. 8. In the Garfield interview mentioned above, he stated "And here you see that deaths recorded in the Baghdad morgue were, for a long period, around 200 per month." Let me repeat that figure ... 200 A MONTH, in one of the most populated and most violent regions in the country during the time in question. And now Les Roberts is asking us to believe that 15,000 (on average) were dying each month in the country since the war began. How could Garfield not have questions about this new estimate given his previous statement? 9. Richard Garfield is another of those who advocated mortality statistics before the war that are widely divergent from those derived using the Les Roberts/John Hopkins interviews. In fact, Richard Garfield said the most probable number of deaths of under-five children from August 1991 to June 2002 would be about 400,000. His *expert* opinion was that the rate in 2002 would was 9-10 percent. That is compared to the Les Robert's estimate of 2.9 percent. So why didn't Roberts or Garfield address this disparity? And note that the Lancet blessed and championed the conclusions of Garfield back in 2002. So why did they ignore the discrepancy during their peer review of Les Roberts' study? 10. There is NO physical evidence whatsoever to support the claim that 655,000 Iraqis were killed from the beginning of the war to mid 2006. There are no killing fields filled with bodies or mass graves. There are no photos of these mountains of bodies. There are no videos of this slaughter or the funerals afterwords. There are no reporters, of ANY nationality, saying they saw these bodies or the slaughter. There are no US or foreign soldiers providing evidence of such a slaughter. There is NO physical evidence. 11. Dahr Jamail is an example of the above. He is viralently anti-American. He has close ties to the insurgents and arabs. So look on his website ( http://dahrjamailiraq.com/) for any indication that 500, much less 100 Iraqis were dying every single day on average back in 2003 and 2004 when he first started reporting from Iraq, which was during the period covered by not only the second but the first John Hopkins study. You won't find any indication. 12. Last year was arguably the most violent since the invasion. Yet even the Iraqis reported the number killed was on the order of 16,000 in that year ... an average of 45 a day. That certainly stands in sharp constrast to the John Hopkins researchers (and their proponents) who claim that more than 500 a day have died every day on average since the invasion began. 13. But the discrepancy is even worse than that. As noted by the author of this blog, http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2006_10_08_archive.html#116069912405842066, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" 14. The number of dead the John Hopkins methodology gives in Fallujah is so staggering that even the John Hopkins researchers had to discard the data point. Yet in interviews, Les Roberts has responded as if the Fallujah data was accurate. For example, in an interview with Socialist Workers Online (note who he uses to get his message out), when asked why two thirds of all violent deaths were concentrated in this city, Les Roberts didn't respond "the data was wrong or atypical in Fallujah" as it states in his report. No, instead he answered the question as if he thought the data point was representative of what happened in Fallujah as a whole. He said "we think that our findings, if anything, underestimated the number of deaths because of the number of empty and destroyed houses." Then why didn't they keep the Fallujah data point? 15. John Hopkins claims "We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654,965 (392,979 - 942,636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2.5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601,027 (426,369 - 793,663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gun fire." But during World War II, the Allied air forces carpet bombed German cities, using high explosives and incendiaries, and according to The United States Strategic Bombing Survey Summary Report killed an estimated 305,000. So are we to believe that with gun fire rather than bombs, twice as many Iraqis have been killed in the last 3 years, as died in all Germany during WW2 due to strategic bombing of cities which completely flattened entire cities? Likewise, Japan had about 2 million citizens killed (about 2.7 percent of their population), both military and civilian. Many Japanese cities were firebombed during that war (for example, Tokyo had 100,000 people killed in just one raid). Two cities were attacked with nuclear weapons. And yet Les Roberts and his crew want us to believe that just as large a percentage have died in Iraq ... where the Coalition has gone out of its way to avoid civilian deaths? ****************
Here is what IraqBodyCount had to say in summary (and they by no means point out all the problems with the John Hopkins work): ********** 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. ************ Here are links that further explore the IBC points. 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 http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/5.php http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr14/6.php ***********
And here is something new ... ************* http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1469636.ece Could 650,000 Iraqis really have died because of the invasion? March 05, 2007 Anjana Ahuja The statistics made headlines all over the world when they were published in The Lancet in October last year. More than 650,000 Iraqis – one in 40 of the population – had died as a result of the American-led invasion in 2003. The vast majority of these “excess” deaths (deaths over and above what would have been expected in the absence of the occupation) were violent. The victims, both civilians and combatants, had fallen prey to airstrikes, car bombs and gunfire. Body counts in conflict zones are assumed to be ballpark – hospitals, record offices and mortuaries rarely operate smoothly in war – but this was ten times any other estimate. Iraq Body Count, an antiwar web-based charity that monitors news sources, put the civilian death toll for the same period at just under 50,000, broadly similar to that estimated by the United Nations Development Agency. The implication of the Lancet study, which involved Iraqi doctors knocking on doors and asking residents about recent deaths in the household, was that Iraqis were being killed on an horrific scale. The controversy has deepened rather than evaporated. Several academics have tried to find out how the Lancet study was conducted; none regards their queries as having been addressed satisfactorily. Researchers contacted by The Times talk of unreturned e-mails or phone calls, or of being sent information that raises fresh doubts. Iraq Body Count says there is “considerable cause for scepticism” and has complained that its figures had been misleadingly cited in the The Lancet as supporting evidence. One critic is Professor Michael Spagat, an economist from Royal Holloway College, University of London. He and colleagues at Oxford University point to the possibility of “main street bias” – that people living near major thoroughfares are more at risk from car bombs and other urban menaces. Thus, the figures arrived at were likely to exceed the true number. The Lancet study authors initially told The Times that “there was no main street bias” and later amended their reply to “no evidence of a main street bias”. Professor Spagat says the Lancet paper contains misrepresentations of mortality figures suggested by other organisations, an inaccurate graph, the use of the word “casualties” to mean deaths rather than deaths plus injuries, and the perplexing finding that child deaths have fallen. Using the “three-to-one rule” – the idea that for every death, there are three injuries – there should be close to two million Iraqis seeking hospital treatment, which does not tally with hospital reports. “The authors ignore contrary evidence, cherry-pick and manipulate supporting evidence and evade inconvenient questions,” contends Professor Spagat, who believes the paper was poorly reviewed. “They published a sampling methodology that can overestimate deaths by a wide margin but respond to criticism by claiming that they did not actually follow the procedures that they stated.” The paper had “no scientific standing”. Did he rule out the possibility of fraud? “No.” If you factor in politics, the heat increases. One of The Lancet authors, Dr Les Roberts, campaigned for a Democrat seat in the US House of Representatives and has spoken out against the war. Dr Richard Horton, editor of the The Lancet is also antiwar. He says: “I believe this paper was very thoroughly reviewed. Every piece of work we publish is criticised – and quite rightly too. No research is perfect. The best we can do is make sure we have as open, transparent and honest a debate as we can. Then we'll get as close to the truth as possible. That is why I was so disappointed many politicians rejected the findings of this paper before really thinking through the issues.” Knocking on doors in a war zone can be a deadly thing to do. But active surveillance – going out and measuring something – is regarded as a necessary corrective to passive surveillance, which relies on reports of deaths (and, therefore, usually produces an underestimate). Iraq Body Count relies on passive surveillance, counting civilian deaths from at least two independent reports from recognised newsgathering agencies and leading English-language newspapers ( The Times is included). So Professor Gilbert Burnham, Dr Les Roberts and Dr Shannon Doocy at the Centre for International Emergency, Disaster and Refugee Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, decided to work through Iraqi doctors, who speak the language and know the territory. They drafted in Professor Riyadh Lafta, at Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, as a co-author of the Lancet paper. Professor Lafta supervised eight doctors in 47 different towns across the country. In each town, says the paper, a main street was randomly selected, and a residential street crossing that main street was picked at random. The doctors knocked on doors and asked residents how many people in that household had died. A person needed to have been living at that address for three months before a death for it to be included. It was deemed too risky to ask if the dead person was a combatant or civilian, but they did ask to see death certificates. More than nine out of ten interviewees, the Lancet paper claims, were able to produce death certificates. Out of 1,849 households contacted, only 15 refused to participate. From this survey, the epidemiologists estimated the number of Iraqis who died after the invasion as somewhere between 393,000 and 943,000. The headline figure became 650,000, of which 601,000 were violent deaths. Even the lowest figure would have raised eyebrows. Dr Richard Garfield, an American academic who had collaborated with the authors on an earlier study, declined to join this one because he did not think that the risk to the interviewers was justifiable. Together with Professor Hans Rosling and Dr Johan Von Schreeb at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Dr Garfield wrote to The Lancet to insist there must be a “substantial reporting error” because Burnham et al suggest that child deaths had dropped by two thirds since the invasion. The idea that war prevents children dying, Dr Garfield implies, points to something amiss. Professor Burnham told The Times in an e-mail that he had “full confidence in Professor Lafta and full faith in his interviewers”, although he did not directly address the drop in child mortality. Dr Garfield also queries the high availability of death certificates. Why, he asks, did the team not simply approach whoever was issuing them to estimate mortality, instead of sending interviewers into a war zone? Professor Rosling told The Times that interviewees may have reported family members as dead to conceal the fact that relatives were in hiding, had fled the country, or had joined the police or militia. Young men can also be associated with several households (as a son, a husband or brother), so the same death might have been reported several times. Professor Rosling says that, despite e-mails, “the authors haven’t provided us with the information needed to validate what they did”. He would like to see a live blog set up for the authors and their critics so that the matter can be clarified. Another critic is Dr Madelyn Hsaio-Rei Hicks, of the Institute of Psychiatry in London, who specialises in surveying communities in conflict. In her letter to The Lancet, she pointed out that it was unfeasible for the Iraqi interviewing team to have covered 40 households in a day, as claimed. She wrote: “Assuming continuous interviewing for ten hours despite 55C heat, this allows 15 minutes per interview, including walking between households, obtaining informed consent and death certificates.” Does she think the interviews were done at all? Dr Hicks responds: “I’m sure some interviews have been done but until they can prove it I don’t see how they could have done the study in the way they describe.” Professor Burnham says the doctors worked in pairs and that interviews “took about 20 minutes”. The journal Nature, however, alleged last week that one of the Iraqi interviewers contradicts this. Dr Hicks says: : “I have started to suspect that they [the American researchers] don’t actually know what the interviewing team did. The fact that they can’t rattle off basic information suggests they either don’t know or they don’t care.” And the corpses? Professor Burnham says that, according to reports, mortuaries and cemeteries have run out of space. He says that the Iraqi team has asked for data to remain confidential because of “possible risks” to both interviewers and interviewees. **************
How is a March 05 article from the Murdoch Times "new" or relevant, for that matter, as compared to Ada's March 27 article that refers to the BBC's Freedom of Information Act findings which were based on real government communications, including those of the Ministry of Health? Honestly, some people need to get an oil and lube job on their brains.
Hmmmmmmm. So Rupert Murdoch supports Bush's propaganda. Who would have thought? Are some of his other propaganda outlets such as Fox News or the New York Post as biased as the Times? By the way kook, if you are correct about your WND shit, your Al Qaeda in Iraq SHIT or any of the other KoOk SHIT that you spew, why doesn't Bush get on national TV tonight and save his Presidency with it? Why does your kook SHIT only come out in moronic goob fooler publications targeted at gullible fools like you? Surely there must be an evil conspiracy to blame for this. What is it? Koook!!!! ROTFLOL!!!!
.
Well, for starters, it raises some new questions about the study that Ada's BBC article doesn't address. Perhaps you'd like to address them, scrapper. Or will you just ignore them like you've ignored all the rest of the questions?
Maybe I was not clear with you. I could care less about anything a Murdoch Times article brings up as questions. You believe the Murdoch Times, not me. I believe Drs. Roberts and Burnham. I believe in the world class reputation of the Johns Hopkins Public Health Department. I believe in the integrity of the Lancet. I believe in the revelations the BBC found in for real government email exchanges. Rupert Murdoch's reputation is that of a war monger IsraelFirster. He and his hires don't have any standing in my world.
You're such a trusting fellow. You are so eager to trust two democRATS who admitted they published their first study right before the election to hurt Bush and the GOP and who knowingly hired anti-American Iraqis to conduct the study. Meanwhile all the questions that so many have asked (SOME of which I've noted in this thread) still go unanswered. Why according to that last article I posted (and other sources I've linked in other discussions on this topic), even the JH authors are now refusing to answer simple questions. They apparently can't seem to recall some very important *details* about that *robust* methodology of theirs. ROTFLOL!
Still repeating your bull-chit after being whacked on the other thread, BeASpammer? (1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92% (2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue - and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year and didn't count entire provinces and several of the more violent cities. (3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
Maybe you can find some NewsMax articles saying what a great guy Bush is and how not one single Iraqi has been harmed in the fighting to date. I mean, if you are going to spam us with bullshit, you might as well go all the way. Why stop with the UK's version of Fox News? I know you read NewsMax. All wingnut kooks read NewsMax. And how else would you keep up on what Ron Brown is doing these days?
.
And explanation for those who don't know: The researchers asked 87% of those claiming deaths to supply death certificates. The researchers claimed that 92% of them were able to do so. The researchers said that in the other 13% of the cases they simply FORGOT to ask. That they simply FORGOT to ask implies that the folks they asked were a RANDOM sample from amongst all those claiming deaths. That being the case, the percentage of folks who supposedly would have been able to supply death certificates in the group of 13% who they FORGOT to ask should be about the same as in the group of 87% they did ask. In which case, the John Hopkins claim does indeed suggest that 92% of those who claimed deaths had death certificates. Don't you understand statistical methodology, critter? By the way, the vast majority of those death certificates are missing. That is not true. The LATimes article stated ""The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate. Relatives claim the body directly from the hospital and arrange for a speedy burial in keeping with Muslim beliefs. If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate. Health Ministry officials said that because death certificates are issued and counted separately, the two data sets are not overlapping. The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while the Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. Together, the toll reaches 49,137." Irrelevant since the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year and the second JH study concluded that the first study was basically correct. No matter how you spin it, critter, the vast majority of the death certificates from those 600,000 claiming deaths and supposedly able to supply death certificates are missing. Baghdad, by all accounts, is one of the most violent cities in the country and contains by far the largest population. The few other violent cities and provinces could not possibly account for the missing dead unless you wish to claim they've been greatly depopulated. Remember the calculation? That Anbar would have to have lost HALF of its total pre-war population just to account for 300,000 of the missing 550,000 death certificates. And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular. There simply is no way to account for the claimed number of dead. As one blogger noted, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day. To get an average of 546 deaths per day means that there must have been either many hundreds of days with 1000 or more deaths per day (example: 200 days with 1000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1000 days with an average of 450 deaths), or tens of days with at least 10,000 or more deaths per day (example: 20 days with 10,000 deaths = 200,000 dead leaves 1180 days with an average of 381 deaths). So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?" Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health. Go ahead...
Let me tell you how it supposed to be;
SO apropos!
You don't *explain* how 87% x 92% is not 80%, dip-shit. It is, and it's basic math. They asked 87% for certificates, and of that 87%, 92% said they had them. That's an 80% total. Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying. (1) The Baghdad morgue received 30,204 bodies from 2003 through mid-2006, while (2) The Health Ministry said it had documented 18,933 deaths from "military clashes" and "terrorist attacks" from April 5, 2004, to June 1, 2006. (3) Together, the toll reaches 49,137" Adding up 30,024 from a single morgue - the Baghdad morgue - to the 2-year total of 18,933 violent deaths reported by the Health Ministry - which freely admitted it did not include many violent cities and several provinces - and you're already at 50,000. 20 average excess violent deaths per day x 30 provinces x 3 years = 657,000 excess violent deaths. Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
BeAChooser, Iraq is a hellhole of Bush and Clinton's making. It has been depopulated - especially among Christians and others of the educated class fleeing for their lives.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS. Then where are they? Because if the John Hopkins study is valid than 92 percent of those who might claim deaths should have had a death certificate issued. And there is no record of that. You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004. Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" Now that was over an 18 month period. So I think its safe to say John Hopkins concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in the first TWELVE months. But all those deaths were not evenly distributed throughout the country. They occurred mostly in a few regions. Where surely losses in the hundreds of thousands would have been noticed by a journalist or two. Surely ... Although an incorrect way to look at the problem, this number in itself is remarkable. Because it is only slightly different than the percentage of the German population (or the Japanese population) that died in WW2 ... and that was after strategic bombing of virtually every major city in those countries. Those cities were literally flattened or burned to the ground in many cases. Yet you want us to believe that Iraq, whose cities are mostly still standing, has had comparable losses. It's not a lie. In fact, I've even posted articles to the forum showing that Kurdistan is mostly peaceful and doing quite well now that Saddam is gone. As usual, you simply ignored those articles and regurgitate the same unsupported assertions. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/02/16/60minutes/main2486679.shtml http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc0110WT100.html http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/11/02/kurds_ed3_.php But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed. Not at all. STATISTICALLY there is no way that the number of deaths has been a constant 546 per day since the war began. Some days would be higher and some lower. And as what I posted shows, even if you assumed that most days would only see deaths of 381 per day (which is far more than has ever been reported), you'd have to have a significant number of days (20) with 10,000 deaths. And surely that would have been noticed and reported by someone. I haven't changed my story at all. Les Roberts is a liar and you're unable to name even ONE doctor who says he/she wrote death certificates in Iraq and didn't report them. But you don't just need one doctor, you need thousands of doctors doing that to even begin to account for all the death certificates that John Hopkins claims exist but for which there is no record whatsoever. But you don't even have one.
That may or may not be true. But in any case, that's not the depopulation that AGAviator and John Hopkins are claiming. They aren't talking about folks fleeing for their lives. They are claiming that hundreds of thousands were KILLED in certain regions of the country ... and noone noticed. Noone recorded that. Noone photographed it. Not even the insurgency which could have used such a horrific fact to force us out of the country via world opinion.
That's not how basic statistics works, numbskull. Furthermore, no one ever said that the other 13% couldn't have provided them had they been asked. With the people who they were issued to, you fucking idiot. So who's "missing" them, anyway? Are you alleging the people who receive them are "missing" them - because that is the only way in which a claim of them being "missing" would make any sense. The fact there is "no record of that" with a central government that by its own admission "grossly undercounted" the number of actual deaths does not equate to them being "missing." This is just more of your repetitive spamming demaguguery. You can't even read, then you try to bluster your way out of it by lying. Saying that "somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred" does not equate to saying "the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year" In fact, it says precisely the opposite. Do you know the difference between "in excess" and "less than," dummy? Having been shown the absurdity of your claim that 650,000 excess deaths would "grossly depopulate" the country, you now retreat to your fall-back position of "The media hates Bush." It is a correct way to look at it because it puts your exaggerated claims in their proper perspective. During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change. The JH definition of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll. I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines. By whom? The "embedded media?" People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened." Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS? Nobody says there is "no record of them whatsoever" except you, so you are the liar. The LA Times said that the Health Ministry attempts to track death certificates issued by hospitals. There is absolutely nothing said about the Health Ministry tracking death certificates issued by any other source. So fuck you, lying troll.
Don't be disingenuous BeAChooser, you support the American mission in Iraq. So you run flak for it on here. That is fine - just be honest about it. By the way - I am also leery of the numbers - because they are based on statistical projections. Statistical numbers used to determine deaths etc is bullshit as the late great Slobodan Milosevic showed in his cross examination during his kangaroo trial. With that said - the death toll clearly is high in Iraq due to America's invasion and occupational aftermath. I saw it coming - America could not stop (or did not wish to stop) Albanian Muslims from killing and driving out a quarter of a million Christian Serbs from Kosovo so I could not see how they would have prevented the rise in communal violence in Iraq from coming about. I used to laugh and fight vigorously with the idiot Bushbots on Freerepublic who kept bringing up Germany and Japan as reasons why Iraq would turn out the same.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yes it is, AGAviator. The 87% are a RANDOM sample from a group of about 600 claiming deaths. Actually, a very big sample from that group. STATISTICALLY, what holds true for them should hold true for the 13% which were not sampled. If 92 percent of the 87% could supposedly provide death certificates, then BASIC STATISTICS tells us that about 92% of the 13% should also have been able to provide death certificates. To claim otherwise is to display ignorance. Sure thing, AGAviator. You go on believing that. Just like you INSISTED that this graph shows housing prices dropped 16% between 2005 and 2006. So how many do you think the second John Hopkins study claim died in the first year after the invasion began, AGAviator? 112,000? 2/3rds of 112,000? Just what is your number, AGAviator? So are you now claiming the media decided not to report the deaths of hundreds of thousands in places like Anbar because they love Bush? ROTFLOL! Why 1%? Why not 2%? Why not 3%? Do you think no one greatly noticed the loss of 2% of Germany's population? Or 2% of Japans? And look at the destruction that was necessary to kill 2% of those populations. Virtually every city in those countries was FLATTENED. That is not the case in Iraq. The JH definition says that almost all of those 655,000 were killed by VIOLENCE. Now you want us to believe that thugs with guns, not bombs, have killed 2% of the population. And no journalist noticed? No one documented this slaughter? ROTFLOL! Yes, you mentioned Mosul and Kirkuk. Let's examine that claim As one can see from the map below, both Mosul and Kirkuk (Karkuk) are on the very edge of Kurdistan. Let's look at the population of Kurdistan (in Iraq). Kurdistan nominally consists of 6 Governates. Three are almost entirely Kurdish and 3 have mixed populations (these are in dispute). Here is a list of the population in each starting with the three that are almost entirely Kurdish. Sulaymaniyah Governate - 1.8 million Arbil Governate - 1.4 million Dahuk Governate - 0.5 million Diyala Governate - 1.3 million At-Ta'mim Governate (containing Kirkuk) - 1.0 million Ninawa Governorate (containing Mosul) - 2.6 million Now 70% of At Ta'mim is Kurdish. But only 19 percent of Ninawa is Kurdish. The population of Mosul is about 1.7 million of which Kurds are only a small fraction. Although there have been demands by Kurds to include Mosul in the Kurdish regional government, to say Mosul is Kurdish is a bit of a stretch. In any case, one can see that Mosul and Kirkuk combined comprise only about 16% of the overall Kurdish population (in Iraq) and only a small fraction of the total land area (in Iraq). So a claim that violence in these two cities negates the peace that is in place most everywhere else in Kurdistan is simply ridiculous. By someone. Yet this claimed slaughter went unnoticed ... even by arab journalists. In fact, it is still going unnoticed, since to the media a 100 deaths occurring in a day is still remarkable (when JH has been claiming there was an average of nearly 600 a day every day since the war began). Oh so now you are saying the media noticed the deaths but decided not to report them? And it's because they "love Bush"? ROTFLOL! Hard to tell since NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he wrote death certificates and didn't report them to the central government. Tell you what, AGAviator, why don't you get Les Roberts to get the names of the doctors on those death certificates he claims his researchers were shown and go get them to make statements. Surely they noted the names on the certificates. Surely .... Thank you for arguing like so many other 4umers. Here's some more food for thought. ************ http://washparkprophet.blogspot.com/2006/03/iraqi-provinces-map.html Coalition casualties have not been distributed equally by province. This source attributes as many casualties as it can manage from the U.S. led coalition as follows (which is only a small part of total casulties, but is a fairly good indicator of where hot conflict is in Iraq), and is followed by a regional description (SE Iraq=Sumer, N Iraq mostly Kurdistan, remainder central Iraq): *Anbar 808 (Central) Home to cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Abu Ghraib. ********** Now note where the bulk of the casualties were. In Anbar and Baghdad. Places like At Tamim and Niveveh have been relatively quite. Most of Kurdistan VERY quite. So the bulk of the Iraqi deaths would likely have occurred in Anbar and Baghdad. If logic prevails. And since Bagdad's death certificates have been counted, that leaves only Anbar to account for the bulk of the missing 550,000 death certificates. Since Anbar accounts for 60% of the casualties in the rest of Iraq outside Baghdad, it follows that Anbar should account for about 60% of the missing 550,000 certificates. That's 330,000. Now the population of Anbar is 1.3 million. So you are asking us to believe that 25% of Anbars population was killed between the beginning of the invasion and July of last year. And no one noticed. Sure, AGAviator. ROTFLOL!
Focus. Think about what you are trying to say before hitting the "post" button. Proof read what you have written and delete anything that does not support your thesis. Concise and clear communication is the key to getting your ideas across.
.
this whole argument gets tiresome........supposedly a lot of the supporters of this war are *pro life* people. I would think those people would be horrified if there was ONE death caused by an illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of another country. every dead iraqi was once a living, breathing child of god. if our actions have caused the death of 300,000 or 600,000 or ten, it's wrong. period.
I'm not being disingenuous. I'm arguing a specific point. That one won't find the truth by starting with misinformation and lies. The John Hopkins study is an obvious fraud. And those who continue to use it to try and make their case about the evil American presence in Iraq only discredit their own efforts. But we don't have a "what-if" crystal ball. We can't know what the death toll in Iraq (or elsewhere) would look like today had we not invaded. We do know that the medical situation in Iraq was very serious. The UN and WHO have said that many thousands were dying EVERY MONTH due to lack of food, medicine, clean water, and other items. And they were dying because Saddam was continuing his efforts to develop and keep banned weapons and because he was using the billions he got from legal sales of oil (which were supposed to fund such things) on those weapon programs, his Republican Thugs, building more palaces, bribing UN and non-coalition government officials, feeding the hedonistic lifestyles of his boys and hiding billions of dollars in private bank accounts and between the walls of buildings. We also don't know what al-Zarqawi and his like would have been up to in Iraq now had we not invaded. We know they had planned a mass casualty attack on Jordan (and the US embassy in Jordan) from Baghdad. We know they wouldn't have stopped with just that attack. Others were in the works. And Saddam was turning a blind eye to it all. Saddam's regime was actively helping the Palestinians. There were suicide bomb factories found in Iraq during the invasion. There were foreigners of all types found in Iraq, many of them telling our soldiers they were being trained by Saddam's regime. We don't have a crystal ball to know what havoc and loss of life these types of people might have created had we not invaded ... had Iraq instead been a safe haven much like Afghanistan was for so many years. We also don't know what mischief Saddam would be up to now had we not invaded. We can almost be sure that the sanctions and oversight of Iraq would have ended. That with a clean bill of health from the UN inspectors and the desire of countries like Germany, France and Russia to get on with lucrative oil, equipment and weapons contracts, Iraq would be rearming. We know that Saddam's regime intended to (and quickly could) reconstitute large portions of its WMD arsenal. It kept the plans and critical components to do it. So where would we be now had that happened? Would Iraqis really be any better off or would they be more fodder for another of Saddam's misadventures?
The statistics show that Anbar has been depopulated by that amount - the discrepancy has to do with how you interpret the data - are the missing people mostly dead or mostly refugees who fled? In any case, BeAChooser - are you arguing for justification of the Iraqi mission because fewer people in your estimation have been killed?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ten? How about one? Would you do NOTHING if action might result in one death?
It's makes a big difference. If the missing are mostly refugees who fled, then someone in the John Hopkin's study LIED about the death certificates. And you will not find truth or justice on a foundation of lies.
We can't know what the death toll in Iraq (or elsewhere) would look like today had we not invaded. Why is it our business? Are you for humanitarian wars? You child killing Americans need to mind your own business. We do know that the medical situation in Iraq was very serious. The UN and WHO have said that many thousands were dying EVERY MONTH due to lack of food, medicine, clean water, and other items. Thanks to American sanctions that only American wanted to keep on - see again child killing Americans. We also don't know what al-Zarqawi and his like would have been up to in Iraq now had we not invaded. Dead at the hands of the secular Arab nationalist Ba'athists - many of whom are Christians - if he acted up. We know they had planned a mass casualty attack on Jordan (and the US embassy in Jordan) from Baghdad. I plan on killing every NATO soldier in Kosovo from Belgrade. Wishing a plan is not implementing a plan. We also don't know what mischief Saddam would be up to now had we not invaded. Maybe he would have done us a favor and invaded Iran like the last time when Rumsfled visited him and thanked him for his efforts. "The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Not really - its interpretation. Makes no difference - does not make things better - does not make America a better occupier.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
kinda sums up the war.........
Or you LIED about Johns Hopkins. Guess we have to decide who has the credibility here. It is Saturday afternoon. Why don't you just relax. What's that song you guys sing? Have a tequila, Have a tequila, Have a tequila, Right now.
Bunch of internet bums ... grand jury --- opium den ! ~ byeltsin
Tell us, oh great liar, what figure do you consider reliable. We all know that you're slimey and cowardly enough that you cut-n-paste all day long; how 'bout taking a firm position? What number would you accept as reliable - knowing that one, ten or a hundred still amount to disgusting American War Crimes? Take a position, BAC, you flaming asshole!
Hey dumbfuck. Here's how stupid you are. You've been spamming for hundreds of posts about "missing death certificates" based on the completely false premise that you expect the Iraqi Health Ministry to have records of all deaths in Iraq. The LA Times article makes it quite clear that the Iraqi Health Ministry only tracks death certificates issued by hospitals, and by its own admission it couldn't even do that and completely ignored most of the country for more than a year. What's more, the Health Ministry didn't even count the 30,000 death certificates issued by the Baghdad Morgue right across town. Otherwise, the Times could have gotten its 50,000 total just by asking the Health Ministry for the total instead of going to 2 places. So all your hundreds of posts about "missing death certificates" are pure crap from beginning to end. There's not a word of truth in any of them. I've already told you, fucking troll, that when you insult people's intelligence with your mindless spam, you can expect to be insulted right back.
Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights - not by posting what you disagree with.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
1. troll One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument (i'd say chooser fits the bill)
and is disingenuous - what if you are sincere and go to a Bush loving website and try and turn people to your message? Your definition creates a zone of like minded zombies. I can't imagine the empty headedness of such a position.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Would you say that making up hundreds of posts on 2 websites about "missing death certificates" - when in fact there never were any missing death certificates - is being disingenuous? Just to recap (2) The Health Ministry collects death certificates from hospitals, not from other sources, even morgues across town, (3) Individual doctors can and do write death certificates independently of either the hospitals or the Health Ministry, and (4) Other than hospitals, no one in Iraq appears to be under any obligation to report deaths to the Health Ministry. So, there is no reason to expect the Health Ministry to have an accruate or complete count of all or even most deaths.
Your claim was that the first study stated that the majority of the deaths did not happen during the first year. The first study made no such conclusion and you are lying. Now you're backpedaling trying to get out of your lie. Furthermore, the first study specifically excluded Fallujah, so any numbers from the first study are too low according to their methodology. I'm claiming you're a lying troll, ROTFLOL! Your claim that these deaths would "grossly depopulate" any region is a lie. Now you're doing some more backpedaling. The study does not claim that the "excess violent deaths" are all caused by military action, or even a majority of them are caused by military action. So fuck you, troll. I never said that lying troll. And the study said that 50,000 were not killed by violence. As one can see from this map, both San Diego California and El Paso Texas are on the very edge of the United States. Both Kirkuk and Mosul are in Kurdistan, and both San Diego and El Paso are in the US. So what's your point, fuckwit? Violent deaths include kidnappings and murders. The media only reports spectacular violent deaths from Answer the question, weasel. Is Les Roberts lying when he says that Iraqi doctors can write death certificates independently of the central government. Yes, or no. I don't provide proof to lying trolls. But I'll tell you what. If I prove from an unbiased source that Iraqi doctors do write death certificates, you'll be banished from this site permanently. Not for expressing a contrary opinion, but for making repeated false statements and spamming them hundreds of times. Now put up or shut up.
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."
The Baghdad Morgue didn't report their death certificates to the central government - and the Central Government is also located in Baghdad. Otherwise the LA Times could simply have gotten the Baghdad Morgue's total included in the Health Ministry's total. So it appears no one other than hospitals report their deaths to the Health Ministry, and you're a lying troll. Your false claim that hundreds of thousands of death certificates are "missing" has been absolutely and totally annihilated.
You mean like those that post how the govt placed explosives in every floor of the WTC with bull shit as evidence? They are trolls? I like discourse - they rest of you seem to want to only hear preaching to the choir. You don't like what BAChooser has to say counter it with your facts and he comes off the loser.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
As you well know I don't subscribe to the USG did 911 theories, though I'm convinced certain elements within the government had a pretty good idea something was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, and instead welcomed it. However BAC has been countered with facts time and time again and at this point it's irrefutable the Iraqi Health Ministry never attempted to track all the deaths in Iraq, and therefore no one can allege its records are anything to base a count on. You can't really disprove that someone placed explosives in the WTC, though you can argue about how plausible that was or how much sense that makes. However you certainly can disprove the Iraqi Health Ministry counting all the deaths in Iraq, because BAC's own source explicitly states it only counted deaths from hospitals. So BAC has been completely debunked, but I guess you're really saying is you like BAC around to counter the USG did 911 people. As far as I'm concerned, (s) he's a poor advocate for anything and isn't worth the trouble keeping around.
No, that is not what I am saying - the notion that someone you disagree with is a troll is insane to me. I find that even more a dangerous mind trip than someone who has a stupid position. And I don't know what you mean by "You can't really disprove that someone placed explosives in the WTC" - of course you can. Absence of evidence is not evidence. You don't like his position so you are reverting to your Freerepublic origins by labeling a dissenter as a troll to shut him up - what next, comrade? Bannings? Purgings? Exile to the gulag? PS: As you well know I don't subscribe to the USG did 911 theories, though I'm convinced certain elements within the government had a pretty good idea something was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, and instead welcomed it. Sort of my position, though some here swear - as you saw yourself - that I was maybe part of the 9/11 govt team somehow? Why would they hold such an opinion? Because I must be a govt agent to dare question their group mind think. That is dangerous fucking thinking that needs to be beaten the hell out of people. I never knew Americans (both left and right) were such zombie-sheep, that any dissent drives them loopier than Maoists during the Cultural Revolution.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance. Free speech does not encompass people getting in your face as you're walking down the street, or banging on your car window as you're stopped in traffic. The nuisance cost vs. the freedom benefit must be considered. Now of course that should apply across the board, and not just to one individual. But two wrongs don't make a right. You may say there's a bozo filter for that. But why do I need to limit myself instead of the troll being limited? That's like turning the streets over to the riff-raff, then telling the property owners to stay inside their houses and they'll be safe.
Exactly. How many times must the same nonsense be refuted? For example, the other day he spammed a 9/11 thread about the amount of time the towers fell. It turns out that 10 seconds is the govt's # for WTC1. It's in their report. It is also in the seismic data. But, the 9/11 truthers use the videos and put it at 14 seconds, which, BTW, can still be proven to be most unnatural, and why we say close to freefall; the figure for freefall in a vacuum is 9.2 seconds. So, after reposting the same info that has been posted many, many times about this subject, he finally slithers off. How is that a debate? It isn't. He's just a nuisance as you say. He isn't honest, he's just a liar and not even a good one.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
That differs how from people on here that claim the WTC were blown up from the inside?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
and evil too. :P
That differs how from people on here that claim the WTC were blown up from the inside? The govt's explanation of 9/11 has been proven to be laughable, and not just on this forum. Exploring ideas about what really happened is useful, because learning the truth is always a good idea. A poster who spams threads with the exact same nonsense is not useful, especially when the same "arguments" have already been refuted many times on this forum. His latest attempt was downright amusing. He spammed a 9/11 thread with BS about how many seconds it took the towers to fall. Then when the facts were presented that the 10 seconds originated in the govt's 9/11 Commission report, and that the 9/11 truth movement states it took about 14 seconds (explaining that the 10 seconds came from the govt report and seismic data), he said well the govt didn't understand and wasn't told or shown the right info. Then he uses a 9/11 truth website's photo, ignoring their detailed explanation (which included how 9.2 seconds would be freefall in a vacuum and about air resistance, etc.), and instead spins and distorts the photo to fit the govt's explanation. He of course ignores all the basic math & physics used by that same site. He closes by saying we're not experts so we can't possibly understand, that we believe fairy tales and just look foolish. Who looks foolish? Who believes fairy tales? And why would anyone want to read anymore of his posts? All he does is distract from any meaningful discussion. He's a time waster, a troll.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
So that differs from the truth as someone else like Bachooser sees it how? You claim the govts version of 9/11 is bogus he claims the medical report on the number of deaths in Iraq is bogus. You both have controversial views - both should be heard not banned or accused of trolling.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Where logic is replaced by volumes of the exact same copy/paste (refuted by many on many threads), then curtailing such a poster is reasonable. He just disrupts any worthwhile discussion, which is part of his schtick. You agree with the govt's story about 9/11, so I'm not surprised that you are defending him. Do you agree or disagree with the medical reports on the number of Iraqis who have died since we invaded Iraq? Are you also in agreement with BAC on this subject?
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
You 9/11 truther types do the exact same thing you accuse bachooser of doing. A shitload of people have died in Iraq and a shit load of people have fled Iraq for other countries as refugess - some say up to 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq. I find that a more telling figure than how many have died. In America the Iraq war's destructive toll is kept hidden by focusing only on death tolls when looking at the wounded figures really tells you the death rate is on par with Vietnam (the wounded in Iraq survive wounds thanks to medical technologies that would have resulted in deaths in the Vietnam era). I can't speak to the London report on the number of deaths because I have not studied it in part because I know the death toll has been huge so I have not bothered to check one way or the other. I assume it is accurate. That I assume it is accurate does not make it so but I will accept the figure until I find evidence refuting it - if I bother to look that is. Just to set you straight - The only part of the 9/11 story I accept from the govt is the 'mechanical' ones not the rest - not on the relationship of the 9/11 cell to US intellugence and not what the status of the information the govt had on them before that day. Are you also in agreement with BAC on this subject? - It shocks me you guys don't see what I am accusing you of. You assume because I defend a person's right to speak his mind that I agree with him. If you were being accused of trolling by spreading your version of 9/11 I would be defending your right to do so as well. As long as I get to debate you that is all I care about - THE RIGHT TO DISCOURSE! America is doomed - it has become populated by people too Balkanized in the head to be able to carry out spirited discourse. I thought this thinking was limited to neocon-Bushbot websites but I see it is a mindset that the other sides also have. Pity. Is there a website both left and right and anything in between can go and discuss anything and everything in a spirited manner without fear they will be banished or blocked or made uncomfortable?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
If that's what you really think then either you haven't been attending to his postings or you really must enjoy the LP troll-style. This forum also believes in the right to discourse, but BAC doesn't discuss, he spams. There is a difference. Many posters on this forum were banned from FR and then LP where putting up with quite a few like BAC was the norm. The moderators didn't like the truth, they preferred an army of paid shills and trolls who agree with the Bush regime about everything. This forum became a place of refuge from those govt sponsored sites. The truth is often uncomfortable. This is one of the few forums where it is allowed to be heard. You can read the likes of BAC anytime on FR and LP.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
So you are for limiting discourse. You just want to make this place like Freerepublic but only for your kind only. I was - sadly - right all along.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Or maybe we just don't want it to turn into another LP or FR, which sadly appears to be what you would prefer.
"The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes nor between parties either — but right through the human heart." — Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
what are you bitching about, Destro? BAC is posting here, is he not? he's not being censored. he is being blocked by choice of some of the individual members. if you don't like this forum, its free speech policy which includes the right to call someone a troll, and its members (which you are always criticizing and painting with a broad brush), then why don't you leave? you've expressed your distaste for it and us over and over. btw, you are certainly free to create and fund a forum of your own.
I see an attempt to ban him.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are just the flip side of FR. Same mindset. Like how the neocons still think like Marxist even though they embraced the conservative cause - they carry out their cause in a Marxist manner.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
So you are for limiting discourse. Your conclusion does not logically follow what robin wrote. She said "You can read the likes of BAC anytime on FR and LP" meaning, they are the dominant shills there who tolerate little dissent, where as here he is a minority opinion but is permitted to express his views even if most despise him. She never advocated limiting speech based on ideology, and your attempt to nip and tuck her words for that purpose came up real short. No grownup would ever extrapolate such a ridiculous non sequitur from her posts, and how you managed it is a mystery to all. And, did I mention that you're a rude little twit?
“Free trade is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is free trade.”__Sir John Bowring
Destro is on LF at the exact same moment calling people names over the exact same issue as he is on another thread here! His OCD is easy to see. http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=295383552&t=-1#Post295383552
“Free trade is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is free trade.”__Sir John Bowring
I have to hand it to you 'dawg. Anyone who can navigate, and actually read comments at LF, has a special ability. And on top of their hideous software, the more entrenched members get to rate other people. From top to bottom, that forum is a mystery to me.
People who believe in underground UFO-Nazi bases in the South Pole need be called names. I think they and other people who reject science in the name of their religion or ideology are destroying this country.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Nothing I can add. It was my home and host to my favorite vanity threads when there was an effort to uphold it as a libertarian resource. But, it's not as much fun anymore, at least for me. There's a question whether or not Liberty Forum was (or is) a SCHOOL OF THE AMERICAS/WHINSEC or some other snoopy govt agency project. It's been strange enough at times, but I can't say for certain either way. Everything I submitted was cleared for govt consumption and I didn't expose myself, but others did and still do.
“Free trade is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is free trade.”__Sir John Bowring
Saddam's activities and what happened on 9/11 and thereafter made it our business. Yeah. Maybe we should have stayed out of WW2 too. No, thanks to Saddam doing everything he could to get around those sanctions. Thanks to Saddam not giving up on WMD. Thanks to France, Germany and Russia and officials of the UN letting themselves be bribed to look the other way as Saddam diverted funds from the food for oil program and bought substandard food and medicine in exchange for large kickbacks. Sorry, but the ONLY one responsible for the deaths of innocents in Iraq after 91 was Saddam. The hardship could have been over in a year had Saddam just come clean and truly given up his WMD aspirations. That doesn't wash, Destro. He had already acted up. Several times. And the Iraqi regime turned a blind eye to his activities. And continued to do so. Apparently you don't pay attention to the news. About a dozen al-Qaeda were caught in Jordan with the materials (vehicles, explosives, chemicals) needed to carry out the plot that they themselves admitted was funded and planned by al-Zarqawi from Iraq. They admitted they'd met him in BAGHDAD before going to Syria to carry out the plot. It was more than a "plan". It came close to being reality and killing tens of thousands of people, including many Americans. And one reason it may have not succeeded is the invasion that put al-Zarqawi on the run and made it difficult if not impossible to monitor the progress of the plot and its detailed execution.
Dead and not dead is a huge difference. And in one case it means John Hopkin's results are bogus and all those championing those results have been deceived. Turn Iraq into a successful, peaceful democracy and many of those who fled will return. They won't be doing that if they are in the grave.
Are you typical of 4um posters, AGAviator?
christine ... I haven't posted anything but sourced facts and sound logic, which I've been more than willing to defend, to this forum. I haven't used any foul language. I haven't called anyone any labels. If that's provocative, so be it. It you think that's disruptive of your forum, your forum has a serious problem.
Put down the TV, Ooser, eat some toast and release yourself from the cult of hannity. What's that called, 'reflexive parallelism' something?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
And the reason you still support AmeriKan troops in Iraq is what?
I claimed no such thing. You can't even read. What I said is that the second study claimed to confirm the results of the first study. The first study claimed that 100,000 died in the first 18 months after the invasion. The second study claimed the number was 112,000. So for you to suggest that uncounted deaths in the first year explains away the problem of 550,000 missing death certificates is faulty logic. Again, you demonstrate that you don't understand statistics. They did not exclude Fallujah in the first study. They threw out the data point as a flyer but they did include the population of Fallujah in their overall estimate of 100,000 dead. Here's how JH classified them: Violent, coalition - 31% Gunshot - 56% Do you really want us to believe that most of those claimed deaths ... almost as large of percentage of population as died in WW2 in Germany and Japan due to the strategic bombing of cities ... died due to guns in Iraq? And no one bothered to report this slaughter in either the MSM or Arab media? Are you typical of 4um posters? Actually, the list I cited from the JH study suggests that 1.4% of the population has been killed by GUNS. And you want us to believe that and believe that no one has reported this over the last 5 years. Are you typical of 4um posters? And if you can't see my point, AGAviator, I suspect it is because you don't want to see my point. But that's ok. I think any visitor to 4um who read what I posted about Kurdistan, Mosul and Kirkuk will understand. I think I did. Funny that Les Roberts doesn' t name any of these doctors who he only now claims wrote death certificates without telling anyone else. ROTFLOL! If that were a forum rule, this site would be empty. I'm not the one with the missing death certificates and the missing doctors saying they wrote certificates but didn't report them to authorities. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/05/05/wirq05.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/05/05/ixworld.html "Under Iraqi medical law the morgue does not deal with any person who has died from natural causes as they can have their death certificate issued by a doctor." Hey AGAviator ... doesn't that imply that according to Iraqi law only the morgue can issue death certificates if the cause isn't natural?
I've never claimed they did. I've said on numerous occasions that the total from the LATimes article might be off a factor of 2 or even 3. But not a factor of 10. To believe 10, you have to believe a lot of nonsense. It is just as ridiculous a claim as believing bombs brought down the WTC towers.
And would that apply to posters who make false claims about the WTC collapse and the damage at the Pentagon? Like claiming a collapse time of 10 seconds? Like claiming a hole in the face only 20 feet wide? Will you insist they be booted from 4um too, AGAviator?
robin is a good example of who I mean, AGAviator. You prepared to insist she be kicked off 4um? Because when she says "10 seconds is the govt's # for WTC1" she's being deceptive and the falseness of what she's saying has been proven over and over. The 9/11 commission report is NOT the Govt's number. The NIST report gives the "govt's" number. And irregardless of what is in the govt's report, the videos and images that have been posted from various sources prove the towers didn't collapse in 10 seconds. So is robin to be booted, AGAviator, for continuing this 10 second nonsense? Just curious.
But that's NOT what you were claiming, robin. Over and over you claimed it took 10 seconds. That it was FREE FALL. You posted sources showing that 10 seconds was impossible becuase free fall in a vacuum would be only about 9-10 seconds. To call the collapse free fall if it was 14 or 15 seconds is deceptive. And your not acknowledging that not one structures expert or demolition expert in the world has a problem with a 15 second collapse time is also telling.
That's probably true from what I've read. As long as folks stick to facts, rather than deliberate lies, I have no problem. That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study. And I haven't expressed an opinion one way or the other on the latter. I have said there are good questions that deserve answers. But that one won't ever get them answered if one start out insisting on nonsense that is easily debunked. It shocks me that the folks here don't see that I'm actually trying to help them be more credible ... so those other questions about 9/11 can get answered.
So can we agree, robin, that the truth is that the collapse of the towers took about 15 seconds, not 10 seconds, and was therefore not a free fall collapse?
A good case can be made for that assertion.
Spam-man! This is going to bug me all night, I know that song but can't think of it, I know I've heard it a million times! What was the title? Good job, that was funny!
Taxman - Beatles.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
BeAChooser, you want to discredit the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) so as to justify the Iraq mission rather then be accurate about the Iraqi death toll. Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial. Just because few Americans were killed in Kosovo (another illegal and immoral war by America) does not justify that war either.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Of course! thankyou, I've been driving myself nuts trying to think of it, I can't believe I couldn't think of it. I was thinking "Sandman? No that's not right...".
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
He's got a lot oh high-powered company, BAC, whether you approve or not. OR, conversely, your "consideration" of the official lies as being facts, is immaterial. Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!
Boy, did I hit a nerve or what? I am good at that.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted. I say this from someone who has defended you on here from those calling for your banning (and will continue to do so even if I disagree with your position).
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial. Just because few Americans were killed in Kosovo (another illegal and immoral war by America) does not justify that war either. Good post there, pain in the ass boy!
All my posts are good. They just go over your pointed heads sometimes.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Well, if you didn't use so many big words, then....
"Smoke marihuana cigarettes for a month and what was once your brain will be nothing but a storehouse of horrid specters."
Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer. Because I'm going to stop reading everything you write if this is true. Please defend yourself and prove these charges wrong. I cannot in good faith follow the writings of a treasonous queer.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
People should just ignore the government as the government lies. But people tend to idolize government and think that their words are important. same with big-media.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
I don't get the notion of not wanting to read other's opinions even of they are against my opinions. Those BARF alerts on Freerepublic made me hate those scum even more. Not that I would agree with a someone on t he left, etc - I just find the notion of refusing to read their opinions because they are of the other side a distasteful position. I want to read everything and debate it to the max.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Now that Blair is about to leave office, I wonder if people in the British government feel freer to speak out. I wonder how much Blair's imminent successor Brown has to do with this change. It looks as if the British government is close to freeing through diplomatic means its sailors held in Iran.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The report is an obvious lie. One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies. All those who insist it is accurate are discrediting themselves along with any other views they hold.
And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.
so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Then you should be against the entire Iraq war then as well as the war America fought in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Ron Brown was killed in Bosnia when his plane was directed to crash into the side of a mountain during a storm. Why Clinton was sending a business delegation to Muslim Bosnia during the war no one knows and it made no sense especially since Ron Brown was under investigation at the time. The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face. He felt guilty it seems. Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS - it is what I learned a story called a Honey Pot Trap - adding a nonsensical theory to a plot in hopes people will stick to the red flag story and then be discredited as kooks and conspiracy nuts.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
yes, he was killed to hide a conspiracy that was never shown to exist. and there is another conspiracy to keep this out of the media. google fish breath on LP for 2003. he explains how rin brown was shot the instant the plane went in and there are even pictures to prove this. of course, the pictures were lost, but there is a conspiracy theory to explain this. also, there is an autopsy that proves ron brown died from a gun shot wound, but this has been lost too. there is however a good conspiracy theory to expplain why the report is no longer around. there are now stories that ron brown is now alive but frozen out at area 51. saddams wmd are now stored out at area 51 too.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Then stories spread that Ron Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS - it is what I learned a story called a Honey Pot Trap - adding a nonsensical theory to a plot in hopes people will stick to the red flag story and then be discredited as kooks and conspiracy nuts. The plane crash killed Ron Brown more than likely. The Honey Pot Trap is to get people to focus on the story that makes you look like a wild eyed loon and thus any investigation into a conspiracy is tainted. Ron Brown was not killed by gunshot to the head - but they want you to think that he was so you seem like a loon saying it and thus tainting any question the plane crash circumstances. See how it works?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Except it is not a war based on lies. Iraq was in violation of the cease fire agreement. It was still researching WMD and long range delivery systems. It had not abandoned it's WMD and long range delivery system ambitions as it agreed to do. It had not come clean about the disposition of the WMD it had had. Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11. Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil. And until democRATS saw political advantage they were all for invasion. And, regardless of the past, now it is in our vital interests that we not lose. That we give Iraq every chance to become a successful,western friendly, democratic republic. That we not allow it to fall into the hands of terrorist supporters. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee could see this clearly. Why can't you? I was against that war. Because it was based on a lie.
I'm glad to see you hold America in high esteem. The sad truth is that the attack on Serbia was designed to take the focus off the Cox report and the treason committed by the Clinton administration. The sad truth is that the efforts to brand Bush as satan will only put the folks who committed both of those crimes back in office. Now tell me what's good about that?
In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions, I realize it may be different where you live but there's an old saying here govt by the people for the people, the people are suppose to be the ones making the decisions, not the crooked gangsters/politicians we now have running things.
BAC, can you explain why this was done? Was this one of those instances in which our govt lied because it was for our own good? Can you explain why the Serbs had to be wiped out and false charges brought against them when in the end it only strengthened the KLA who are notorious drug smugglers and white slavers in Europe and who were in reality terrorising the Serbs all along? Do you know because this is something I've often wondered about and you know all kinds of things. Thanks.
I always wondered why BAC was so interested in Ron Brown. I also used to wonder why anyone would have bothered to shoot Ron Brown in the head when he was going to be dead anyway in the plane crash.
Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil. Talk about building a foundation of lies... You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.
A correction. The person who did this was the chief maintenance officer (in charge of the portable beacon which went missing and which Aviation Week said could have been used to spoof the plane into flying into the mountain like it did) and he shot himself not in the face (which wouldn't be so unusual in a suicide) but in the chest. And he did it before he could be interviewed about the Ron Brown crash. Not according to the forensic pathologists who actually saw the wound and x-rays and who have made public statements about the matter. These were some of the finest forensic pathologists in the country at the time. It all started when Captain Kathleen Janoski, head of the AFIP photo documentation unit, took photos at the examination of Brown's body. She exclaimed in a loud voice that there appeared to be a bullet wound on the top of Brown's head. The wound, which is documented in the pictures she took and that are available on the internet, was "perfectly circular" and "inwardly beveling", which she says led her to that conclusion. According to Janoski, Colonel Gormley, who was in charge of examining Brown's body, told her to "be quiet" and "not to remark about the wound." Pathologist Lt. Colonel Hause, who was examining another body 2 feet away, heard Janoski's remark and came over to look. Hause, who was considered to be one of the military's leading experts on gunshot wounds at the time, remembers saying "sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." Gormley called Lt. Colonel Cogswell, an AFIP forensic pathologist and an expert in gunshot, at the crash site. He asked him to search for something that could cause Brown's head wound. According to Cogswell, nothing was found. Cogswell says that when Gormley called, he told Gormley that it sounded more like a gunshot wound and that "this man needs an autopsy." Yet, Erich Junger, AFIP's chief forensic scientist and who was also present at the examination, was quoted telling the press that a "very reasonable explanation" for the hole was found "when we looked around the aircraft area itself." However, Junger never visited the crash site and since then, Gormley has himself acknowledged that no piece of the aircraft was found to explain the hole. Despite all the above reasons to question the cause of the wound, Gromley ordered no autopsy. He ruled it death due to blunt force trama. He later indicated in various forums that he ruled out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible and the x-rays showed nothing unusual. But as you'll see, this was a lie. The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage. However, neither Cogswell, who had been involved in more than 100 plane crash investigations, nor Hause, who had been with AFIP for five years, could remember finding a similar wound in a plane crash victim’s head. Both said that while parts of the plane could certainly pierce the skull during a crash, the resulting hole probably would be left jagged or irregular after the object entered and exited the skull." This hole, however, was not jagged or irregular. Now here's where it gets even more interesting, Destro. Janoski has a sworn affidavit saying that six months after Brown's death, she was told by Jeanmarie Sentell, a naval criminal investigator who was present at the examination of Brown, that x-rays and photographs were deliberately destroyed in the Brown case after a "lead snowstorm" (indicative of gunshot) was discovered in the x-rays. Janoski further testified that Sentell said that a second set of X-rays were made "less dense" to diminish or eradicate the "lead snowstorm" image, and that Colonel Gormley was involved in its creation. After talking to Sentell, Janoski says she realized that she had taken slides photos of the first set of x-rays while they were displayed on a light table in the examination room. She located the slides and showed them to Colonel Cogswell. After looking at the pictures and x-rays slides, Cogswell decided that an autopsy should have been performed and began to say so publicly. He even included this case in a talk he gave on "mistakes in forensic pathology" at professional conferences and training courses. He reportedly told his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows, in the area behind the left eye socket, "multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density", i.e., a "lead snowstorm" from a high-velocity gunshot wound. He also told them that brain matter is visible in the photos and the side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain ... both are contrary to what Gormley was then claiming. On December 5, 1997, AFIP imposed a gag order on Cogswell, forcing him to refer all press inquiries on the Brown case to AFIP's public affairs office. Cogswell was told he could leave his office only with the permission of Dr. Jerry Spencer, Armed Forces Medical Examiner. He was escorted to his house by military police, who, without a warrant, seized all of his case materials on the Brown crash. On December 9, 1997, Lt. Col. David Hause decided to come forward and publically agreed with Cogswell that an autopsy should have been performed. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause has stated that "by any professional standard" Brown should have received an autopsy and that the AFIP's actions against Cogswell are a classic case of "shooting the messenger." Before joining AFIP, Hause spent two years as division surgeon for the Army’s 1st Cavalry Division, including duty as a surgeon during the Gulf War. He also served as the Army’s regional medical examiner in Germany. After he talked to the press, the gag order was extended to include all AFIP personnel. They were ordered to turn in "all slides, photos, x-rays and other materials" related to the Brown case. All personnel at the AFIP were prohibited from talking to the press and had to stay at their work stations for the duration of their working day. All personnel, including ranking officers, had to obtain permission to leave for lunch. But by then, the photos and the x-ray slides were already in the public domain. And in case you are wondering, Alan Keyes, a spokesman for the AFIP, has acknowledged that the internet photos are legitimate. On December 11, 1997, despite the gag order, Gormley was allowed to give a live interview on Black Entertainment Television. Members of the black community, who had heard rumors about the possibility of a gun shot wound in Brown's head, had begun to ask for an investigation. This appears to be a clear attempt at "damage control". Gormley immediately attacked the other pathologists. He stated that one could rule out a bullet wound because no brain matter was visible in the wound. He also stated that the x-rays taken during the examination showed no trace of a bullet injury. He denied that two sets of x-rays existed. Then, on live TV, he was confronted with a photograph taken during the examination (by Janoski) that showed brain matter visible in the wound. He ended up admitting that brain matter was indeed visible, excusing his former statements as a memory lapse. He then admitted that the hole was a "red flag" which should have triggered a further inquiry. Next he was confronted with a copy of Janowski's x-ray slides. He immediately changed his story and claimed that this first set of x-rays had been "lost" so that a second set was required. It was then pointed out that the Janoski x-rays slides show signs of a "lead snowstorm", which he didn't refute. A few years later, Judicial Watch stated in a document submitted to a court that Colonel Gormley now admits that he consulted with other high-ranking pathologists present during the external examination of Ron Brown's body and they agreed that the hole looked like a gunshot wound, "at least an entrance gunshot wound". Furthermore, he confesses that no autopsy was requested based on "discussions" at the highest levels in Commerce, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Whitehouse. On January 9, 1998, the Washington Post reported that the AFIP had convened a review panel of ALL its pathologists, including Cogswell and Hause. The article quoted AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, in saying that the panel came to the unanimous conclusion that Brown died of blunt-force trauma and not a gunshot. According to Cogswell, however, he refused, following the advice of his lawyer, to participate in the review because he thought it would be unfair and biased. He says that most of those participating were not board-certified in forensic pathology and of those who were, none had significant interest or experience in gunshot wounds. He says that all of the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's forensic pathologists with any expertise in gunshot wounds (Cogswell, Hause and Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons) dissented from the "official" opinion. Even though Hause and Parsons cooberated Cogswell's version, AFIP spokesman Chris Kelly said AFIP "stands by" Dickerson's claim that the findings were unanimous ... a clear lie. On January 13, in violation of the gag order, Kathleen Janoski went public. She did this, according to her, for self protection and out of concern for the careers of Cogswell, Hause, and Parsons. Since then she has been interviewed repeatedly and has provided a sworn affidavit regarding what happened (as noted above). The AFIP now claims that the x-ray film used in the first set of x-rays (i.e., those captured in Janowski's slides) was defective. They say this explains why a second set of x-rays was taken (now the story is that the first set wasn't lost ... just discarded) and why the first x-rays might "appear" to show a lead snowstorm. Janoski responds that the photos she took of other Brown X-rays on the light box do not show any film "defect". Hause, along with Dr. Jerry Spencer, have confirmed that Brown's x-rays are missing from his case file, as well as the photographs of the x-rays that were stored in a safe and the negatives for those photographs. According to Hause, all that remains of the x-rays are the color slides in Dr. Cogswell's slide presentation and the copy of Brown's head x-ray in the possession of the Tribune-Review. Gormley and the AFIP did not investigate or offer any explanation for how the X-rays or photos disappeared. Gormley now refers calls to Chris Kelly, who simply says that Gormley will not grant additional interviews. In a press statement, the AFIP reportedly said that extensive "forensic tests" disproved a bullet theory. Janoski said she was present for the entire examination and did not observe any forensic tests, such as those for gunpowder residue. Janet Reno told the nation that the Justice Department conducted a "thorough review" of the facts in the Ron Brown death investigation and concluded that there was no evidence of a crime. However, no one from the Justice Department or FBI interviewed the military pathologists. The review was conducted by the same AFIP personnel responsible for the decision not to autopsy. Cogswell, Hause, Parsons and Janowski were all reassigned to other duties outside their areas of expertise and the Government tried to limit their contact with fellow pathologists by barring them from conferences. They had their homes searched without a search warrant and were given negative job evaluations (for the first time in careers spanning over 10 years). For example, Cogswell's evaluation, which was six months late, states that he is "disruptive to the work environment with immature behavior." He has been "unresponsive to counseling," it continues, adding that he has used "inappropriate language" and worn "inappropriate dress." Cogswell was even criticized for his manner of driving in the AFIP facility's parking lot. The belated report bears three signatures, including those of Armed Forces Chief Medical Examiner Jerry Spencer and AFIP Director Col. Michael Dickerson, both proven liars. The signatures are not even dated. The Accident Investigation Report (produced during the second phase of the normal Air Force crash investigation ... the first phase is the Safety Board, which was suspiciously skipped in the Brown crash) presumes that the cause was "accidental". It does not contain anything regarding the opinions of the pathologists about a bullet wound or the evidence (x-rays, photos) cooberating those opinions. Strange, given that the document is to aid lawyers in any legal matters following a crash. In fact, neither the Brown family or other families were ever told about the possibility of a bullet wound. They had to learn about it years later. Then, the acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters sent a letter to family members of the air crash victims attempting to debunk the bullet wound thesis. He wrote that "The reports resulted from the opinion of an Air Force medical examiner who did not personally examine any of the CT-43 casualties. They are his opinions only. The consensus of Col. (Dr.) William Gormley, who personally examined Secretary Brown, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology forensic community is that Secretary Brown, like the others tragically killed in the plane crash of an Air Force CT-43 aircraft in Croatia on April 3, 1996, died of injuries sustained during the mishap." However, since all of the pathologists who did examine Brown's body, including Gormley, and all of the pathologists at AFIP with experience in bullet wounds who looked at the photos and x-ray, have now agreed that an autopsy should have been done, this is disinformation ... at best. He wrote "Due to the initial appearance of Secretary Brown’s injuries, the medical examiners carefully considered the possibility of a gunshot wound. However, their examinations combined with X-rays ruled out that possibility." Both statements are demonstrable lies. He wrote "The alleged "bullet fragments" mentioned in the reports were actually caused by a defect in the reusable X-ray film cassettes. Medical examiners took multiple X-rays using multiple cassettes and confirmed this finding." Of course, as has already been pointed out, this is also a lie. Medical examiners did not confirm this finding. The photographer who took the pictures says it is untrue and could not be true given that only that one photo of Brown's heads shows the so-called "defect". He wrote "the medical examiner determined there was no gunshot wound, and therefore concluded there was no need for further examination. Had there been suspicion regarding the nature of Mr. Brown’s death — or the death of any other person on the aircraft — medical examiners would have pursued permission to perform a full internal examination." This too is a lie given that calls for an autopsy were voiced at the examination and the reasons given by Gormley for not performing an autopsy have been shown to be bogus ... which Gormley himself admitted on live TV. Before ending with his "heartfelt apologies," the Peters statement revealed its real purpose: "We hope these actions will preclude credible media from pursuing this story." Brown's daughter, Tracey, said that the family hired their own forensic pathologist after the bullet wound controversy surfaced and that one of the key reasons they were satisfied that Brown was not shot is that the pathologist told them there was no exit wound. Janoski has testified, however, that Brown's body was never examined or photographed for an exit wound and Gormley admits he didn't look for one. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-ray slides and wound photos to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory. Fackler said "It's round as hell. ... That's unusual except for a gunshot wound." He also said brain matter was visible. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God." he said. He was surprised that the hole was described on Gormley's report as "approximately .5 inches." Using calibrated instruments, he noted it was somewhat smaller than .5 inches, "and a little bit small for a .45-caliber bullet hole." Fackler explained that the skull can be slightly "elastic" and bullet holes can be slightly larger or smaller than the actual bullet caliber. He said the hole was more consistent with a .40-caliber or 10 mm bullet, like those widely used by law enforcement agencies. Christopher Ruddy showed copies of the x-rays and photos to Pittsburgh coroner Dr. Cyril Wecht, one of the nation's foremost forensic pathologists. Wecht, a democrat, said "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied." Wecht said the identification of almost half a dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver- colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the wound "suggest metallic fragments". He said "little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone." If the metal is from a bullet, he said the array of fragments would indicate a shot fired before the crash. Wecht said Brown's body was relatively intact. Lacerations were superficial, and other damage to his face and body appeared to be caused by chemical burns that probably would not have resulted in death. X-rays indicated Brown's bones were generally intact, with a breakage of the pelvic ring that Wecht said was survivable. Given all the above, Destro, do you still want to claim the allegations of a gunshot are just BS and nonsense?
Why do you fear the Ron Brown allegations so much? I said no such thing. Why do you fear the allegations in the Ron Brown case so much? There was NO autopsy.
No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana. I'm sure you can figure it out.
Folks survive plane crashes all the time. This was a low speed impact. The back portion of the plane was even still intact. And in any case, you are avoiding the real issue. The photo, x-ray and what the pathologists say.
Diana, during the invasion our troops discovered suicide bomb making factories and foreign nationals who said the Iraqis were training terrorists. We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands. Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana?
The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down. Even if he pulled a DB Cooper and jumped out he would be landing in an area that would probably kill or cripple him regardless. Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Let me know when congress declares war and makes this war legal.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Bush fully supported the bombings over the Republican party's objections.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
NO ONE SURVIVED THAT PLANE CRASH!! Hence the shooter died as well and Ron Brown would have been shot in front of terrified business reps he brought with him. And if any survived they would have had to have been shot as well. Thus I don't think Ron Brown was shot to t he head - though I think he was murdered. Then they get their honey pot stories out to lure in teh conspiracy flies who will muck up any investigation because now diging for this truth makes you seem looney. This was an impact on the side of a mountain - they did not skid to a stop it was a full frontal impact.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
When can we bomb DC? America was fully funding al-Qaeda linked armies in the Balkans. Let me know when war will come against the real people spreading al- Qaeda like jihad - Pakistanis and Saudis and Americans in the State Dept.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
You are wrong - I don't hold this nation in esteem at all nor it's citizens except for a handful - myself included in the exception.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Aren't you getting the cart before the horse? All of a sudden, it seems you don't want to know what the pathologists said? They said it looked like a bullet wound and he should have been autopsied. If an exhumation and autopsy revealed that it was, then what? Would you still just say Brown couldn't be shot because the plane was packed and the shooter couldn't get away? Now as to that claim ... since you want to speculate ... let's note a few other facts that might be pertinent. They don't really know who was on the plane since the passenger manifest just happened to get lost. Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain. When it was still 8 miles from the crash site both an AWACS and the airports in the area simultaneously lost both voice and transponder contact with the plane. And about that time, there was an odd jog in the flight path of the plane ... which to this day has also not been explained. Just ignored. Do you know that the rear door of the aircraft was found open when rescuers first arrived at the crash site? Given that, could someone have jumped out of the plane before it crashed? Perhaps after setting off a small bomb to take out the communications on the plane? Also, the hand gun of Brown's bodyguard was never located at the crash site. It just disappeared. And why do you assume Brown was killed while in flight? I've never insisted on that. If this was a plot to spoof the plane into hitting a mountain, the perpetrators would know where the plane was going to hit. It wouldn't be that hard to have someone on the ground at that location make sure that everyone was dead. With that in mind, note the following. Although the crash occurred within two miles of the airport, it "officially" took at least 7 hours for the U.S. Air Force to arrive. This was reportedly hours after the Croatians had reached the crash site. But curiously, an Associated Press report stated that the first Croatian rescuers were met by three Americans who were already on the ground. Hmmmmmm... After the crash, businesses that had employees on the plane were told there were no survivors. Later, they were told there was one (Sergeant Kelly). However, a Commerce Department document uncovered by Judicial Watch indicated that two (2) people survived the impact. The document, a chronology of events, was prepared for Secretary of State Warren Christopher. The log included the following item 40 minutes after the wreckage was discovered: "Commerce Dept. has heard from Advance Ira Sokowitz in Sarajevo that two individuals have been recovered alive from the crash." The government has never mentioned in any forum the second survivor. Why is that? The log also indicates that 45 minutes after notification of two survivors, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott asked that a TV crew "not film at the crash site." The request was granted without any explanation from the State Department as to why it was made. In fact, a State Department spokesperson was quoted as saying it would be "a waste of taxpayers' money" to respond to questions raised by the log. Do you know that Ira Sockowitz was supposed to be on the Brown flight but missed it for some "unspecified" reason? Amazing how he was still able to get to the crash site in time to be the point man for sending information back regarding the two survivors. And, by the way, Ira Sockowitz was an associate of John Huang (a known Chinese spy) and is himself implicated in illegally obtaining Secret materials while at Commerce (another matter never pursued by the RENO DOJ). The Croatian Ministry Of Transportation announced shortly after the crash that the black boxes had been found. The US Air Force in Germany confirmed this. Several foreign news stations reported it. The Department of Commerce log mentioned above states, "Chief of protocol Misetic called...The flight data recorder has been recovered." Then, a week later, the Air Force said the plane had no black boxes and that some boxes that looked exactly like the recorders had been found instead. The problem with this scenario is that flight recorders are designed to be unique in appearance and the people in Croatia who reported finding them were certainly qualified to know what one looks like. Another problem with the claim that there were no black boxes is that this exact plane, just a week earlier, carried the First Lady and Chelsea and, several weeks before that, had carried the Secretary of Defense. Regulations require that the First Lady and Cabinet Members only fly on aircraft with black boxes. Curiously, noone was ever punished for this "violation" of regulations. You see, Destro, this incident is full of facts with which to speculate. The only indisputable facts are that TRAINED, EXPERIENCED forensic pathologists ... some of the best in the country at the time ... concluded that what they saw was indicative of a gunshot wound. Yet there was no autopsy. And now you seem desperate to ignore that fact. Curious ...
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
I've never said that Bush is a good guy. In fact, I'm on record stating that he's complicit in the coverup of the crimes committed by the Clinton administration. And that would include suspicions about the death of Ron Brown.
Not true. Ira Sockowitz reported back to the State Department that there were TWO SURVIVORS. Sergeant Kelly was alive after the crash by most accounts. And Dr Wecht stated that Ron Brown's wounds (other than the head wound) were survivable. You assume the shooter was on the plane. That may be a false assumption. And you ignore the open door the rescuers found in the rear portion of the plane. You just seem desperate to avoid the facts and conclusions of the most expert people in this instance ... the forensic pathologists. It doesn't matter what you think. That's IRRELEVANT. What matters is what the experts in such things ... the forensic pathologists ... say the wound said to them ... what the photo and x-ray of the wound say to other pathologists who didn't see it first hand. And they all say (except for a couple of proven liars) that the wound is suspicious and that Brown should have been autopsied. And that fact puts all the other facts surrounding the case into a different light. Now you have me confused as to what you believe, Destro. Murdered how, when and by whom?
ROTFLOL!
on lp you said there were photos of the bullet hole. which were lost of course. you also said he was shot right before the plane went in. someone even asked you why they bothered to shoot the guy if the plane was going to crash. why don't you tell us the whole story. it sounds really kookey.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
is he really murdered if bill clinton had him brought back to life as a zombie?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
i assume you can't say that congress would declare war the same way it conducts every other piece of business. and has conducted every other piece of business for for the past 230 years. pass a bill. this is probably very inconvenient to the propaganda you are trying to push.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
No, I said there are photos of the wound that pathologists said looks like a bullet wound published on the internet. And there are. And I noted that the original photos from which those images came have disappeared from a locked safe at AFIP. And they have. The government admits this. And then ignores it. No, I did not. I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down. I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash. I said the only way to know for sure IF he was shot at all would be to exhume the body and do an autopsy. Why do you fear the Ron Brown case so much that you consistently mischaracterize my statements and views?
How about one titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502). It was passed by the House on October 10, 2002 by a vote of 296-133, and the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16. The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq: * Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors * Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region" * Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population" * Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people" * Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War * Members of al-Qaeda were "known to be in Iraq" * Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations * Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States * The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them * The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism * Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement The Resolution required President Bush's diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council to "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions." It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq." Seems to me the war in Iraq is legal by your definition.
you are spinning again, but that is to be expected. there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one, but couldn't he lacked three votes. bush also cut the inspections short. 114 authorized enforcement of security councel resolutions or defence of national security. as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you. look at the silly articles you are forced to quote to keep your kooky propaganda here alive. here is the resoluton: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution as it contradicted what you claimed above. you could only cherry pick from the recitals. and you didn't quote them correctly.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq. bush didn't do this because he feared he would be TURNED DOWN as he was in the UN. instead, he used fox news to fool guys like you into thinking the resolution above was sufficient.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
this sort of blatent dishonesty is the reason you are a laughing stock both here and on LP. it is also the reason that the republicans lost the last election and now stand in ruins with a 29% approval rate. it is why fox news is losing viewers and why 50% of the country identifies with the democrats and only 35% identify with the republicans. people are sick of the type of sleaze you, your party and your country push.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise. If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions. If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot. You might not be so pumped up about GWB's right to abuse Congressional permission to wage war if it were Israel rather than Iraq that was the unlucky victim of erroneous ( can you say manufactured?) WMD intel.
No, NewsMax told you you and other gullible goobers that it had seen these sorts of things, and that "unnamed sources" reported such things, and it it all crap. That is why the Duelfer report and all respectable media outlets call this sort of shit "debunked". If a shred of the NewsMax crap you spew were true, Bush would be on TV tonight repeating it and saving his Presidency. Instead, he slides down the tubes because of Iraq. And if a shred of this crap were true, why does it only come out in the Republican goob fooler press targeted at easly led morons like yourself? Surely there are some dark conspiracies at work here. Do you suppose Ron Brown is at the bottom of it all?
.
The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself. If you sit around reading this nutter stuff all day, you start spewing nut ball conspiracies like you just did here. Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? Or is it all NewsMax spew?
.
And please don't quote the National Enquirer or the UFO magazines at me.
.
Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew? And the that only people who seem to support you on it are kooks over on FR? And don't you find it odd that you must constantly invent new and ever more looney conspiracy theories to explain this? Either everyone in the world is a kook except you, or it is the other way around. Occums razor should tell you something here.
.
BAC!!! you have not yet defended yourself from the 'treasonous queer' charge. This apparently means that you accept the charges. You are a TREASONOUS QUEER. You pay Jeff Gannon for a date just like George Bush does. and you are a traitor too. It is very hard on your fans that you do not defend yourself from these charges.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
An interim report on the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
"How" Congress is to declare war? ROTFLOL!! This is the most lame spin you've come out with yet. You know you can't honestly quote 114 as it doesn't support your argument. You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution but didn't bother after the UN slapped him down. You know that Bush had to then stretch and misinterpret 114 to find the authority to go in. To avoid these inconvenient fact, you are now claiming that there are many, many ways for Congress to authorize war. Holding up two fingers when Bush walks past, crossing their legs in the chamber, coughing three times, etc. You are a real piece of work.
.
All of them Bullshit.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I also said he MIGHT have been shot after the crash. I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane. By the way I refreshed my memory on the subject. I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot. If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Yea, it's not like Congress ever declared war before.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Iraq posed no threat. The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
To All: Watch Choose shuck and Jive and refuse to answer the question. If a shred of chooser's WMD spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. If a shred of chooser's Al Qaeda in Iraq spew were true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. If a shred of choosers Ron Brown kookery was true, Bush could get up on National TV tonight and save his Presidency with it. Instead, Bush circles the hole in the toilet and waits for the last big slurp. In addition, Star, who was somewhat hard up for a charge, could have put Clinton in jail with it. Chooser simply has no answer to these questions that he can give us. He does have an answer, but the answer is a completely nutty and and utterly silly conspiracy theory and chooser knows that he would be held up to ridicule for years to come if he told it to us. Hence, chooser ignores questions like the ones above. Chooser, if your spew has any merit at all, why doesn't Bush get up on national TV and save himself with it? Why is it only pushed by NewsMax and internet kooks such as yourself? Tell us your nutty conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself. (I know you will ignore this, but I enjoy poking you with this subject.)
.
I find your non-answer to be unsatisfying. I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer. and this taints everything you've ever written. My whole world-view is in crisis now. if you're not even going to defend yourself on this point.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Say chooser .... why don't you tell us your nutter conspiracy theory for why Bush does not use your spew to save himself. If there is any merit to the garbage you regurgitate here, then one would expect to hear Bush using it to save himself from the coming < 20% approval rating. But Bush doesn't use it. From this, one would assume that your spew was just bullshit that NewsMax has fed to gullible goobers like yourself. Surely there is a nutter conspiracy theory that you run through your mind to avoid confronting this awful realization. Let's hear it.
.
But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.
Who really has their head in the sand here, Diana? You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.
It was that Hazel O'Leary who did it! I knew there was something bad about that woman!! /k
The Congressional bill did not require one. It just required that Bush do his best to get international cooperation and work to enforce UN resolutions. After first making sure the security of the US was preserved. No he didn't. He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441. At the time they didn't know there were no WMD. Everyone seemed to think they might still exist. And to this day, we really don't know if they did or not. The ISG said the possibility still existed because something was moved to syria (and they had a source they deemed credible which said it had to do with WMD). Also, Iraq went to a lot of trouble to sanitize files, computers and facilities of something they didn't have. Plus we have that binary sarin warhead that Iraq simply wasn't supposed to have. And finally, this never was just about WMD. Just look at all the concerns in that law the Congress passed authorizing the use of military force. That about covers it.
Bush is not the boss of the UN nor was he the decider when the UN mission would end, nor was the UN mission working for the USA. Bush had NO AUTHORITY to dictate anything to the UN.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's. Because I used to believe BAC's posts. But I have recently learned that he is a treasonous queer. and he has admitted that this is true even. He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon. I can no longer put any confidence in anything that BAC says.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
ROTFLOL! I notice that so did you. You forgot the twenty or so WHEREAS's that are most certainly part of the resolution. Plus you forgot this: ******* (b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.—In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that— (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and (2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. (c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.— (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.—Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.—Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. *********** Gee ... did I see the word WAR in that?
There was nothing in writing requiring that he go back for another resolution. The first law said it all. Bush was duly authorized to do whatever necessary to ensure the safety of the US against terrorists. And Congress did not act to repeal that law. Nor did they cut off funding for the invasion. Nor have they cut off funding for the occupations since that invasion.
Well that's stretching the truth a bit ... And isn't hindsight wonderful ... And put Pelosi into the Presidency? ROTFLOL! Unlike Pelosi, Hillary and so many other top democRATS, they actually have worked in private industry during their lives.
I remind everyone that a TREASONOUS QUEER is not a good source for information.
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Newsmax is not the source for any of this. If you'd paid the slightest attention to any thread where these things were discussed, you know that. http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_6_30.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-04-18-jordan-terror_x.htm http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/04/26/jordan.terror/ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/26/world/main613825.shtml http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2004/05/05/11586.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184927,00.html http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4838076/%20 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,135670,00.html http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/4/21/b3156726%2D58b2%2D447b%2Dae27%2D7669bf04a708.html http://www.nationalreview.com/robbins/robbins200405030839.asp It's clear enough who is in the dark here.
See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ...
Isn't it odd how wrong you turned out to be. Or are you just generally uninformed, ...?
11 links that would take 5 hours to read and says who knows what. not one quotation snipped out even to demonstrate your point. and not one word about the details of your date with Jeff Gannon. Were you the boy or the girl? We're more interested in that. But a TREASONOUS QUEER won't answer. and that is YET MORE PROOF that you ARE a TREASONOUS QUEER!!!!!!!!!!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have. Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.
Please link us to the written material requiring this. Bet you don't.
That is YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS, however, was expressed in those twenty or so WHEREAS's in the law they passed authorizing the President to use force.
Only in Tel Aviv (where it appears such matters for the United States are decided).
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
But the crash doesn't explain the head wound, which according to the pathologists looked more like something caused by a bullet. What you provided was a STORY that someone made up and that doesn't account for the verifiable statements of the pathologists and photographer about what the wound, photos and x-rays told them. Why would the pathologists and photographer, who you can actually listen to talking about this matter if you desire, be part of a disinfo attempt? Because prior to their coming forward to blow the whistle in a variety of forums, there were no allegations of foul play in the Ron Brown matter. So why did they come forward?
Occam's Razor explains it well enough.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
BAC: Sorry, but none of that defines the FORM that a declaration of war must have. Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War. Here's your answer from leveller on another thread which you have conveniently forgotten to read - furthermore, I believe leveller is better acquainted with the law ( hint, hint) than you are, BAC. leveller states "No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war." So your ergo conclusion is worth squat, BAC. So what else is new? http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49419&Disp=8#C8 #8. To: BeAChooser (#3) BAC: the FORM the declaration must take. leveller: No specific form is required. But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war. An example of a valid declaration comes to us from 11 December 1941: "The War Resolution Declaring that a state of war exists between the Government of Germany and the government and the people of the United States and making provision to prosecute the same. Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America: Therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the government to carry on war against the Government of Germany; and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States" leveller posted on 2007-04-04 11:11:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
That's YOUR opinion. The opinion of CONGRESS is expressed in the WHEREAS's of the bill they passed authorizing the use of force. The UN does not supercede the right of the US to protect it's national security. And many of the members of the UN have been shown to have been on the take from Saddam or looking forward to very lucrative oil and weapon contracts the moment the sanctions were rescinded. In other words, they were compromised.
See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?
No, they are supposed to do what they think is RIGHT after having been elected. They are not supposed to act solely on the basis of public polling. Because public opinion, sadly enough, is easily manipulated and the public is often not aware of all the facts. Sometimes for security reasons. Sometimes out of their own sheer laziness or disinterest.
Whatever, Diana. I'll stand by the many links I've provided above. Those visiting this forum can decide who is right.
And the UN is not the boss of the United States.
Of course, Red Jones is one of those who thinks there were bombs throughout the WTC towers. See how 4umers debate when facts don't work?
You don't use facts either - in fact you are not objective at all but an advocate for Bush or to be more honest the neocon policy that Bush pushes. For example, Congress only authorized war as a last result - Bush abused the authorization congress gave him to go to war.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say. I find that curious, Destro.
BINGO. According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
Is Destro your brother or your debate coach, BAC? Why are you running to him to to report the "indignities" you invite and willingly suffer on this 4um? Btw, "facts" are not what you post here, BAC. What you post are highly selective rightwing biased "cut and paste."
I beg to disagree. The law passed by Congress authorizing the use of force is a fact. The expert opinions of the pathologists in the Ron Brown case is a fact. You now seem to want to avoid both. And said Bush could define the final straw.
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION. And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically - which I doubt is a result of professional legal training and education like leveller's is.
All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy. Why complicate the matter - it is clear the plane Ron Brown was on was directed into the mountainside. The crash killed everyone on board. Trying to figure out how a shooter could execute the murder of Brown with a head shot (while not killing the rest of the passengers in the same way) and then exiting the plane - wither before lift off - during flight or afterwards is much more complicated a scenario. If you can figure out how Ron Brown's execution could be coordinated with the crash scenario without looking like a cheap hollywood movie with guys jumping out of airplanes just before they crash like in Mission Impossible, be my guest.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments even if I disagree with them - and I disagree with BAC's argument on Iraq. All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
That we have come to the point when this is not obvious to so many - especially among what I assumed would be the super dooper constitution upholding party like the Republicans - then the Republic is lost and its maintenance is a fiction. Remember that the fiction of the Roman legions marching under the banner of SPQR was maintained well into the Byzantine era of the Roman empire.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
it's funny the way the chooser complains about the way everyone on 4um debates him. he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over and mostly by the same posters who have done the same to him on LP. what a troll. fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function. ;)
... snip ... Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication? BAC: See the above post. You are only making a fool of yourself, ... HAHAHAHAHA. Come again, BAC, who is making a fool of himself? The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop. Townhall, Fox News, National Review - eeeeeek - are you so thick, BAC, that you don't see what a useful tool you are? Salem Comminications owns Townhall - born again ownership: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php? title=Salem_Communications_Corporation As for Fox News: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News ...Relationship with Republicans In late 2002, Fox News chairman Roger Ailes confirmed the allegation in Bob Woodward's book Bush at War that he had sent a note to Karl Rove in the Bush White House suggesting policies to be adopted in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. Woodward described the note as advocating Bush take "the harshest measures possible" in order to maintain the support of the American public. Ailes said the note was not political advice but a message sent "as a human being and a citizen", and denied that he used the word "harsh" or "harshly".[3] ...The Poynter Institute, by former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, described the Fox newsroom as being permeated by bias... As for National Review, "The current director of the National Review is Jeff Sandefer, President of the Texas-based energy investment firm Sandefer Capital."
"But, though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration." Chancellor Kent, Commentaries On American Law, Vol I, Part 1, Lecture III (1826)
All I've done is ask you folks to point out SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution or our laws where the FORM that a Declaration of War must take is spelled out. And clearly you can't do it. Because it isn't. Perhaps the framers of the Constitution wanted it that way? Instead, you just CLAIM that a state of war must be stated to exist by Congress for a Declaration of War. Based on YOUR opinion. But the only opinion that really matters is that of Congress and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not ruled this war illegal. They have not ruled that the Authorization To Use Force doesn't constitute a "declaration of war". And I posted the opinion of CONGRESS in the form of a law authorizing Bush to use military force to deal with the problem of Iraq. That law specifically states that "the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution." Section 5 (b) puts a time limit of no longer than 90 days for the use of United States Armed Forces in a foreign nation without a declaration of war or a joint resolution of Congress otherwise authorizing the use of force. That requirement has been met. You may not like it (in your OPINION), but it has been met.
I can't speak for the whole forum, BAC, but for my money, it's time for you to go back & suck on Goldi's sagging tits. You're draining too damned much good time and energy, around here. (Time for the bozo/vote, I guess.) By the way BAC, tell your handlers that I can be bought off. I told you that before, but you didn't listen.
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists and what they said about the wound in Brown's head. See post #108. And they said a lot more than just that they would have liked an autopsy. And you responded to post #108 in post #114 ... so don't claim you didn't see it. As I said, you now seem to be running as hard as you can from the pathologists and what they've said in numerous venues about the hole in Ron Brown's head. Curious ...
Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts. And labeling me a "Bushbot" isn't going to score you points either ... except perhaps in the eyes of the typical 4umer who believes I'm satan, bombs brought down the WTC, the hole in the Pentagon is 20 feet in diameter and an average of 600 Iraqis have been dying every single day since the war began.
No, he's been called "evil" by folks who still insist that the WTC towers collapsed in 10 seconds even though photos and videos at numerous sources prove that's absolutely false. That should tell you something, christine. But you failed to use it on this thread. ;)
So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together? Because they ALL carried the story about the Jordan chemical bomb plot. Contrary to ...'s claim that my only source was Newsmax. Yes, scrapper ... I do think I know who is making fools of themselves here.
Which is exactly what Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502 did.
No I didn't say that that "all were working together." But most of the "news" sources you cited are echo chambers of one another's right wing bias. Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times? The others I'd need to check on ownership. Most of the US news sources are owned by approx 6 or so parent companies whose owners have questionable AmericaFirst persuations, politely speaking.
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation. Now look at AUMF. One reason, apparently that its text does not declare that a state of war exists, is that such a sentence would require completion by specifying the particular nation with which the US is or was at war. AUMF, however, unconsitutionally delegates to the President the power to declare war, by allowing him to determine against whom military force shall be used: "Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."
So? No link.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Unsourced cut and pastings.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
... from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters. If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid.
Good for them. But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take. And did you know that none other than President Thomas Jefferson sent his military forces to the Med with orders to look for *someone* to fight ... at a time when we weren't at war because one hadn't been declared by Congress? In fact, Jefferson sent the forces WITHOUT CONSULTING CONGRESS AT ALL. Jefferson sent the navy with permission to "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence - by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever (he should) find them." And post facto Congress did approve Jefferson's actions (although they did NOT declare war) which nevertheless led to a defacto war that lasted about four years. In Congress (largely made of framers of the Constitution), only Hamilton criticized Jefferson, but not for using force, but for not using enough force. Hamilton also expressed doubts about Jefferson's strict interpretation of the war powers of the President. He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war, there was no need for Congress to do so. And these were the framers of our Constitution, leveller. Jefferson embroiled the nation in a war BEFORE congressional assent was given ... in any form. The reality is that he sent his forces out to provoke a war, even if none existed because he understood what you folks don't ... that war was the answer. The reality is that the situation at that time is not too dissimilar to our situation now and the actions of Bush are not all that different from those of Jefferson and Madison.
If you include those in your list, the answer is as different as night and day. Which is why you deliberately didn't include them. And if you are claiming that all of them are lying to you about what happened in Jordan and what those terrorists said on live Jordanian TV and in court, then I'm afraid most people are going to think you are a bit paranoid. I told you that I did not include some BECAUSE I needed to check into parent company, ownership. And I also told you that media ownership is controlled by approx 6 families, who held questionable AmericaFirst loyalties. What I implied to you was that even after I double-checked ownership, I doubted there would be that much of a difference between any of them in their primary loyalty persuations. They'd likely all be pro-Israel and therefore all be pro Iraq War because that war was for Israel's benefit. There I spelled it out for you. Kapeesh? Also, may I remind you that you included blogs with newspapers and magazines and even within that "variety" I found a pattern of right wing echo chamber.
delegatvs non potest delegare
You want links to direct quotes by the pathologists and photographer? Fine. ********* "Experts Differ on Ron Brown's Head Wound" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 3, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/03/35938 "Even if you safely assumed accidental plane crash, when you got something that appears to be a homicide, that should bring everything to a screeching halt," Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell, a doctor and deputy medical examiner with the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, told the Tribune-Review. In several interviews, Cogswell repeatedly referred to the wound as "an apparent gunshot wound." However, he also said, "Whether it's a bullet or something else, we don't know." ... snip ... "Essentially ... Brown had a .45-inch inwardly beveling circular hole in the top of his head, which is essentially the description of a .45-caliber gunshot wound," Cogswell added. ... snip ... "I talked to Col. Gormley and he told me there is a .45(-inch) inwardly beveling, perfectly circular hole in the top of (Brown's) head," Cogswell said. ... snip ... "Open him up. This man needs an autopsy," Cogswell said he told Gormley. "This whole thing stinks." ... snip ... Cogswell also felt it would be very difficult for any rod or similar item to pierce the skull then exit, leaving a perfect hole as it did. His suspicions grew upon his return to the United States when he spoke to AFIP colleagues who had stayed at Dover. He also reviewed the photographic and X-ray evidence. "I talked to a few people who were there from our office and asked them ... if they thought this wound looked like a gunshot wound, or, `What do you think the hole looked like?' And the uniform response was, `Yeah, it looked like a gunshot wound.'" he said. ... snip ... Her photos would later become part of Cogswell's slide program. He tells his audiences that the frontal head X-ray shows the defect at the top of the head, and something perhaps more sinister. Inside the left side of Brown's head, in the area behind his eye socket, "there are multiple small fragments of white flecks, which are metallic density on X-ray. That's what we might describe as a `lead snowstorm' from a high-velocity gunshot wound." ... snip ... The Tribune-Review obtained copies of those images as well as detailed photos of Brown's body and the circular wound. All were shown to Dr. Martin Fackler, former director of the Army's Wound Ballistics Laboratory in San Francisco. While acknowledging he is not a pathologist, Fackler said he thought it "very difficult to see" how something like a rivet could have produced the head wound. He also said brain matter was visible. "It's round as hell. That is extremely round," Fackler said with a chuckle. "I'm impressed by how very, very round that hole is. That's unusual except for a gunshot wound. It's unusual for anything else." Fackler said he could not rule it a gunshot without a full autopsy and better X-rays. He said the supposed metal fragments on the first X-ray were not conclusive because they were very small, an autopsy had not been conducted to locate them, and a side X-ray was overexposed, giving little detail of the head. "They didn't do an autopsy. My God. It's astounding," he said. ************** "Second Expert: Brown's Wound Appeared to be From Gunshot" By Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 9, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/09/34206 A second Armed Forces medical examiner has stepped forward to publicly confirm key statements made by a colleague about the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. U.S. Army Lt. Col. David Hause (pronounced "hoss"), a deputy armed forces medical examiner, told the Tribune-Review he personally examined a suspicious head wound on Brown's corpse while it was being examined at Dover Air Force Base, Del. He said several allegations made by Air Force Lt. Col. Steve Cogswell in a Tribune-Review article last week are true. Hause also expressed criticism of the military's treatment of Cogswell in the wake of that article. ... snip ... Cogswell was not present at Dover when the wound was examined, but Hause was. According to Hause, his examination table was only two tables away from the one on which Brown's body was laid out. "A commotion" erupted, he said, when someone said, "Gee, this looks like a gunshot wound." Hause said he left his examination table to view the wound. He remembers saying, "Sure enough, it looks like a gunshot wound to me, too." He said the wound "looked like a punched-out .45-caliber entrance hole." ... snip ... Hause agreed that "by any professional standard" an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown's body, but said he understood that "political and administrative" factors made it difficult for one to be conducted. Even so, he suggested that Gormley should have consulted with superiors to get authority, or if that was impossible, sought permission from the next of kin. After viewing the wound, Hause said he did not pursue the issue or investigate further. "I made the presumption the reason (Gormley) concluded it wasn't a gunshot wound, (and) therefore there was no need to go further, was that he looked at the X-rays" and found no evidence of a bullet, Hause explained. ... snip ... Additionally, Cogswell and another expert consulted by the Tribune-Review said a side X-ray indicates a "bone plug" from the hole displaced under the skull and into the brain. Hause's eyewitness examination also contradicts Gormley. "What was immediately below the surface of the hole was just brain. I didn't remember seeing skull" in the hole, he said. Hause concluded that the piece of skull "punched out" by the impacting object had displaced into the head. ... snip ... According to Hause, all that remains of the head X-rays are photographic slide images in the possession of Cogswell and copies of images possessed by the Tribune-Review. Hause said the disturbing facts raised by Cogswell, including the missing X-rays, have not drawn an appropriate reaction from AFIP officials. "It looks like the AFIP is starting its usual procedure of, upon receiving bad news, immediately shooting the messenger," Hause commented in reference to administrative actions taken against Cogswell in recent days. ... snip ... On Friday, Hause said a commotion developed in the office when a military police officer showed up and asked Cogswell to accompany him to Cogswell's home to retrieve all slides and photos in his possession relating to AFIP cases. "One of the things I'm wondering is why all the attention is focused on Cogswell, who never had the original X-rays," Hause said. ************ "Wecht: Autopsy Needed in Brown Case" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, December 17, 1997 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1997/12/17/32921 One of the nation's most prominent forensic pathologists says there was "more than enough" evidence to suggest possible homicide in the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown, and an autopsy should have been conducted on his body. Allegheny County Coroner Cyril Wecht reached these conclusions after reviewing photographs of Brown's body, photo images of X-rays of Brown's head and body, and the report of the forensic pathologist for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology who examined the corpse. ... snip ... Wecht scoffs at skeptics who dismiss the possibility of Brown being found with a bullet after a plane crash. "It's happened," Wecht said. "It's in the literature. It's rare, but it can happen, and evidence of a possible gunshot should not be ignored." After reviewing the evidence, Wecht reached several broad conclusions. "It's not even arguable in the field of medical legal investigations whether an autopsy should have been conducted on Brown," Wecht said. "I'll wager you anything that you can't find a forensic pathologist in America who will say Brown should not have been autopsied," Wecht continued. He noted that it's standard procedure to conduct autopsies on all victims in a plane crash. Forget about Brown being a cabinet member, or being under investigation," Wecht added. "He was in a plane crash. That alone should have meant he was autopsied." ... snip ... Wecht, who is also a lawyer, agrees with Cogswell. "There was more than enough evidence of a possible homicide to call in the FBI so that (the autopsy could have been conducted) and a gunshot could have been ruled out," Wecht said. "The military had a duty to notify the (Brown) family, and if the family didn't allow an autopsy, go to another authority to have it conducted. (AFIP) had a duty to do an autopsy," the coroner continued. ... snip ... "I'm troubled," Wecht added. "They did a tremendous disfavor to the families by not conducting autopsies." For one thing, he noted, survivors may have been left with weaker legal claims for damages. As for the wound itself, Wecht said, "Anytime you have a circular, symmetrical hole, a pathologist knows that one of the distinct mechanisms for making such a defect is a bullet. "It's not the only one (but) you have to consider it," he added. "The answer lies in the autopsy." ... snip ... Wecht did not rule out the possibility that a piece of the aircraft could have caused the hole, but agreed with Cogswell that such a "perfectly circular" hole would be difficult to achieve with parts of the plane. Wecht, like Cogswell, said the possibility of a bullet should have immediately been ruled out by opening the skull and looking for a bullet track through the brain. After analyzing a photograph of the wound, Wecht also identified tiny fracture lines in the skull that he said "would not be inconsistent with a gunshot wound." ... snip ... Most bothersome, Wecht said, was his identification of almost a half-dozen "tiny pieces of dull silver-colored" material embedded in the scalp on the edge of the circular wound itself and near the hole. These "do suggest metallic fragments," he said. "Little pieces of metal can be found at, or near, an entry site when a bullet enters bone," he explained. These flecks should have been collected for further analysis, Wecht said, though he noted they aren't by themselves proof of a gunshot. "It just makes it more consistent with one," he said. If the metal is from a bullet, he believes the array of fragments in the scalp would indicate a shot was fired before the crash. Wecht said a review of a photographic image of the first frontal X-ray of Brown's head may show, as Cogswell first suggested, "what we say in the jargon of forensic pathology is a lead snowstorm" of fragments left by a disintegrating bullet. ... snip ... Wecht jested that disappearance of the X-rays, which Gormley says would support his conclusions, fit what he calls Wecht's Law: "The frequency of lost X-rays, hospital records, documents, autopsy materials and other materials in a medical-legal investigation is directly in proportion to the complexity, controversy and external challenges" to a given case. In reality, Wecht said, "you'll find it is very, very rare" to have X-rays missing from a case file. ************** "Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGE TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 11, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/11/32000 One of the officers, Air Force Maj. Thomas Parsons, for the first time spoke publicly on the matter Saturday. The forensic pathologist joined two other AFIP medical examiners in disputing government claims about Brown's death after an Air Force jet carrying him and 34 others crashed in Croatia on April 3, 1996. ... snip ... On Friday, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher wrote that Cogswell's claims had prompted AFIP to convene an internal panel of its pathologists to review the Brown matter. Fletcher reported that the panel "unanimously backed" the findings of Col. William Gormley, the Air Force pathologist who examined Brown's body and concluded that he died of blunt force injuries during the plane crash. Gormley also ruled that the circular wound was not caused by a gunshot. The Post article quoted Gormley as stating that "there is no doubt in anybody's mind" that Brown died of blunt force injuries and that he had not been shot. Citing AFIP's director, Col. Michael Dickerson, Fletcher reported that "the group (of pathologists) issued a report reaffirming the initial Air Force conclusion that Brown's death was accidental ..." Fletcher's report also indicated that Hause had changed his mind and was now affirming Gormley's findings. Contradicting these claims are Hause and Parsons, both of whom participated in AFIP's internal review. Both officers concluded that Gormley's findings simply could not be substantiated, that the possibility of a gunshot could not be ruled out, and that an autopsy should have been conducted. None was. "Fletcher's article in the Washington Post, in which Colonel Dickerson said I concurred in this `unanimous' finding, contains a lie," Hause told the Tribune-Review. The Post report Friday morning left him "fuming," Hause said, and that evening he prepared a point-by-point statement countering AFIP's claims. Hause said he was never informed a report was to be issued on the Brown case, nor did he ever see the report that AFIP claims he signed off on. ... snip ... Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. ... snip ... According to Hause, Spencer asked if he agreed with Gormley's findings. Hause responded that the death was "probably" accidental, but that there was insufficient evidence to say Brown died of blunt force injuries as a result of the plane crash. Hause also says he advised Spencer that Gormley should have conducted an autopsy, and that "Secretary Brown's body should be exhumed and an autopsy performed by pathologists not associated with AFIP." Parsons, another participant in the internal review, told the Tribune-Review that he, too, could not back Gormley's findings. Reached at his home Saturday, the Air Force major also said he had never reviewed nor signed off on any such report, and had no idea what the report contained. Parsons said the statement in Friday's Post that all panelists had agreed with Gormley's findings "was not true." ***************** "Fourth Expert Claims Probe of Brown's Death Botched" by Christopher Ruddy, FOR THE PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW, January 13, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/1/13/173306 The head of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology's forensic photography unit, like three senior officials before her, has come forward to publicly claim that the military improperly handled the investigation of the death of Commerce Secretary Ron Brown. Chief Petty Officer Kathleen Janoski, a 22-year Navy veteran, also says she was told missing evidence of a possible homicide had been purposely destroyed. Janoski, the senior enlisted person at AFIP's Rockville, Md., offices, was present when Brown's body was examined by military pathologists at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. ... snip ... Janoski said she was stunned that AFIP's inquiry focused on the actions of Cogswell when she felt the real issue was AFIP's handling of Brown's death. "The investigation is nothing more than a witch hunt. (AFIP) should be investigating what happened to the missing head X-rays. No one at AFIP seems to care that Brown did not receive an autopsy," Janoski said. ... snip ... "Wow, look at the hole in Ron Brown's head. It looks like a gunshot wound," Janoski recalls exclaiming. ... snip ... Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview. ... snip ... Janoski alleges Sentell told her the original X-rays of Brown's head had been replaced in the case file. Janoski said she remembers that Sentell specifically told her "the first head X-ray that showed a `lead snowstorm' was destroyed, and a second X-ray, that was less dense, was taken." Janoski said she had to ask "What are you talking about?" in reference to Sentell's phrase "lead snowstorm." According to Janoski, Sentell explained that a lead snowstorm is the description of a pattern of metal fragments that appears on an X-ray after a bullet has disintegrated inside a body. ... snip ... One of the pathologists involved questions the timing of AFIP's explanation. "I find it interesting that this explanation about the film cartridge defect came after Lt. Col. Cogswell made his allegations, and not at the time we were at Dover," said Hause. Hause, who made these comments to the Tribune-Review before a gag order had been placed on AFIP staff, said he does not recall ever being told there was a problem with the X-rays. *********** "Kathleen Janoski Describes Cover-Up in Ron Brown Investigation" By Carl of Oyster Bay, FOR THE WASHINGTON WEEKLY, April 26, 1998 http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/4/26/01704 GRANT: We do have here on the line, Chief Petty Officer, United States Navy and chief of forensic photography with Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Kathleen Janoski. And she alleges that there has been a cover-up in the investigation of Ron Brown. Ms. Janoski, I welcome you to the Bob Grant program via the telephone. I understand that you have received some threats of one type or another. That there's been some pressure brought to bear to have you cease and desist from speaking out. Is that true? JANOSKI: Yes that is. Essentially what's happening is that I'm being punished as a whistleblower because I went on record with The Pittsburgh Tribune Review back in January. I used to be chief of forensic photography but I was kicked out of my office with essentially 32 hours notice and forced to walk away from a quarter million dollar inventory that I'm still assigned responsibility for. ... snip ... JANOSKI: It's actually the Army and the Air Force Colonel who's in charge of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. What it is - there's four of us altogether, (Lt. Col. Steve) Cogswell, (Lt. Col. David) Hause, myself and (Air Force Major Thomas) Parsons. And we all went on the record saying that Ron Brown had what appeared to be an apparent gunshot wound to the head - and that Ron Brown needed an autopsy, which he did not receive. ... snip ... JANOSKI: Well, actually it wasn't a mark. It was a hole in his skull. It was perfectly round, inwardly beveling and it's diameter was .45 inches. And it had punctured the skull. Brain was showing. And that's essentially what we said: that Ron Brown had a wound that appeared consistent with an apparent gunshot wound and that he needed an autopsy. (Janoski has FBI training in gunshot wound analysis). And because of that we're essentially being punished by the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. ... snip ... GRANT: You also made an allegation that x-rays were destroyed to hide evidence of a possible bullet wound. JANOSKI: Well, what happened was - we have a Naval criminal investigative agent who's assigned to our office. And about six months after the crash she told me that the first set of x-rays were deliberately destroyed because they showed a "lead snowstorm". And a second set of x-rays were taken and they were deliberately made less dense to try to diminish or eradicate that "lead snowstorm". A Naval criminal investigative agent assigned to my office told me this. GRANT: Now initially you had declined to be interviewed but you changed your mind shortly before a gag order was issued and you came forward, you said, because the AFIP had failed to properly investigate possible wrongdoing by it's own officials in the Brown case. And because of the way the military treated two AFIP pathologists. We have talked to Lt. Col Steve Cogswell and Lt. Col. David Hause. Now, I understand that after they both went public, bad things happened to them. JANOSKI: Yes, yes. We were all supposed to go to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in February. We had our tickets, we had our reservations, we'd paid our registration fees. And right before we were supposed to leave, the director of AFIP canceled our orders immediately. Also, Dr. Cogswell was forbidden to lecture, forbidden to go on trips. Cogswell, Hause and Parsons were no longer permitted to do any autopsies. And also Dr. Cogswell was kicked out of his office at the same time I was. And he's been re-assigned, they re-assigned him to oral pathology. So they have a medical examiner working with a bunch of dentists right now. He's very ill-equipped to work in that area. So essentially what they're doing is something that's typical in punishing a whistleblower. They're setting him up for failure. ************ And to see a list of other articles on the topic plus the photos of the wound and x-ray, go here: http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/1/31/173313 Or you can just continue to pretend ignorance or be lazy and do no further investigation. It's entirely up to you, Destro.
That's hearsay, you idiot.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
You have overlooked the distinction between form and substance. No particular form is prescribed for a declaration of war. But it must, in substance, declare that a state of war exists between the US and another nation. Take another look at that quote from Kent, posted above. The opening sentence refers to ancient usage in international relations. The Framers did not write the Constitution in an intellectual vaccuum. Terms of art are employed throughout. A declaration of war was not understood then, and is not understood now, to be a mere authorization of force.
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF. The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war. They did not initiate war. A band of criminals (according to the official story ) whose organization was once funded and trained and supplied by the US, perpetrated a few crimes on our soil. These crimes gave the US no casus belli against Afghanistan and Iraq. These criminals did not enjoy nationhood, and a declaration of war against them would have sounded ridiculous.
A transcript of that television interview was submitted to a court of law by Judicial Watch. It would be a crime to falsify such a thing, wouldn't it? Has JH been accused of that by the court or anyone else? No? Has Gormley come forward to deny he said that? No? And others reported the same content in the Gormley interview on BET too. All they all liars too? Now you can sit there with your head in the ground but that's not going to convince many that Gormley didn't admit to what was noted or that the other named pathologists haven't said what has been quoted. You only make yourself look even more desperate to make the Ron Brown allegation go away. Which makes me suspicious why you'd be desperate regarding that. You're not a democRAT, are you Dakmar?
If they could see me now, that little gang of mine... :)
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
That's me - Ron Brown News 24/7. You're starting to creep me out a little, Ooser; could you try telling the truth for like five minutes? We'll give you nekkid pictures of Teddy Roosevelt!
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Precisely. The delegee cannot delegate. Congress has limited enumerated powers, and among them is no power to delegate its powers. An extreme view, that I favor, is that no regulations promulgated by departments of the government other than Congress have the force of law.
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war. Communications then aren't what they are today. A founding father obviously didn't agree with your views, leveller. That must be sobering. Second, the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition). As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets. Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders. We have prosecuted some of them for domestic criminal offenses. When we demanded Bin Laden, Afghanistan quite rightly demanded proof. We incorrectly answered that we weren't obligated to provide it. (We probably had none) Rather than provide the proof, we invaded. If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
The state of war that existed between the US and Iraq during most of the nineties was the result of the illegal US and British no-fly zone bombing after the cease-fire. April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point. It hardly matters whether the first war was over when the second began, since the first one was illegal also. Congress has not declared war since WWII.
Where in the Constitution is it specified which form a Declaration of War from Tripoli shall take?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
EXACTLY!!!! 09/11 was a crime NOT an act of war (except to PNAC, of course).
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
No, the orders were NOT to "protect" shipping but to take out the pirates WHEREVER they might be hiding and to stop those helping them. Which is why Jefferson and Madison's Navy invaded A COUNTRY and DEPOSED a dictator. Did the founders believe in freedom for terrorists to attack US interests from the safety of a dictatorship? Obviously not. A lesson the left never learned.
Afghanistan lost any rights when it allowed terrorists to openly organize and train within it's borders. It is indisputable that they did. The family of the Taliban leader also married into the family of bin Laden, suggesting a far more than arms length association between the two. There's a lesson here that you on the left still haven't learned. We are playing by new rules now. No, they committed an act of war. A war they formally declared before 9/11. So we are legally helpless against terrorists. That's your message, lawyer? ROTFLOL!
Does that give us the right to invade Crawford, TX? Holy Cow but you are stupid.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined. You can't.
Thank you. That only helps my case. Show me in the Constitution where it defines a Declaration of War by Iraq or the Taliban.
Except that bin Laden actually had formally declared war on the US.
Are you a typical 4um poster?
Jefferson's words will wake you from your reverie: "To this state of general peace with which we have been blessed, 1 only exception exists. Tripoli, the least considerable of the Barbary States, had come forward with demands unfounded either in right or in compact, & had permitted itself to denounce war on our failure to comply before a given day. The style of the demand admitted but 1 answer. I sent a small squadron of frigates into the Mediterranean, with assurances to that power of our sincere desire to remain in peace, but with orders to protect our commerce against the threatened attack. The measure was seasonable & salutary. The Bey had already declared war. His cruisers were out. Two had arrived at Gibraltar. Our commerce in the Mediterranean was blockaded & that of the Atlantic in peril. The arrival of our squadron dispelled the danger. One of the Tripolitan cruisers having fallen in with & engaged the small schooner Enterprise, commanded by Lieutenant Sterret, which had gone as a tender to our larger vessels, was captured, after a heavy slaughter of her men, without the loss of a single 1 on our part. The bravery exhibited by our citizens on that element will, I trust, be a testimony to the world that it is not the want of that virtue which makes us seek their peace, but a conscientious desire to direct the energies of our nation to the multiplication of the human race, & not to its destruction. Unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense, the vessel, being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew." Thomas Jefferson 1st State of Union Washington, DC, 1801-12-08
You have no case, counselor. A peace treaty was signed with Tripoli by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate, thus establishing a precedent to regard Tripoli as a recognised state. Your boy Bush conducted what is commonly known as "gang warfare", totally uncouth, not to mention illegal and unconstitutional.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Are you Jewish?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
It isn't defined because educated people of the time already knew what it was and what form it existed in. Just like Bill of Attainder, Bill of Credit, Letters of Marque, Oath, etc. aren't defined. They are specific articles that had been issued by the Crown and defined by custom and common law and diplomatic protocol for hundreds of years. They weren't expecting to have to define the form of everything for numbskulls like you.
Thank you. BAC strikes me as the sort of person would try to redefine "breathing" in a infanticide trial.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The facts are these. They are not disputed by anything you posted. Jefferson deployed the navy, without consulting Congress, with permission to attack the pirates or any entity aiding the pirates, before any *formal* declaration of war had actually been received by the US. Now you can spin that any way you want, leveller, but Jefferson apparently didn't agree with your view about the legalities of war.
And when was this? AFTER Jefferson attacked them without consulting Congress? ROTFLOL!
with a fishy aroma that could level tacoma.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Jeferrson was acting in defense of US interests. Bush got a wild neocon hair up his ass.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Study your history, moron. Look up Adams presidency, note the years.
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
shalom fish breath. still trying to poison the reputation of the republican party?
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Well let's see ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli states it was signed in 1797. Jefferson sent his navy over in 1801. So I guess that peace treaty was as worthless as the paper it was on? Sort of like that cease fire agreement with Saddam? Eh?
you said wikipedia wasn't a legitimate source when you first came over here.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
is wikipedia a legitimate source for you but not for anyone else? that is a very republican position.
"And this is the end of my brilliant career on the 4um..." -- ponchy 12/20/2006
Israelis are deeply concerned about the possibility that Iran will soon have nuclear weapons. Americans should be no less concerned. Israeli Justice Minister Yosef Lapid said recently, "It is possible that Iran's first atomic bomb will fall on Tel Aviv, but then the second will fall on New York." The rest of the Western world has reason to be worried about this too. But the European powers are hard to convince of the need to act against the threat of a common foe, a reality that the United States learned two centuries ago. Then, the Barbary pirates were the adversaries. They were based in various parts of North Africa and operated with or without the approval of the nominal rulers of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis and Tripoli. In return for annual payments of protection money from European countries, the pirates promised that ships of those nations would not be attacked. The newly independent Americans joined the arrangement after eleven of their ships were seized by the pirates in 1793, and a ransom of almost one million dollars — borrowed from a Jew in Algiers — was paid for their release. President John Adams favored payments to the pirates and he even agreed to build and deliver two ships to them. Thomas Jefferson, then U.S. ambassador to France, opposed Adams on this issue. He said that a single decisive war against the pirates would be more cost-effective than annual bribes in perpetuity. On becoming president in 1801, Jefferson acted independently. First, he refused to accede to pirate demands for an immediate payment of $225,000 and annual payments of $25,000. Then he sent naval units and marines to North Africa to fight against the blackmailers, an episode recalled in the Marine Hymn ("to the shores of Tripoli"). Hostilities continued, on and off, for four years, until a temporary agreement was reached. Only after a second war in 1815 did American naval victories lead to treaties ending all tribute payments by the United States. European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s. The danger posed by the Barbary pirates was infinitely smaller than that stemming from Al Qaeda and other Islamists. This makes an international coalition more urgent in Bush's day than it was in Jefferson's. In Washington and Jerusalem this is self-evident. It is less obvious in many other places. One hopes that the leaders of the Western world will soon realize that the danger of car bombs, and, soon enough, nuclear bombs, threaten all of them. Where do you get your talking points, BAC?
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden? Did the citizens of bin Laden vote for the formal declaration of war or did bin Laden's Congress or the whatever legislative body thereof declare the formal war? Or did the president/leader of bin Laden declare war all by himself? When we defeat bin Laden in war, will there be an offical surrender ceremony on the deck of some US warship? Will we help rebuild bin Laden after the war? What if we never defeat bin Laden? How long will we be at war? How much money will it cost to defeat bin Laden? How many human wherever situate will die in the war? What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war? Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now? Can our navy and air force stand up and defend America against bin Laden's forces? Are we spending enough money for our defense to stop bin Laden's attacks? Should we spend a lot more? If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now? WHEW!
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Show me in the Constitution or US law where it says we can only be declared war on by countries or can only declare war on countries. You folks still don't get it. It's a brand new world. Then they need only elect representatives that will surrender. Have there been attacks by al-Qaeda inside the US since 9/11? Apparently something is being done to prevent that. And I think you are wrong in thinking that lining up soldiers along our borders wall to wall would do that. And apparently most in charge must agree with me. Probably not. But a lot more American might now be dead than are dead.
You left out "order", Zionist.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Don't you think the US Air Force should have used B-52s to carpet bomb Pendleton, New York, by now? That's Timothy McVeigh's hometown.
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Who placed the pre 09/11 stock options? Why hasn't there been a trial for those culprits?
Supporters of Bush and the Iraq war for Israel and oil are traitors to America and they hate American troops.
Good enough for me. And while you retards try and figure out how the gunmen could have shot a man moments before a plane crashed and got out no one investigate how the plane crashed into a mountain. Honey Pot Trap.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
We don't really know, do we. But we do know there are some interesting coincidences between the hijackers and the anthrax. Like the fact that the first case showed up within a few miles of where they stayed before 9/11. Like the fact that the wife of the editor of the magazine the first case worked for had contact with some of the hijackers. Like the fact that several hijackers were treated for skin problems. Like the fact that in hindsight those who treated them and doctors at John Hopkins say it was likely anthrax. Like the fact that Atta showed interest in crop dusters at a time when he was set to fly jets into buildings. Like the fact that Atta disappeared from the US for a week in April of that year. Like the fact that during that time a witness in Prague said he saw Atta meet an Iraq case officer. Like the fact that Iraq had manufactured anthrax weaponry. Like that fact that the ISG said Iraq had the technical capability to create the 9/11 anthrax. Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax on at least one occasion. But we don't really know, do we.
Didn't you read anything else I've posted, Destro? Because the photos of the wound and skull x-ray prove the skull was indeed perforated (and others who saw the wound confirmed this in statements I quoted). You can even go look at the photos yourself and confirm this. Gormley even admitted he was wrong about the skull not being perforated after being shown the photos. So why do you latch on to this bit of disinformation so desperately? And Gormley also admitted that he didn't look for an exit wound. And others confirm he did not. And all this has been pointed out to you with quotes from the individuals in question yet you go on repeating the same disinformation. One begins to wonder why. I'm not the one acting like a retard here, Destro. You clearly don't want to deal with what the photos, pathologists and photographer all say about the wound and what occurred at the examination. You keep latching onto statements that have already been proven to be lies. I really think you are showing a desperation that should make folks wonder why you are acting this way. Care to explain your behavior?
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point. Sometimes its actually shameful what the goob fooler press crams down the throats of gullible goobers like youself. Why doesn't Bush use the Prague meeting to justify his invasion? If its true, it would turn things around for him. Instead, this fiction is only used to excite paranoid and easily manipulated morons like yourself. It doesn't even appear int he higher level Republican propaganda. Everyone else realizes the story has been debunked for years. wise up and try to think critically. Just because a propaganda rag targeted at morons says something doesn't mean that you have to pattern your life around it.
.
Here you go again, making a false assertion. The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer. But claiming that seems to be the only debating tactic you know. That tactic is rather pathetic, ... especially after I've already proven you wrong when you said the same thing in another case. But you are a typical 4um poster so I guess I shouldn't expect you to learn from your mistakes. ROTFLOL!
What does that mean 9/11 strain of anthrax? What is that?
Gosh the way you put it makes it sound like the anthrax was a part of the 9/11 conspiracy. I bet you do that on purpose.
Who gave you the right to write new rules?
If the Mafia "declared war" on the US, would Congress issue a solemn declaration of war against the Mafia? Of course not. The Mafia lacks nationhood. Al-Qaeda also lacks statehood, and is but a band of international criminals.
Of course not. Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals. Of course, extradition treaties are not likely to be agreed upon in the absence of diplomatic recognition.
BAC's "Troll" tactics are at work again. He 'grounds' the emotional and intellectual energy of the forum - and he's successful, at it. Reply to his shit, at your own peril.
You exalt form over substance. The substantive elements of a declaration of war were well known to the Framers. The term "declaration of war" had a recognized meaning, and still does.
BeAChoochoo: It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. "U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)" Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war. Surely you see the difference. All discussion with you is pointless if you do not.
Actually, I think he helps. He offers a good tune up.
It's not just beside the point. It is outright FALSE. And you know it as we've discussed this before. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie. You are doing so because you cannot reconcile Glaspie's comments below with your world view. The best you can do is play games with with a paraphrased version of an out of context quote from an ardent war shill. Note that you don't provide the actual quote, just a paraphrased version that suits your purpose. You do this in an attempt to fool the uninformed that the damming comments were not made. You are behaving like a piece of dishonest scum here. The transcpript is below: Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait) July 25, 1990 - Presidential Palace - Baghdad U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - I have direct instructions from President Bush to improve our relations with Iraq. We have considerable sympathy for your quest for higher oil prices, the immediate cause of your confrontation with Kuwait. (pause) As you know, I lived here for years and admire your extraordinary efforts to rebuild your country. We know you need funds. We understand that, and our opinion is that you should have the opportunity to rebuild your country. (pause) We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threat s against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship - not confrontation - regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait's borders? Saddam Hussein - As you know, for years now I have made every effort to reach a settlement on our dispute with Kuwait. There is to be a meeting in two days; I am prepared to give negotiations only this one more brief chance. (pause) When we (the Iraqis) meet (with the Kuwaitis) and we see there is hope, then nothing will happen. But if we are unable to find a solution, then it will be natural that Iraq will not accept death. U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - What solutions would be acceptab le? Saddam Hussein - If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But, if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (i.e., in Saddam s view, including Kuwait ) then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles) On August 2, 1990, Saddam's massed troops invade and occupy Kuwait. _____ Baghdad, September 2, 1990, U.S. Embassy One month later, British journalists obtain the the above tape and transcript of the Saddam - Glaspie meeting of July 29, 1990. Astounded, they confront Ms. Glaspie as she leaves the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. Journalist 1 - Are the transcripts (holding them up) correct, Madam Ambassador?(Ambassador Glaspie does not respond) Journalist 2 - You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait ) but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You encouraged this aggression - his invasi on. What were you thinking? U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait. Journalist 1 - You thought he was just going to take some of it? But, how could you? Saddam told you that, if negotiations failed , he would give up his Iran (Shatt al Arab waterway) goal for the Whole of Iraq, in the shape we wish it to be. You know that includes Kuwait, which the Iraqis have always viewed as an historic part of their country! Journalist 1 - American green-lighted the invasion. At a minimum, you admit signaling Saddam that some aggression was okay - that the U.S. would not oppose a grab of the al-Rumeilah oil field, the disputed border strip and the Gulf Islands (including Bubiyan) - the territories claimed by Iraq? (Ambassador Glaspie says nothing as a limousine door closed behind her and the car drives off.)
.
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
Did we have an extradition treaty with Saddam's regime or the Taliban? Or if we did can you cite an instance where it was used successfully?
Yet one of the key Framers didn't declare war ... didn't even consult Congress ... before sending his fleet to attack countries in the Med.
The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer. But claiming that seems to be the only debating tactic you know. That tactic is rather pathetic, ... especially after I've already proven you wrong when you said the same thing in another case. But you are a typical 4um poster so I guess I shouldn't expect you to learn from your mistakes. ROTFLOL! Really, BAC? Strange but I found many of the "facts" you quoted in a 5 part NewsMax series by Phil Brennan and the Al-Ani thingie in a newsmax article as well. He also contributes to a site called Etherzone. Here's his summary of his 5 part newsmax series: http://www.etherzone.com/2 005/bren111605.shtml "ANTHRAX REVISITED: TOO MANY COINCIDENCES" Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for http://NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a member of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. Phil Brennan is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. http://www.new smax.com/archives/ic/2003/11/15/111243.shtml "Intelligence Bombshell: Saddam Financed Lead 9/11 Hijacker" The previously secret 16-page memo, prepared by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies, says Atta met as many as four times in Prague with Iraqi intelligence agent Ahmed al Ani prior to the 9/11 attacks. In a staggering revelation, which offers an overwhelming and compelling justification for the U.S. attack on Iraq, the CIA memo says that, during one of these meetings, al Ani "ordered the [Iraqi Intelligence Service] finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." Al Ani was captured by Coalition forces in July and has reportedly denied to U.S. interrogators any meeting with Atta. U.S. press reports on Iraq's role in 9/11, however, have been notoriously unreliable and are often driven by an agenda to undermine justification for the war. In excerpts first reported late Friday by the Weekly Standard, the memo says that the CIA "can confirm two Atta visits to Prague – in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000." Neither the CIA nor the FBI can confirm, for instance, that Atta met specifically with Iraqi intelligence. BACster, you are such a predictable shill - we know your sources by heart already.
A transcript that Tariq Aziz, Saddam's right hand man and who was present at the meeting, said is "incomplete". Glaspie testified under oath that she told Saddam that the US would not accept anything but a peaceful solution to Iraq's dispute with Kuwait. Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting ... both put out by Iraq (which as we all know has a history of not being honest), WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. How can that be, leveller? How can you know which transcript or if any transcript is accurate? Since Tariq Aziz has stated that "Glaspie was not given a green light", how can you claim with a voice of *reason* that she did? Let's face it, leveller. Your entire case is built on an INTERPRETATION of a few lines (or words) in a transcript produced by an Iraqi regime with a history of lying and which is contradicted by the eyewitness testimony of a high ranking member of Saddam's government who was present at the meeting in question. It is almost pathetic that you would make such an inflammatory claim on such flimsy evidence. But then you are a lawyer and you've been trained to do that. The question is ... who is your client?
And the US does?
But then you are a lawyer and you've been trained to do that. The question is ... who is your client? You could get alot more milage by not be constantly so accusing, In my humble opinion. How many words can you type a minute?? You must be in the 99%.
Ahhhh .... the old dancing paraphrased quote tactic. What you claim Aziz said above isn't the same as what you claimed in your prior post (221): Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly. And both of these "quotes" are nothing more than your BULLSHIT interpretation of what Aziz actually said - if he said anything at all. Or dare I say it? Both of your phoney quotes are a BULLSHIT paraphrasing that puts the words you need into somebody elses mouth. Sort of like you putting words into the war resolution and then using your red herring of the founding fathers not cobbling together a form for Congress to use when declaring war. Let me ask you something, if the bullshit quote you allegedly provided is true, why does Bush allow the entire world to hammer him -- time and time again -- with Glaspie's statement? Maybe you should mail this startling info to Bush so he can go on TV and save himself with it.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Gee ... that language sounds a lot like the language Congress passed in 2002 regarding Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Wow! So the Framers didn't require a formal written document from an enemy to believe they'd declared war on us. And by the way ... did you know that Jefferson's forces topple a dictator by overland attack? I'd call that "aggressive war". Why before they did that, Jefferson's navy bombarded Tripoli causing massive civilian casualties. I wonder what you folks would of said about that had you been alive at the time. Maybe you would have burned one of the Framers in effigy for his war crimes?
You don't know the meaning of lie. Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting in question, stated in an interview with PBS (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war."
ROTFLOL!!! So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort. And from your post above, he didn't do it in a consistent manner. In other words Azis tried to spin the inconvenient statement Fox News style when it started to become a problem. And moronic, gullible goobers like yourself slurped it up with a spoon. Let me clue you in on something chooser. That is the reason he did it. To fool idiots like youself.
.
That doesn't mean the original facts came from NewsMax. It just might mean Newsmax got it right when it republished what others first published. But then you apparently never read anything but Newsmax so you wouldn't know. What possible motivation might he have for admitting something that might link him to an anthrax attack in the US that killed people? Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period? But since you are so informed, scrapper, perhaps you can explain another strange coincidence in this story. al-Ani ... the Iraqi case officer that Atta is reported by the Czechs to have met ... had an entry in his day calendar for the day in question about meeting "a Hamburg student". What a coincidence that Atta's travel documents listed him as a "Hamburg student". Any explanation you care to float?
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall? No??? Have you had anything to say the uncounted times I've been called a shill, bushbot, moron or any number of other demeaning labels? No???
Stop your pathetic whining. Your wingnut victimhood is truely digusting. Take it off the board and spare us.
.
BAC, you asshole, we went over this at ElPee. Glaspie later let is slip that "....we didn't expect them to take all of Kuwait." In other words, if Hussein had just grabbed the northern Kuwaiti oil fields; that would have been okay. BAC - you're such a fucking disinformationisat asshole!
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/aziz/2.html) that "She didn't tell us anything strange. She didn't tell us in the sense that we concluded that the Americans will not retaliate. That was nonsense you see. It was nonsense to think that the Americans would not attack us. In the early hours of the 2nd of August, the whole apparatus of the leadership took precautions for an American speedy immediate retaliation." He went on to say "So we had no illusions that the Americans will not retaliate against being in Kuwait because they knew that this was a conflict between the two of us-- Iraq and the United States." Aziz told the New York Times on 31 May 1991 that "She didn't give a green light, and she didn't mention a red light because the question of our presence in Kuwait was not raised. ... And we didn't take it as a green light ... that if we intervened militarily in Kuwait, the Americans would not react. That was not true. We were expecting an American attack on the morning of the second of August." USA Today reported that "Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz says neither he nor Saddam Hussein thought U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie gave Iraq a green light to invade Kuwait in a notorious July 1990 meeting". It quoted Aziz saying "We didn't have any false illusion about the position of the United States. We knew the United States would have a strong reaction against that. So we didn't have any false expectations the United States would sit and watch" the invasion. It quoted him saying that "At that stage we knew that it would lead to a conflict. And later on, when they sent troops, we knew it would lead to a war." So once again, ..., you demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about. I guess you are just generally uninformed.
A further demonstration of how badly informed you are. Tariq Aziz made those statements in the 1990's long before Bush's war effort. He made the statements when Saddam was still in power and he still worked for Saddam. Just keep digging the hole deeper, ...
ROTFLOL!! OK, I give. He was spinning in the run up to take out Saddam. Great.
.
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Here's a feasible possibility. The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Now you go hide, because obviously that's what you want to do.
But since you are so informed, scrapper, perhaps you can explain another strange coincidence in this story. al-Ani ... the Iraqi case officer that Atta is reported by the Czechs to have met ... had an entry in his day calendar for the day in question about meeting "a Hamburg student". What a coincidence that Atta's travel documents listed him as a "Hamburg student". Any explanation you care to float? Sure - try this on for size, BAC - a declassified report today states that Saddam had no collusion or relationship with AQ - so I guess that means Saddam did not know any of the characters that weekly standard and newsmax et al spun stories about. In fact, Doug Feith - traitor and criminal extraordinaire - leaked MANUFACTURED intel to weekly standard et al. The story just broke on Washington Post. So take your AQ-Saddam phony lies and choke on it. And the same goes for your neocon traitor pals. Let them choke on their lies and their bile. Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians and over 3000 US soldiers - for lies - may he rot in hell. And shills like you who push lies made up by the Office of Special Plans are accessories after the fact. http://freedom4um.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? ArtNum=49583&Disp=7#C7 "Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted" Washington Post/ Front Page/April 05, 2007 Doug Feith lied and US soldiers died!
You are a ridiculous, wild eyed, drooling conspiracy kook. Do you know that?
.
The plane was spoofed into hitting the mountain by a portable beacon. (Aviation Week said this would fit the flight path data and a portable beacon did go missing right before the crash.) Those doing it knew roughly where the plane would come down. (Obviously) The arrived at the crash well ahead of anyone else. (AP reported that the first rescuers to supposedly arrive were actually met by 3 Americans.) They found Brown still alive. (The crash was a low speed affair. The rear section was still intact. Dr Wechts, one of America's foremost pathologists said that other than the wound in Brown's head, his injuries were survivable.) They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head). They control the crash scene and the examination of the body. Now that may or may not be the way it happened. But one thing is sure. The pathologists in the case think the nature of the wound merited an autopsy because it at least LOOKED like a bullet wound rather than blunt force trauma. Why BAC, we finally have something we agree on. Personally, I think it was something on the order of a .45 Cal blank, doing fatal damage with only the consequent skull fragments, propelled into the brain. Possibly a bullet, going down the spine / chest cavity. Don't forget about the surviving flight attendant who mysteriously turned up dead.
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. If you don't know by now that John Hopkins did NOT claim 650,000 CIVILIANS were killed, you are clueless. But of course, I can't call anyone clueless on 4um because that would be insulting. And I'm not allowed to be insulting.
No rational response huh? So you try BAC tactic number two: personal insults and belittling the posters. Why didn't you just try to change the subject? Isn't that what you normally do?
.
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
Chooser, arn't you going to keep thrashing around and making people laugh at you? The night is still young and the GOP still has a 29% approval rating for you to thrash.
.
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility. Now I challenge you to quote a REAL expert in structures, demolition or any of the relevant fields who suggests that demolition charges brought down the WTC towers. You won't be able to do it.
NewsMax or the National Enquirer? And remember moron, flapping your arms and flying is a possibility. You really do need to learn how to think critically.
.
And what do you say about: a) Feith being a traitor who lied us into a war? b) what do you say about Feith contributing to the needless deaths of over 3000 US soldiers? c) Do you dispute the findings of the Inspector General's report which was de- classified and reported on the front page of the Washington Post today? d)Do you think traitors like Doug Feith should be arrested, tried, and executed?
Where'd he go? Don't try to get him banned, I want to know what 911 anthrax is.
Oh there you are. What is 9/11 anthrax?
This was posted by Whitesands over at LP. *********** The illumnatai had planned this long ago. Proof that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy can be found in our currency. U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks! Yes! see for yourself... 1st) FOLD A NEW $20 BILL THIS WAY 2nd) CONTINUE TO FOLD THIS WAY Compare your fold precisely to this picture. 3rd) FOLD THE RIGHT SIDE UNDER, exactly as you folded the left side. You'll immediately see the Pentagon ablaze! (red circle) 4th) NOW FLIP IT OVER AND SEE OTHER SIDE The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are hit and smoking. What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? ***********
Proof that 9/11 was a US Government conspiracy can be found in our currency. You believe this crap? As I said before, you need to learn how to think critically.
.
What is the significance of the Ron Brown story/murder? Why is that so important to BAC, because Ron Brown knew too much about corruption regarding Clinton? I'm probably not the only one who doesn't know, but most people don't want to admit if they don't know something.
This certainly doesn't mean you believe now this was a conspiracy, I find it odd that this would come from White Sands, another poster like Aaron from LP who wants to throw all 4um posters into Gitmo, unless he's making collective fun of "conspiracy theorists". By the way, what is 9/11 anthrax, why won't you answer me on that?
Uh...and White Sands at LP has his PhD in origami? WTF is White Sands and why should I care about this pal of yours? What does White Sands' tricks with a $20 bill have to do with my questions to you about the declassification today of the report by the Inspector General of the DOD revealing that a traitor named Doug Feith manufactured false intel ( contradicting the CIA's own reports) to propel us into a needless war that got 3000+ US soldiers killed needlessly? My President, your President, our President lied. He did not act on bad intel. He acted on manufactured intel - manufactured by his own hand picked DOD cabinet ministers, Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith. Do you get it? GWB and Cheney should be impeached. Feith and Wolfowitz should be arrested and tried for treason. These officials with their purposeful lies have killed and injured more Americans than Bin Laden dreamed of doing. Catch a clue, if you love America. The state of the Oval Office is rotten to the core.
Name me the exotic gun.
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
I find that very strange, White Sands is one of the worst and most vicious of the radicals over there. He regularly calls for the deaths of posters from other forums, or used to.
I don't know White Sands but the likes of him and other IsraelFirster war monger pigs are probably experiencing exploding head syndrome as we speak. The Washington Post front page today exposes the lies of these pigs. So now they are jumping from a sinking ship - pointing to other folks as being "the problem." Illuminati - yah, rigggght - that's an intellectual construct - we have for real traitors on front stage at the highest levels of gov't - White Sands is merely creating a diversionary tactic from the evil that walks and struts and preens and gives press conferences before our eyes. Impeachment and trials for treason are the only way. America deserves nothing less. If the Democrats don't act on these revelations they reveal themselves to be party to the crimes of treason against this fair republic!
From the little bit I know of White Sands, that would be bizarre to the most extreme if he is now blaming the illuminati, but when people are desperate or caught in a corner they will resort to most anything blaming anyone. Very strange though, it's like we've been living in Twilight Zone these past several years. I hope to God it all finally comes to an end and all this madness can stop.
The Democrats have more than enough reasons to "bring them down." Madness will be ended only if the neocons are arrested. They are traitors. Who the f**k cares about over charges by Halliburton or political appointee lawyers fired - what matters is the Iraq War for lies, the Patriot Act, and the MCA - bring the mother f**kers down - orange jumpsuits and ball and chains is what America wants to see - bring the neocons down and don't let them serve their sentences in Israel. That fat ugly mass of lard Cheney needs to meet his Gitmo Club cellmate, Mohammed, up close and intimate. And Goofy needs to make friends with the Egyptian rendition crew - hello cheerleader. And Fatboy Dougie and Holes Wolfowitz need to be greeted by the Shiite families in Basra for the wonderbar democracy they have bestowed on their sons six feet under. Shalom.
You believe I believe it? ROTFLOL!
"Pathologists Dispute Claims in Brown Probe. Christopher Ruddy, January 11, 1998, ... snip ... Hause told Spencer he thought it was "probably not" a gunshot, but at no point did he rule out the possibility that it was. Hause said he emphasized to Spencer that the wound was very consistent with an "exotic weapon," such as a captive-bolt gun. Hause recalls Spencer responded that drug traffickers used such a weapon to kill U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration agent Enrique Camarena in Mexico in 1985. Hause noted that a captive-bolt gun, normally used to slaughter livestock, creates a perfectly circular hole in the skull that closely resembles a gunshot."
Of course not. It would pass another porkbarrel-laden crime law. But it would not embarass itself with a solemn declaration of war against a gang. Gangs aren't countries, BAC.
Did we have an extradition treaty with Saddam's regime or the Taliban? Or if we did can you cite an instance where it was used successfully? You missed the point. When we diplomatically isolate ourselves from foreign countries by refusing diplomatic recognition, we can't negotiate extradition treaties.
That's because he didn't send them there to start a war or to commence hostilities. He sent them there to defend shipping from attack, not to invade a foreign country. This is at least the third time on this thread that you have implied that an equivalence exists between the two. This is a disturbing trend in your style, BAC, and one that I would have thought you would have given up, long ago. When logically checkmated, you retreat into a repetitive mode, pretending not to understand that the mantras you utter have been refuted many posts ago. You need to either refine your positions with more research or concede them. Repeating yourself until the other side loses patience and moves on is not a victory in anyone's book but your own. You have a chance, at this 4um, to liven things up, but we need better efforts from you.
We need a cite.
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify." Gee ... that language sounds a lot like the language Congress passed in 2002 regarding Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. Fascinating. You reversed the order of teh two passages that you cited, to create the false impression that Jefferson sent the forces before war had been declared by Tripoli. When the two passages are restored to the order in which they appeared in the Wikipedia article, they convey a quite different impression: "On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli 'and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify.'" When all that one must do to refute you is to simply read the authorities that you cite, then you have become far too easy a target, BAC, and much less of a challenge than one would hope.
For whatever reason, apparently BAC is as enraged about the Ron Brown killing as most are about the 9-11 stuff. Brown challenged the Clintonistas, advising that he knew too much to be investigated or prosecuted ('They' were after him.) The Clintonistas took care of that. The murder was on par with the 9-11 cover-up, as far as execution and the so-called "investigation." I don't know all of BAC's position on Brown, but it sound as though he and I would find no adversarial beliefs in that issue.
Yes he did. http://www.cato.org/events/transcripts/011206et.pdf "Specifically, in 1802, Congress authorized hostilities between the United States and the Bey of Tripoli without a formal declaration of war. In doing so, it authorized the President to "cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify," suggesting that it believed a state of war could exist even though it had not formally declared it. This was also the conclusion of the Supreme Court in two cases from its 1800 and 1801 terms. Both cases, Bas v. Tingy and Talbott v. Seeman, involved the measure of prize money due for the capture of ships at sea, which depended in that instance upon whether the United States had been at war with France. The Court ruled that it had been, based upon the actual naval hostilities and Congress' authorization of those hostilities."
Glaspie's Freudian slip about the US not expecting Saddam to take ALL of Kuwait settled the differences. SpookDaddy obviously knew & approved of the invasion of the Kuwaiti oil fields.
BAC (Treasonous Queer), It seems that you have been proven to be BOTH a liar and a TREASONOUS QUEER! in #310. you should get down on your KNEES! and repent for this offense. Do not come before me and pretend that you support the men (and women) who are serving in Iraq or Afghanistan unless you do this that I tell you - get down on your knees and repent for this. I have too much respect and familiarity with actual soldiers who have served to respect a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
What is 9/11 anthrax?
He won't answer me to tell me what the 9/11 anthrax he mentioned is. Maybe he has bozoed himself from me. He should take the personality test Brian S posted so that we can understand him better and you won't have to call him a TREASONOUS QUEER! anymore. http://www.personaldna.com/
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. And Chooser wonders why we love him...
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
I told you I was ahead of the curve with those saxon words. :)
"People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
Apparently you have completely forgotten what you are arguing about. Citing an 1802 action is besice the point. By then the war was already under way. Pay attention.
What you need to do is learn to use your browser. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie "At least two transcripts of the meeting have been published." http://home.comcast.net/~jackott2/missed_opportunity.htm "She bases her assertion on one of two transcripts ... " http://www.search.com/reference/Gulf_War "Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial."
Fascinating. You think Tripoli declared war on us without a formal written declaration ... just by a mildly hostile act. By that token, wouldn't some of the things that Saddam did be considered a declaration of war? And if Jefferson was justified in sending forces to deal with Tripoli (up to and including toppling the despot who ruled it using Marines), don't you think Bush as justified in sending Marines to topple Saddam? And note that Jefferson didn't get Congress to approve his actions before sending his forces. At least Bush did that. It even passed a law with the word WAR in it.
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts, if neither includes any warning from the US against the invasion of Kuwait?
"Some of the things"? Don't let specifics and details bog you down. Assuming that you are referring to the period between the cease-fire and the US invasion in 2003, then you must be aware that the US and Britain conducted No-Fly Zone bombings without UN authorization, and any acts of resistance against those ilegal bombings could only be characterized as self defense.
Well a transcript is supposed to be an accurate representation of what was said at a meeting or interview. Right? If there are TWO DIFFERENT transcripts of this meeting and BOTH were put out by the Iraqi government, doesn't that make you suspicious about the accuracy of either ... especially since we know that Iraq has LIED in documents previously? Furthermore, if Tariq Aziz, a high ranking Iraqi who was present at the meeting, says the transcript is INCOMPLETE and that Glaspie didn't say any anything unexpected, doesn't that make you wonder if the transcripts are an accurate representation of what what said? And if Glaspies testifies under oath that she told Saddam that the US would not accept anything but a peaceful solution to the Kuwait dispute and Tariq Aziz says Saddam knew full well that invading Kuwait would mean war, doesn't that make you wonder if you are interpreting the transcript correctly?
Did the UN say stop?
Who pays the bills of the UN?
Do you really expect any rational person to believe that Saddam, who was practically the creature of the US, would have invaded Kuwait if Glaspie had not given the green light?
Chooser, why don't you post a bullshit dead link to prove your point?
.
The anthrax attacks happened some weeks after 9/11. So your answer to my question "what is 9/11 anthrax?" is to ask me if there was an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11. Are you implying that there is a connection?
You don't think there is, given that the first case of anthrax just happened to show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying prior to 9/11? If you ask me, that's a mighty big coincidence to swallow, Diana. Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
Hey chooser, if you really want to con people, why don't you just post some fake quots and make up some bullshit links to support them. That's what you got busted for earlier tonight. Busted for it twice in fact. I mean, if you are going to be a dishonest scumbag, why not go all the way?
.
I only expect them to use their brains and realize that Iraq lied all the time, that Iraq put out 2 different transcripts of the meeting (so one or both have to be wrong), that Glaspie said (under oath) the transcript was fabricated and did not include much of what she told Saddam, that Tariq Aziz also said the transcript was "incomplete" and that Tariq Aziz said Glaspie did NOT give Saddam a green light and that Saddam knew an invasion would mean war with the US.
Sort of like you huh? Did Saddam go onto internet sites and post fabricated quotes supported by bullshit fake links in a deliberate effort to mislead the posters? For the record, I note that you were busted twice tonight for doing exactly that. And there are instances where you have done this in the past as well. May we now assume that these earlier cases were not simple accidents?
.
You claim I fabricated this quote: "The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." But if you go to post #94 of this 4um thread, you will find this link posted by nolu_chan: Visit it and you will find that exact quote. So are you accusing nolu_chan of posting fake quotes and making up links to support them?
I thought you don't think John Hopkins is a valid source. Also the anthrax was a special highly-milled strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD, and there is strong evidence that it was a case of revenge of a scientist who worked there against his Egyptian co-worker he was attempting to frame. I don't think even the govt said the anthrax attacks were related to those behind 9/11, even if you want it to be.
"The most interesting discovery has been a 152mm binary Sarin artillery projectile—containing a 40 percent concentration of Sarin—which insurgents attempted to use as an Improvised Explosive Device (IED). The existence of this binary weapon not only raises questions about the number of viable chemical weapons remaining in Iraq and raises the possibility that a larger number of binary, long-lasting chemical weapons still exist." Possibly, but you are again trying to change the subject and obfuscate the fact that you got busted for posting fabricated information -- twice. The quotes I claimed you fabricated are well marked on the thread. You know that and so does everyone else. What you are doing here is trying to cover up your misdeeds. And recall that after you got busted, you put up two new and unrelated quotes and claimed they were what you were trying to post. I pointed out that they had nothing to do with the subject at hand and noted that you were lying to cover your prior lies. These "cover quotes" may be what you are trying use as a diversion now. But even if the above quote is not one of your scummy "cover quotes", I jolly well may have accused you of fabricating the above quote somewhere along the line. After I busted you for fabricating quotes -- two times -- I questioned all the other quotes you posted. Any normal person would.
.
Did those doctors at John Hopkins actually examine Mohammad Atta? So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?
Incidently, you are a worthless lying scumball for fabricationg quotes and
links to begin with. You are a double scumball for lying about it when
caught. And you are a triple scumball for once more trying to obfuscate
your miserable and cowardly acts. What culture do you hail from where this
sort of dishonesty is tolerated?
.
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Did you attend law school, is that where you learned the art of twisting things around so?
LOL good catch!
If they stick to medicine and diagnosing diseases they are usually pretty good. FALSE. You don't know what you are talking about.
No, but the doctor and pharmacist who did are ALSO on record saying that in hindsight the skin problems they had were anthrax.
Really? What kind of anthrax was it then? I mean besides being 9/11 anthrax?
I didn't twist anything around. Go read the threads, Diana. ... said I fabricated that quote. But nolu_chan posted a link that contains that exact quote.
Do you know the incubation time of anthrax?
What does that have to do with your claim?
Why don't you post a fake link to support this? Isn't that your style?
.
Chooser, as far as I can see nobody has even gaffed you yet. Why are you changing the subject? Just habit?
.
Or to put it another way, what do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about when I said the stain was a kind produced at Ft. Detrick? I believe that was reported by several sources. If I am mistaken, I'd like to know, and I'd be curious to know what the source of the anthrax was.
Well think about it. How long after 9/11 did the first case appear?
Well think about it. Diana, it doesh't have anything to do with your claim. You were probably getting close to asking a question that he knew he would get hammered for spinning. So he changed the subject. Just be grateful he didn't try tactic number one: personal insult.
.
By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying. Backing the incubation time off the first case, ask yourself whether a domestic source for the anthrax would have known where the hijackers were staying at the time he'd have had to mail the letter that supposedly infected the first case.
Why don't you just make up a quote proving that they were guilty as sin and then post a fake link to support the quote. That's what you did twice this evening already. Why waste time with all this silly banter when you can just lie?
.
OK. I did. For two seconds. That's all it took to reconfirm that your posts are excrement.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
FALSE. You don't know what you are talking about. From wikipedia: Although the anthrax preparations were of different grades, all of the material derived from the same bacterial strain. Known as the Ames strain, it was first researched at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Ames strain was then distributed to at least fifteen bio-research labs within the U.S. and six overseas. DNA sequencing of the anthrax taken from Robert Stevens (the first victim) was conducted at The Institute for Genomic Research beginning in December 2001. Sequencing was finished within a month and the analysis was published in the journal Science in early 2002 (see abstract here). The analysis revealed a number of differences that ruled out laboratories in England, and subsequent testing showed the anthrax to be identical to the original Ames strain from Fort Detrick. Radiocarbon dating conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in June 2002 established that the anthrax was cultured no more than two years before the mailings. In October 2006 it was reported that water used to process the anthrax spores came from a source in the northeastern United States.[2] Press reports in 2003 indicated the FBI failed to reverse engineer the type of anthrax found in the letters.[3][4]
You haven't whined about your silly victimhood for a half hour or so. Why don't you start whining about how unfair it is to discuss your dishonest, sleazy deeds of earlier this evening? Tell us how unfair it is for you to be held up to account for your scummy lies.
.
You were famous for your cowardly whining on LP. Lets have a taste. You were doing it earlier.
.
That
not what you said. You said "the anthrax was a special highly-milled
strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD." There is nothing to suggest this
anthrax was milled at Ft Detrick. And there were other potential sources for
this strain of anthrax since it was a type that was sent to labs around the
world. And we know for a fact that at least once Iraq tried to obtain it (from
the British). But there are other places they could have obtained it.
Here, this was from one of robin's sources: "While some sources have
estimated Ames might have been used in as few as 20 labs, one scientist who
has worked with anthrax said the total cannot be known exactly, but is
probably closer to 50." "Until the last few years, a graduate student
would call up a friend at another lab and say, 'Send me Ames,' and they'd do
it," the scientist said. "There wouldn't necessarily be any records kept."
I am curious Chooser, if one single shred of this shit that you spew is correct, then why doesn't Bush get on national TV and save his Presidency with it? Is there some dark conspiracy that prevents him from doing it? Is Ron Brown behind it?
.
Yeah, but there's a difference between the strain and the weaponized form produced at Detrick. That is not an off-the-shelf item.
Alles Scheisse.
Just to let you know - BAC has admitted to being a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Though the case remains officially unsolved: Anthrax remains a big story, one worthy of continued investigation. The tainted letters were addressed to senators, members of the media and average citizens, killed five, injured 17 and turned an already inefficient postal system into a large-scale security nightmare. They also childishly implicated Arabs ("Death to Israel, Allah is Great?" Please.) precisely at a time when American rage towards the Middle East was reaching a boiling point. That alone served as a deciding factor for many Americans to take war abroad, yet despite being an attack on American soil, the Federal Bureau of Investigation repeatedly drags its feet on the issue. Simply put, the man most likely responsible for stealing the anthrax is Dr. Philip Zack. Zack is a prominent microbiologist who worked at the U.S. Army's Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases in Fort Detrick, Maryland while weapons-grade Ames anthrax - the same genetic strain used to terrorize the populace - was stored there. A supposed bigot who taunted his Arab colleagues during his tenure at the facility, Zack was also monitored breaking in and conducting experiments during off hours... while no longer employed at the lab. Zack has been a prime suspect for years - the Hartford Courant wrote a piece about missing anthrax in January 2002, and Salon pursued its own investigation later that year. Suspicion arose from an allegation against Egyptian microbiologist Ayaad Assaad, a former coworker of Zack's. Assaad was fingered anonymously as a potential bioterrorist in the aftermath of September 11 but before victims were identified. Though cleared of all charges by the FBI, the fact that Assaad's accuser knew so much about his life raised suspicions that said accusations were personally motivated. That dozens of lethal samples of anthrax, ebola and hantavirus disappeared during Zack and Assaad's watch in the 1990s only compounded misgivings that Zack was responsible. Remember, all of this was widely reported in 2002, less than four months after anthrax filled the country with panic. You would think a man with a grudge against Arabs who was seen breaking into a facility where at least two dozen samples of lethal pathogens later went unaccounted would push Zack ahead of Dr. Stephen Hatfill on the "person of interest" list. As we all know, however, that was not the case. So now we sit, five years later, unfulfilled and perplexed as to how our own government failed to follow up on the obvious. What's even more frustrating is that the FBI and its friends in the press are currently misleading the public about the investigation, insisting now the anthrax was not weapons grade at all! This article from last week states that the anthrax could have been a homebrew mixture capable of being made anywhere; meanwhile, this piece from yesterday obfuscates the issue and contradicts years of prior reporting. As Mike Rivero of the news source What Really Happened said in response, "what pointed the finger at Fort Detrick as the source of the Anthrax spores used in the letters was not just the high degree of 'weaponization' of the spores, but DNA tests which showed the anthrax in the letters to be the exact same strain used at Fort Detrich. "Even if one buys this pathetic attempt to blur the issue, and believes in a kitchen-sink bioweapons lab, the fact remains that the original source spores still had to come from Fort Detrick." Again making Philip Zack a suspect. The only reason the investigation is (by MSNBC's account) "frustratingly slow" is because no one wants a resolution to this caper. It was easy enough to devastate Hatfill's life as the conclusion would be an indifferent populace. Bringing an end to this, however, would remove an avenue of terror for the Administration to manipulate. I'm reticent to mention that correlation as I'd like to think some things are sacred. President Bush thinks otherwise, however; like a white, powdery Osama bin Laden, anthrax has again become a hot topic leading into the midterm elections. And hey, isn't it handy that the now-downgraded anthrax could conceivably be made in an Al Qaeda kitchen? Never mind that five years down the road, the 9/11 attacks and the anthrax scare serve as stark reminders of the president's impotence at bringing terrorists to justice, Bush "stopped this al Qaeda cell from developing anthrax for attacks against the United States." 'Nuff said. I do not know what Philip Zack has done to deserve such special treatment from the FBI, nor do I know where the missing anthrax samples disappeared to for the better part of a decade. Maybe it's because he's not the Arab demon policymakers need to fuel animosity against "Islamofascism." Maybe he has friends in high places. Honestly, the reason isn't relevant. Next week marks the five-year anniversary of Bob Stevens' death. Stevens, a photo editor for Boca Raton-based tabloid The Sun, was the first casualty from exposure to anthrax. Let's honor his memory not with empty words and meaningless pontification, but by putting the people responsible away for life. Canon Fodder is a bi-weekly analysis of politics and society. http://www.thesimon.com/magazine/articles/canon_fodder/01241_philip_zack _steals_ anthrax.html
Alot of GOPers are closet gays these days, so I'm not surprised. Gotta link?
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
he is a Republican. and Republicans are commonly TREASONOUS QUEERS. In BAC's case he has told us that he met Jeff Gannon. But he will not tell us if he played the boy or the girl on that date with Gannon. The man is a TREASONOUS QUEER!
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Oh my. That is damning.
Check out my blog, America, the Bushieful.
Did you read the links I posted?
i've seen you ask this question probably a dozen times. why is it you never get it answered?
My theory is that he does have an answer, but the answer is a conspiracy theory so wacked out and looney that it makes his Ron Brown kookery look absolutely sane. He knows he can't give it to us without us laughing our asses off and without his reputation being destroyed on the web. So he uses chooser tactic number three and simply ignores the inconvenient question.
.
Like he's ignoring me now.
what post are those links in you put up? I'll look tomorrow. that anthrax attack stuff is very serious business. There was real evidnece released that it came from US government. and I have read that this Senator from South Dakota Daschle who was voted out said in a meeting that he wanted a strong investigation of sept 11 events run by congress. He was not on board it seems with the cover-up. and his office received anthrax letters. I hate TREASONOUS QUEERS! !
Galatians 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.
And you said, "There is nothing to suggest this anthrax was milled at Ft Detrick. And there were other potential sources for this strain of anthrax since it was a type that was sent to labs around the world. And we know for a fact that at least once Iraq tried to obtain it (from the British). But there are other places they could have obtained it." (foot tapping...) Well?
You said something that put him on the spot. In this case he will either ignore you or try to change the subject. He's done both with you here. For people he doesn't know well he will also try a personal attack hoping the resulting fight will draw attention away from the point he wants hidden. Be thankful he didn't go that way with you.
.
See my posts #360 and #364. But there are many other sources pointing to this as well.
You probably are dealing with a genuine sociopath here. And if that is the case, then it's hopeless to expect him to respond in a normal manner. I used to get people like this referred to me. They would come into my office and tell a story and I would catch them in a lie. I would immediately bounce the ones who simply told me a new lie to cover the one they just got busted for. I had discovered that you simply couldn't do anything with those types. They had lost control of truth and as a result, they has pretty much lost control of reality. Chooser seems to be one of these types.
.
Like this thread, you ran off when I posted links about Ft. Detrick after you told me I didn't know what I was talking about. Is that a good example of honesty on your part, just to run away when confronted by evidence you want to remain hidden?
Rivero's site (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthraxsuspect.html ) actually claims this: "the FBI discovered that the end of the hunt for the sender of the Anthrax letters was NOT Dr. Assaad the Egyptian, but Dr. Zack, who is Jewish. At this point, both the FBI and the mainstream media stopped making any public comments on the case." But that's not true. It's just an anti-semitic speculation based SOLELY on the fact that he made ONE unauthorized visit to Fort Detrick back in 1992. There is nothing specifically tying him to the anthrax. Nothing. Diana, the lack of security at that place is widely known. A lab technician at Fort Detrick at the time, Charles Brown, who made an inventory of missing specimens during an investigation, is quoted in articles saying "People all over the base knew that they could come in at anytime and get on the microscope. If you had security clearance, the guard isn't going to ask you if you are qualified to use the equipment. I'm sure people used it often without our knowledge." Here are excerpts from an article that was published in the Hartford Courant. ******** From http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/hcourant.html December 20, 2001 By JACK DOLAN, DAVE ALTIMARI And LYNNE TUOHY The Hartford Courant Pink-slipped in 1997 after 11 years working with the world's deadliest toxins at the Army biodefense lab in Fort Detrick, Md., Richard Crosland reluctantly packed a box of personal items into his red Mustang and drove home. Over the next two days, Crosland returned to the fenced-off military facility twice and carted away more pictures, journals and other personal effects. Security guards, focused on keeping intruders from getting in, never asked the laid-off microbiologist what he was taking out. ``You could walk out with anything,'' Crosland said. ``It was all my personal stuff, but it could have been anything.'' As investigators focus on a handful of government labs and contractors as a possible source of the anthrax that has killed five people, security at Fort Detrick has come under a microscope, largely because it was the original supplier of anthrax to the other labs. The U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick has worked since 1980 with the Ames strain of anthrax used in the attacks. Interviews with more than a dozen current and former Fort Detrick scientists provided a rare account of what they described as a lax security system, that could have done little to prevent an employee from smuggling the ingredients for biological terrorism out of the country's premier biodefense lab. In addition, at least one longtime scientist at Fort Detrick said inventories of pathogens used in the lab were rarely kept up to date, making it difficult to determine whether dangerous substances were missing. All of the scientists interviewed by The Courant over the past week said it would be virtually impossible for an outsider to get into a ``hot zone'' lab and steal a biological agent such as anthrax. But they agreed that someone already inside the institute could have taken vials of anthrax without much trouble. ``Our security measures have always been about who gets in, rather than searching known employees as they leave,'' said Chuck Dasey, a spokesman for Fort Detrick. ``I'll bet you won't find any lab that searches their people as they leave.'' A former Fort Detrick lab director who left last year on good terms said Fort Detrick ``was always an open institution in my 17 years there and they trusted their scientists completely.'' ``If you were a person who worked in the right labs for a while,'' he said, ``you probably could easily figure out how to get vials of anthrax out of there.'' A current Fort Detrick employee said security measures have tightened somewhat since Sept. 11. Speaking on the condition of anonymity because employees have been told not to talk to the press, he added: ``If you're asking me if I could have walked out of here with anthrax two years ago or six months ago, I'd say I definitely could have.'' ... snip ... *************** So it's a big, big stretch, based only on this one recorded unauthorized visit, to assume with any certainty whatsoever that Dr Zack is the anthrax source. But being the exact same strain only means that one of dozens of locations throughout the world could have been the source of that anthrax. Because that exact strain was sent to dozens of labs and facilities around the country. The Ames strain was not ONLY at Fort Detrick. Maybe I'm the one who should be saying "crickets"? How do you explain the coincidence of Stevens working within a few miles of where the hijackers stayed in Florida, Diana? So far, you've just ignored that question, Diana. Explain to us the coincidence that the wife of the editor of the Sun showed an apartment to several of the hijackers? Explain the skin conditions that some of the hijackers had? Here's what some experts think: http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthraxhijackerslink.html "Source: New York Times, March 23, 2002, Report Linking Anthrax and Hijackers Is Investigated, By WILLIAM J. BROAD and DAVID JOHNSTON, The two men identified themselves as pilots when they came to the emergency room of Holy Cross Hospital in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., last June. One had an ugly, dark lesion on his leg that he said he developed after bumping into a suitcase two months earlier. Dr. Christos Tsonas thought the injury was curious, but he cleaned it, prescribed an antibiotic for infection and sent the men away with hardly another thought. But after Sept. 11, when federal investigators found the medicine among the possessions of one of the hijackers, Ahmed Alhaznawi, Dr. Tsonas reviewed the case and arrived at a new diagnosis. The lesion, he said in an interview this week, "was consistent with cutaneous anthrax. ... snip ... a recent memorandum, prepared by experts at the Johns Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, and circulated among top government officials, has renewed a debate about the evidence. The group, which interviewed Dr. Tsonas, concluded that the diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax, which causes skin lesions, was "the most probable and coherent interpretation of the data available." The memorandum added, "Such a conclusion of course raises the possibility that the hijackers were handling anthrax and were the perpetrators of the anthrax letter attacks." ************* From http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/wp0328.html Memo on Florida Case Roils Anthrax Probe Experts Debate Theory Hijacker Was Exposed By Steve Fainaru and Ceci Connolly Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, March 29, 2002; Page A03 In January, outside of formal channels, an FBI official asked biodefense experts at Johns Hopkins University to examine a curious lead in the federal government's investigation into last fall's anthrax attacks. The experts were to evaluate the diagnosis of a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., emergency room physician who had treated one of the Sept. 11 hijackers last June. The physician, Christos Tsonas, initially thought the man had a minor infection, but after the wave of bioterrorist attacks he told the FBI that, in retrospect, he now believed the black lesion on the suspected hijacker's lower left leg was consistent with the skin form of anthrax. The FBI official told the Hopkins experts, Tara O'Toole and Thomas V. Inglesby, he was concerned the FBI had not pursued the Florida case aggressively enough. The two-page memo they prepared is now circulating among senior government officials, and its findings have stirred up debate over their accuracy and the focus of the FBI's investigation, now in its sixth month. O'Toole and Inglesby, who head the Hopkins Center for Civilian Biodefense Strategies, concluded that Tsonas's diagnosis of cutaneous anthrax was "the most probable and coherent interpretation of the data available." Since the contents of the memo became public last week, that conclusion has been endorsed by D.A. Henderson, the top bioterrorism official at the Department of Health and Human Services, and Richard Spertzel, who presided over the inspection of Iraq's bioweapons program as part of a United Nations team. ... snip ... *************** Here's another "cricket" for you, Diana. Explain Atta's interest in crop dusters? Why did he show a specific interest in crop dusters if the plan that's already been decided on and trained for is to fly commercial jets in the buildings? Do you know that Zacarias Moussaoui, in an email dated July 31, 2001, inquired of a Minnesota school concerning a 6 month or year long cropdusting course? Don't you find that a curious coincidence, Diana? Or will I just hear "crickets"? And here's one last puzzler for you to consider. When did Stevens contract the anthrax? Some seem to think it happened on September 19th from a letter (the Lopez letter) sent to AMI. But when was the letter mailed and received? MSNBC quoted Newsweek saying that the Lopez letter arrived a week before 9/11. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3067576/site/newsweek/. This site, http://www.postalmag.com/editorial14.htm, dedicated to postal employees, also says that the Lopez letter arrived the 4th. Here's another site that says the 4th: http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/anthraxreport.htm Newsweek said they spoke to someone (unnamed) at AMI. And I've yet to find a source claiming the letter arrived on the 19th. Perhaps this might resolve the question: http://anthrax2001.blogspot.com/ "The media reports on the AMI letters confirm what the CDC reports in many important details The media reported that Bob Stevens was indeed seen by his colleagues holding a letter close to his face on September 19, 2001. It was pointed out by Phil Brennan writing for Newsmax that this letter that Stevens was seen reading had actually arrived at AMI on September 4, 2001." Phil Brennan said Stevens held it up to his face and then put it down on the keyboard (where traces of anthrax were found). So maybe Steven's contracted the anthrax on September 19th, however the letter arrived at AMI before 9/11. And if it arrived before 9/11 to coincidentally infect someone working within a few miles of where the hijackers stayed, that sort of rules out a domestic terrorist, like Zack. Right, Diana? (crickets???) Or maybe the source wasn't that letter. We really don't know. But we do know Stevens started showing symptoms some time before October 2nd, when he was hospitalized. One somewhat authoritative report (http://www.fpd.umn.edu/files/GlobalChron.pdf) said the onset of symptoms was around September 28th ... Inhalation anthrax has an uncertain incubation time (from less than a week or two to as much as 2 months). The median time is reported to be 10 days according to one study. The CDC says its generally less than 2 weeks but "due to spore dormancy and slow clearance from the lungs, the incubation period for inhalational anthrax may be prolonged." And according to CNN, Florida Health Secretary Dr. John Agwunobi advised anyone who spent more than an hour in the AMI building since August 1st to report for testing. Just to give you an idea of how uncertain officials might really be about the timeline and something to ponder.
Not ignoring you. My life just doesn't revolve around you.
Actually post #360 was mine, Diana.
I didn't run away. I was just busy doing something else. Patience, Diana, Patience. And now let's see if you run away. I've asked you to explain some strange coincidences regarding the hijackers and anthrax. Will "crickets" be all I hear?
Depends. If someone drops a coin in your head you will hear echos as the sound bounces around in an empty place.
As you have pointed out many times sometimes coincidences are just that, such as Atta's passport which was mysteriously found on the street nearby the Twin Towers. It's known that Zack hated Assaad and what about that fake note which was not written by a Muslim as they don't say "God is Great!"? Well since I don't have access to so many resources as you do I can't compete, but one day a few months after it happened, CNN actually reported they had found the suspect, Dr. Richard Zack. However it was quickly swept under the rug. At least you responded, you make a big deal if people don't respond to your posts, but then you have one set of standards for yourself and one for everyone else.
Oversight on my part. Mine was #357.
No, I don't do the disappearing act when confronted with uncomfortable information.
OH but my life does revolve around you as you are The Great One. I hang on your every word.
But Atta's passport is not a coincidence, Diana. A LOT of paper made it out of the WTC towers intact. Didn't you see the pictures? Here: ************ http://www.911myths.com/html/passport_recovered.html The story... The passport of one of the hijackers was found at the WTC. It's clearly impossible for any personal effects to survive the impact and explosion, therefore it must have been planted. Our take... Our first reaction is why would they bother? What does it add to the story? There was no need to “plant passports”. We’ve never seen anyone say “they must have been on the planes because look, the NYPD found that passport”. It’s completely unnecessary, and is only ever used as evidence of an “inside job”. But could the passport have escaped destruction? Explosions are unpredictable things, it’s surprising what can survive, and there are accounts of personal effects being retrieved from other passengers. Here’s one from Flight 175. ----------- Orange County, CA., Sept. 11 - Lisa Anne Frost was 22 and had just graduated from Boston University in May 2001 with two degrees and multiple academic and service honors. She had worked all summer in Boston before coming home, finally, to California to start her new life. The Rancho Santa Margarita woman was on United Flight 175 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, when it became the second plane to slam into the World Trade Center... Her parents, Tom and Melanie Frost, have spent two years knowing they will never understand why. A few days before the first anniversary of our daughter's murder, we were notified that they had found a piece of her in the piles and piles of gritty rubble of the World Trade Center that had been hauled out to Staten Island. It was Lisa's way, we believe, of telling us she wasn't lost. In February, the day of the Columbia tragedy, we got word they'd found her United Airlines Mileage Plus card. It was found very near where they'd found a piece of her right hip. We imagine that she used the card early on the morning of Sept. 11 to get on the plane and just stuck it in her back pocket, probably her right back pocket, instead of in her purse. They have found no other personal effects. ------------------------------ It’s a card rather than paper, and wasn’t ejected from the building, but this does demonstrate that not everything was incinerated. And it’s not alone. There are similar reports from the other crash scenes, including a drivers licence and luggage tag recovered from Flight 77 and even more from Flight 93. ------------------------------ United Airlines Flight 93 slammed into the earth Sept. 11 near Shanksville, Somerset County, at more than 500 mph, with a ferocity that disintegrated metal, bone and flesh. It took more than three months to identify the remains of the 40 passengers and crew, and, by process of elimination, the four hijackers... But searchers also gathered surprisingly intact mementos of lives lost. Those items, such as a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site. -------------------------------- There’s some support for the idea from other crash sites, then, but of course surviving the initial impact is only one problem. Others ask how could one passport be recovered so quickly from the rubble of the trade centre collapses? Fortunately the answer is a simple one. It wasn’t. Here’s the official account of what happened. ---------------------------------- The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11. ----------------------------------- The suggestion here is that the passport was found amongst the debris on the street. ----------------------------------- On the ground, they saw an odd shape. Reiss looked closer: It was the nose gear of an airplane..." A part of the landing gear landed five blocks south ------------------------------------ After the first crash, the debris, plane parts and body parts were all over the area. ------------------------------------- This photo is particularly interesting. Flight 11 Seat Cushion Medium As you can see, there’s debris on the ground, but not piles of it. A passport would stand out. Better still is the caption of the photo on its original page: “On Albany Street, two blocks south of WTC 2, Two men examine a seat cushion from AA Flight 11. 8:52 a.m”. A cushion, from Flight 11? An eminently flammable object that was passed through the building, still recognisable, rather than burned to ashes? Plainly we can’t prove the caption is correct, although it would explain why two passer-bys have stopped to look (an ordinary cushion from the building probably isn’t going to attract the same attention). Meanwhile another story in the New York Times said at least two items of mail on the 9/11 planes were recovered: ---------------------------------- On Oct. 12, it arrived inside a second envelope at Mrs. Snyder's modest white house on Main Street here, and the instant she took it out and saw it, she says, ''chills just went over me.'' It was singed and crumpled. A chunk was ripped out, giving the bottom of the envelope she had sent the look of a jagged skyline. Mrs. Snyder's lyrical script had blurred into the scorched paper. The stamp, depicting a World War II sailor embracing a woman welcoming him home, was intact. Along with the letter was a note: ''To whom it may concern. This was found floating around the street in downtown New York. I am sorry if you suffered any loss in this tragedy. Sincerely, a friend in New York!'' Since then, Mrs. Snyder, a customer service representative at a grocery store, has discovered that she has one of only two pieces of mail known to have been recovered from the planes that crashed into the World Trade Center. At least one auction house has contacted her, saying she could sell the letter for tens of thousands of dollars. One Letter's Odyssey Helps Mend a Wound ------------------------------- What else was on the street, and why couldn’t a passport have made it intact? If you’re still not sure, preferring to go with intution and say survival was impossible, then consider this story from the Columbia Space Shuttle disaster. The craft broke up on re-entry, 40 miles about the earth, and debris fell over a wide area. Amongst this was one of the experiments involving tiny worms. ------------------------------- The worms and moss were in the same nine-pound locker located in the mid-deck of the space shuttle. The worms were placed in six canisters, each holding eight petri dishes. The worms, which are about the size of the tip of a pencil, were part of an experiment testing a new synthetic nutrient solution. The worms, which have a life cycle of between seven and 10 days, were four or five generations removed from the original worms placed on Columbia in January. ------------------------------- Remarkably, not only were the canisters retrieved, but the worms were still alive (the above link tells you more). Who would have believed that? Not the scientist in charge of the experiment, who said in the same story: -------------------------------- ``It's pretty astonishing to get the possibility of data after all that has happened,'' Sack said. ``We never expected it. We expected a molten mass.'' -------------------------------- In fact if we wanted to start a “Columbia space shuttle crash never happened” conspiracy site then that would make great “evidence”, because it goes against what you’d expect. And there’s a great quote, too. But then maybe intuition doesn’t tell the whole story, and more can survive explosions than you think. *************** That's been provided to you previously. What you are asking us to believe, however, is a HUGE coincidence ... that a domestic source of the anthrax just happened to pick a quiet little community in Florida just a few miles from where the 9/11 hijackers were staying out of an ENTIRE COUNTRY of quiet little communities to release his/her anthrax following 9/11 ... before he could have known the 9/11 hijackers were staying there before 9/11. So? Again, what's that got to do with him being a source of anthrax. He (along with a bunch of others) disliked Assaad for a variety of reasons. Maybe he just decided to point a finger because, like you with respect to Dr Zack, he figured Assaad's proximity to Detrick and his being Arab might be a smoking gun. Sure you do. All I have is an internet browser and a little time. Well maybe you can find that article and give me more to work with. Until then ...
Good. Maybe you won't accuse me of doing that next time.
Can you fix this thread? I think that picture did something as now you have to scroll to far to read it, so it's difficult to read.
How?
He does this all the time over at the Log Cabin forum. Screws up a thread and then just walks away and leaves it for someone else to fix.
I think you posted a big picture again which threw the thread off. I guess it's too late for you to edit it to where it fits so the thread is normal again where you don't have to scroll. I know when this happens it doesn't happen to everyone, it seems to depend of browsers and settings and such but if it happens to me there are others too who will not be able to read it, it goes way out of the margins now.
For instance I would like to read this post of your's without having to scroll back and forth 3 feet.
In the early days of company I work for, one of our lead programmers worked himself into such a state of denial and defensiveness that the entire customer support department (consisting of two, if I recall correctly) made a little Wheel-Of-Solutions: Have you tried rebooting? Try it again "People like truth, it gives us a fucking benchmark." - dakmar
#2. To: Ada (#0)
The researchers, reflecting the inherent uncertainties in such extrapolations, said they were 95 per cent certain that the real number of deaths lay somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636.
#3. To: Ada (#0)
British government officials have backed the methods used by scientists who concluded that more than 600,000 Iraqis have been killed since the invasion, the BBC reported yesterday.
#4. To: Ada, ALL (#0)
British government officials have backed the methods
But the chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, Roy Anderson, described the methods used in the study as "robust" and "close to best practice".
#5. To: Ada, ALL (#0)
#6. To: Ada (#0)
#7. To: BeAChooser, Ada (#6)
And here is something new ...March 05, 2007
#8. To: BeAChooser (#6)
#9. To: scrapper2, ALL (#7)
How is a March 05 article from the Murdoch Times "new" or relevant, for that matter,
#10. To: BeAChooser (#9)
Well, for starters, it raises some new questions about the study that Ada's BBC article doesn't address. Perhaps you'd like to address them, scrapper. Or will you just ignore them like you've ignored all the rest of the questions?
#11. To: scrapper2, ALL (#10)
I believe Drs. Roberts and Burnham. I believe in the world class reputation of the Johns Hopkins Public Health Department. I believe in the integrity of the Lancet. I believe in the revelations the BBC found in for real government email exchanges.
#12. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, christine (#4)
According to the latest John Hopkins report, 92 percent of those who claimed deaths in their families (501 out of 545) were able to provide death certificates to prove it. Therefore, if the study is statistically valid, there should be death certificates available for about 92 percent of the total 655,000 estimated dead. But investigations by media sources that are not friendly to the Bush administration or the war have not found evidence of anywhere near that number. The Los Angeles Times, for example, in a comprehensive investigation found less than 50,000 certificates. Even
#13. To: BeAChooser (#9)
(Edited)
#14. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, christine, all (#12)
(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%
(2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue
and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year
and didn't count entire provinces and several of the more violent cities.
(3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
#15. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#14)
BAC’s the Spam-Man
There's line one from you, nineteen from me.
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
Should five per cent appear too small,
Be thankful I don't spam it all.
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
(if speak about a car;) - I’ll spam about the whole damned street;
(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 the fleet.
Spam-man!
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
Don't ask me what I do it for, (ah-ah, mister Bush)
If you don't want to pay attention. (ah-ah, mister Blair)
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the spam-man.
Now my advice about those who die, (spam-man)
I’ll put a penny over each eye. (spam-man)
'Cause I’m the spam-man,
Yeah, I’m the 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!
#16. To: SKYDRIFTER (#15)
#17. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#14)
(1) 87% x 92% is 80%, not 92%
And explanation for those who don't know:
By the way, the vast majority of those death certificates are missing.
(2) The LA Times number of 50,000 only counted totals from one morgue - the Baghdad morgue
That is not true. The LATimes article stated ""The Health Ministry gathers numbers from hospitals in the capital and the outlying provinces. If a victim of violence dies at a hospital or arrives dead, medical officials issue a death certificate.
If the morgue receives a body — usually those deemed suspicious deaths — officials there issue the death certificate.
and Health Ministry numbers which omitted an entire year
Irrelevant since the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year
No it did not conclude that. Another lie. Baghdad, by all accounts, is one of the most violent cities in the country and contains by far the largest population. The few other violent cities and provinces could not possibly account for the missing dead unless you wish to claim they've been greatly depopulated.
What an idiot you are, claiming that a total death toll over 3 years of 650,000 - an average of under 220,000 per year - in a country of 36 million will "greatly depopulate" that country. Remember the calculation?
I sure do, numbskull. And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular.
What a lying SOS you are. Kurdistan has the cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, and also has peshmarga thugs who simply eliminate anybody who is opposed to their alliance with the US government. There simply is no way to account for the claimed number of dead. As one blogger noted, "The claim is 654,965 excess deaths caused by the war from March 2003 through July 2006. That's 40 months, or 1200 days, so an average of 546 deaths per day.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains? So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?"
Strawman. (3) Doctors in Iraq can write death certificates, not only hospitals and morgues.
Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health.
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates. Now you concede they do, but they had to have reported them to the government who had to have kept accurate records of them. That's typical of your trolling. Change your argument as often as you need to.
#18. To: AGAviator, BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#17)
#19. To: AGAviator, ALL (#17)
You don't *explain* how 87% x 92% is not 80%, dip-shit. It is, and it's basic math.
Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying.
"the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
What an idiot you are, claiming that a total death toll over 3 years of 650,000 - an average of under 220,000 per year - in a country of 36 million will "greatly depopulate" that country.
Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
"And contrary to what you've claimed in the past, the majority of the country is relatively peaceful. Kurdistan in particular."
What a lying SOS you are.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains?
"So, where are the news accounts of tens of days with 10,000 or more deaths?"
Strawman.
"Then name ONE doctor from Iraq who has come forward to say he wrote hundreds of death certificates and didn't report them to the Ministry of Health."
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates.
#20. To: Destro, AGAviator, ALL (#18)
BeAChooser, Iraq is a hellhole of Bush and Clinton's making. It has been depopulated - especially among Christians and others of the educated class fleeing for their lives.
#21. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#19)
(Edited)
And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS.
Nobody at any time inside or outside of Iraq has ever said they're missing except you. They're not missing. You're lying.
Then where are they?
Because if the John Hopkins study is valid than 92 percent of those who might claim deaths should have had a death certificate issued. And there is no record of that.
"The first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004.
Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" blah blah blah
But all those deaths were not evenly distributed throughout the country. They occurred mostly in a few regions. Where surely losses in the hundreds of thousands would have been noticed by a journalist or two. Surely ...
Alternatively, 657,000 deaths in a population of 36,000,000 = 1.8% of the total.
Although an incorrect way to look at the problem, this number in itself is remarkable.
Because it is only slightly different than the percentage of the German population (or the Japanese population) that died in WW2 ... and that was after strategic bombing of virtually every major city in those countries. Those cities were literally flattened or burned to the ground in many cases. Yet you want us to believe that Iraq, whose cities are mostly still standing, has had comparable losses.
I've even posted articles to the forum showing that Kurdistan is mostly peaceful and doing quite well now that Saddam is gone.
And how many people die of normal causes every day in a country of 36 million the size of California, shit for brains?
But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed.
Not at all. STATISTICALLY there is no way that the number of deaths has been a constant 546 per day since the war began. Some days would be higher and some lower. And as what I posted shows, even if you assumed that most days would only see deaths of 381 per day (which is far more than has ever been reported), you'd have to have a significant number of days (20) with 10,000 deaths. And surely that would have been noticed and reported by someone.
You've changed your story. You used to claim that Les Roberts was lying when he said that Iraqi doctors write death certificates.
I haven't changed my story at all. Les Roberts is a liar and you're unable to name even ONE doctor who says he/she wrote death certificates in Iraq and didn't report them.
But you don't just need one doctor, you need thousands of doctors doing that to even begin to account for all the death certificates that John Hopkins claims exist but for which there is no record whatsoever.
#22. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator (#20)
That may or may not be true. But in any case, that's not the depopulation that AGAviator and John Hopkins are claiming. They aren't talking about folks fleeing for their lives. They are claiming that hundreds of thousands were KILLED in certain regions of the country
#23. To: AGAviator, scrapper2, Destro, ALL (#21)
"And the fact that the other 13%, who were RANDOMLY not asked, should have been able to provide death certificates 92% of the time ... if the study is valid ... is BASIC STATISTICS."
That's not how basic statistics works, numbskull.
"The first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
No it did not conclude that. Another lie.
"You are wrong. Haven't you read the second study? It states "In 2004 we estimated that somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred from the time of the invasion until August 2004."
You can't even read, then you try to bluster your way out of it by lying.
Saying that "somewhere in excess of 100,000 deaths had occurred" does not equate to saying "the first John Hopkins study concluded that less than 100,000 of the 655,000 died in that first year"
In fact, it says precisely the opposite.
"Using data from the 2006 survey to look at the time included in the 2004 survey, we estimated that the number of excess deaths during that time was about 112,000" blah blah blah
Do you know the difference between "in excess" and "less than," dummy?
you now retreat to your fall-back position of "The media hates Bush."
During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change.
The JH definition of "excess deaths" is not limited to people who are killed by military action, brainless troll.
I've already cited the cities where there has been violence that regularly makes the headlines.
"But we are talking VIOLENT deaths ... and those get noticed."
By whom? The "embedded media?"
People "noticing" and "reporting" are two different things. More "The media hates Bush so it couldn't have happened."
Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?
So fuck you, lying troll.
*Baghdad 575 (Central) Capitol City-Province.
*Salaheddin 256 (Central) Home to cities of Tikrit and Samarra.
*Nineveh 171 (Central-Kurdistan) Home to city of Mosul.
*Babel 118 (Sumer-Central) Home to city of Hillah and ruins of Babylon.
*Diyala 82 (Central)
*Dhi Qar 67 (Sumer) Home to ruins ancient city of Ur.
*Basra 58 (Sumer) Home to cities of Basra, Umm Qasr and Eden.
*At Tamim 37 (Kurdistan-Central) Home to the city of Kirkuk.
*Wasit 33 (Sumer) Home to city of Al Kut.
*Najaf 29 (Sumer) Home to cities of Najaf and Kufah.
*Karbala 28 (Sumer)Home to Shi'ite holy shrine to Imam Hussein.
*Maysan 19 (Sumer) Home of "Marsh Arabs"; 1991 Shi'ite uprising.
*Qadisiyyah 17 (Sumer)
*Muthanna 6 (Sumer)
*Arbil 1 (Kurdistan) Home to ethnic Turks and Assyrians.
*Sulaimaniya 0 (Kurdistan)
*Dahuk 0 (Kurdistan)
#24. To: BeAChooser (#23)
#25. To: Ada (#0)
#26. To: Destro, ALL (#22)
Don't be disingenuous BeAChooser,
With that said - the death toll clearly is high in Iraq due to America's invasion and occupational aftermath.
#27. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, scrapper2 (#23)
Now the population of Anbar is 1.3 million. So you are asking us to believe that 25% of Anbars population was killed between the beginning of the invasion and July of last year.
#28. To: kiki, ALL (#25)
if our actions have caused the death of 300,000 or 600,000 or ten, it's wrong. period.
#29. To: Destro, ALL (#27)
The statistics show that Anbar has been depopulated by that amount - the discrepancy has to do with how you interpret the data - are the missing people mostly dead or mostly refugees who fled?
#30. To: BeAChooser, AGAviator, scrapper2 (#26)
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.
#31. To: BeAChooser (#29)
It's makes a big difference. If the missing are mostly refugees who fled, then someone in the John Hopkin's study LIED about the death certificates. And you will not find truth or justice on a foundation of lies.
#32. To: BeAChooser (#29)
you will not find truth or justice on a foundation of lies.
#33. To: Fish Breath (#29)
(Edited)
someone in the John Hopkin's study LIED about the death certificates
#34. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#28)
#35. To: BeAChooser, ..., Destro (#23)
Fuck you lying troll.
Arguing like so many other 4umers.
#36. To: AGAviator (#35)
I've already told you, fucking troll
#37. To: Destro (#36)
Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous
#38. To: christine (#37)
(Edited)
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
#39. To: Destro, Christine (#36)
(Edited)
Trolls are people who go on Internet forums to be disingenuous and pick fights
(1) The Health Ministry never issued any death certificates to begin with, so they can't be "missing" what they never had,
#40. To: BeAChooser, Christine, SKYDRIFTER (#23)
So how many do you think the second John Hopkins study claim died in the first year after the invasion began, AGAviator? 112,000? 2/3rds of 112,000? Just what is your number, AGAviator?
So are you now claiming the media decided not to report the deaths of hundreds of thousands in places like Anbar because they love Bush? ROTFLOL!
During times of war and social chaos no one is going to greatly notice less than a 1% change.
Why 1%? Why not 2%? Why not 3%?
Virtually every city in those countries was FLATTENED. That is not the case in Iraq.
The JH definition says that almost all of those 655,000 were killed by VIOLENCE. Now you want us to believe that thugs with guns, not bombs, have killed 2% of the population.
As one can see from the map below, both Mosul and Kirkuk (Karkuk) are on the very edge of Kurdistan.
Oh so now you are saying the media noticed the deaths but decided not to report them? And it's because they "love Bush"? ROTFLOL!
Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?
Hard to tell since NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he wrote death certificates and didn't report them to the central government.
Tell you what, AGAviator, why don't you get Les Roberts to get the names of the doctors on those death certificates he claims his researchers were shown and go get them to make statements. Surely they noted the names on the certificates. Surely ....
#41. To: BeAChooser (#23)
(Edited)
ROTFLOL...spam...ROTFLOL...spam...ROFTLOL...spam
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
#42. To: BeAChooser (#23)
Hard to tell since NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he wrote death certificates and didn't report them to the central government.
#43. To: AGAviator, Christine (#39)
Would you say that making up hundreds of posts on 2 websites about "missing death certificates" - when in fact there never were any missing death certificates - is being disingenuous?
#44. To: Destro (#43)
(Edited)
You don't like what BAChooser has to say counter it with your facts and he comes off the loser.
#45. To: AGAviator (#44)
(Edited)
So BAC has been completely debunked, but I guess you're really saying is you like BAC around to counter the USG did 911 people. As far as I'm concerned, (s) he's a poor advocate for anything and isn't worth the trouble keeping around.
#46. To: Destro (#45)
You don't like his position so you are reverting to your Freerepublic origins by labeling a dissenter as a troll to shut him up - what next, comrade? Bannings? Purgings? Exile to the gulag?
#47. To: AGAviator (#46)
when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#48. To: AGAviator, robin (#46)
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#49. To: robin (#47)
#50. To: Destro (#48)
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#51. To: robin (#50)
The govt's explanation of 9/11 has been proven to be laughable, and not just on this forum. Exploring ideas about what really happened is useful, because learning the truth is always a good idea.
#52. To: Destro (#51)
#53. To: robin (#52)
(Edited)
Where logic is replaced by volumes of the exact same copy/paste (refuted by many on many threads), then curtailing such a poster is reasonable. He just disrupts any worthwhile discussion, which is part of his schtick.
#54. To: Destro (#53)
You 9/11 truther types do the exact same thing you accuse bachooser of doing.
#55. To: robin (#54)
The truth is often uncomfortable. This is one of the few forums where it is allowed to be heard. You can read the likes of BAC anytime on FR and LP.
#56. To: Destro (#55)
#57. To: Destro (#55)
(Edited)
#58. To: christine (#57)
#59. To: robin (#56)
Or maybe we just don't want it to turn into another LP or FR, which sadly appears to be what you would prefer.
#60. To: Destro, robin, christine (#55)
The truth is often uncomfortable. This is one of the few forums where it is allowed to be heard. You can read the likes of BAC anytime on FR and LP.
#61. To: christine, robin (#57)
(Edited)
#62. To: HOUNDDAWG (#61)
#63. To: HOUNDDAWG, christine, robin (#61)
estro is on LF at the exact same moment calling people names over the exact same issue as he is on another thread here!
#64. To: Jethro Tull (#62)
I have to hand it to you 'dawg. Anyone who can navigate, and actually read comments at LF, has a special ability. And on top of their hideous software, the more entrenched members get to rate other people. From top to bottom, that forum is a mystery to me.
#65. To: Destro, AGAviator, ALL (#30)
Why is it our business?
You child killing Americans need to mind your own business.
Thanks to American sanctions
"We also don't know what al-Zarqawi and his like would have been up to in Iraq now had we not invaded."
Dead at the hands of the secular Arab nationalist Ba'athists - many of whom are Christians - if he acted up.
"We know they had planned a mass casualty attack on Jordan (and the US embassy in Jordan) from Baghdad."
I plan on killing every NATO soldier in Kosovo from Belgrade. Wishing a plan is not implementing a plan.
#66. To: Destro, ALL (#31)
Makes no difference
#67. To: AGAviator, ALL (#35)
Hey dumbfuck.
Fuck you lying troll.
I've already told you, fucking troll,
#68. To: christine, Destro, ALL (#37)
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
#69. To: BeAChooser (#67)
Are you typical of 4um posters,
#70. To: BeAChooser (#68)
I haven't posted anything but sourced facts and sound logic
#71. To: AGAviator, ALL (#40)
Your claim was that the first study stated that the majority of the deaths did not happen during the first year.
Furthermore, the first study specifically excluded Fallujah, so any numbers from the first study are too low according to their methodology.
The study does not claim that the "excess violent deaths" are all caused by military action, or even a majority of them are caused by military action.
Violent, other - 24%
Violent, unknown - 45%
Car bomb - 13%
Other explosive/ordinance - 14%
Air Strike - 13%
Violent, unknown - 2%
Accident - 2% So fuck you, troll.
Now you want us to believe that thugs with guns, not bombs, have killed 2% of the population.
I never said that lying troll. And the study said that 50,000 were not killed by violence.
So what's your point, fuckwit?
Is Les Roberts lying when he says Iraqi doctors write death certificates, lying SOS?
"Hard to tell since NOT ONE Iraqi doctor has come forward to say he wrote death certificates and didn't report them to the central government."
Answer the question, weasel.
If I prove from an unbiased source that Iraqi doctors do write death certificates, you'll be banished from this site permanently.
Not for expressing a contrary opinion, but for making repeated false statements and spamming them hundreds of times.
Now put up or shut up.
#72. To: AGAviator, Destro, ALL (#44)
However you certainly can disprove the Iraqi Health Ministry counting all the deaths in Iraq,
#73. To: AGAviator, Destro, ALL (#46)
No, when someone repeats assertions time and time again that have been decisively rebutted, the person becomes a nuisance.
#74. To: robin, AGAviator, Destro, ALL (#47)
#75. To: robin, ALL (#50)
9/11 truth movement states it took about 14 seconds
#76. To: Destro, robin, christine, ALL (#53)
A shitload of people have died in Iraq and a shit load of people have fled Iraq for other countries as refugess - some say up to 2 million Iraqis have fled Iraq.
I can't speak to the London report on the number of deaths because I have not studied it in part because I know the death toll has been huge so I have not bothered to check one way or the other. I assume it is accurate.
The only part of the 9/11 story I accept from the govt is the 'mechanical' ones not the rest - not on the relationship of the 9/11 cell to US intellugence and not what the status of the information the govt had on them before that day.
It shocks me you guys don't see what I am accusing you of.
#77. To: robin, Destro, ALL (#54)
The truth is often uncomfortable. This is one of the few forums where it is allowed to be heard.
#78. To: Destro, ALL (#63)
I think they and other people who reject science in the name of their religion or ideology are destroying this country.
#79. To: SKYDRIFTER, skydrifter (#15)
(if speak about a car;) - I’ll spam about the whole damned street; (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 the fleet.
#80. To: Diana (#79)
#81. To: BeAChooser, robin, christine, AGAviator, (#76)
That's an assumption you'd be better off not making. Because the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) is filled with all sorts of problems. I listed SOME of them in posts 4 and 5 of this thread. Problems that for the most part have been simply ignored by the defenders of the study.
#82. To: Dakmar (#80)
Taxman - Beatles.
#83. To: Destro, ALL (#81)
Since I consider the Iraq war illegal and immoral even one death is criminial.
#84. To: beachooser, Destro, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#83)
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
#85. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#83)
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
#86. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala (#85)
#87. To: Destro (#81)
BeAChooser, you want to discredit the John Hopkins' study (it was just reported in the Lancet) so as to justify the Iraq mission rather then be accurate about the Iraqi death toll.
#88. To: HOUNDDAWG (#87)
#89. To: Destro (#88)
#90. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#84)
Fuck you BAC, you treasonous queer!
#91. To: Destro (#86)
#92. To: Red Jones, SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#90)
I cannot in good faith follow the writings of a treasonous queer.
#93. To: Ada (#0)
#94. To: Destro, ALL (#86)
BeAChooser, admit that you seek to discredit the report to justify the Iraq mission and the honesty will be accepted.
#95. To: Destro, Red Jones, ALL (#90)
Red Jones - Is this true BAC? Are you a treasonous queer.
#96. To: BeAChooser (#94)
One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.
#97. To: BeAChooser (#94)
One will not find the truth or justice or freedom in basing one's views on obvious lies.
#98. To: BeAChooser, Red Jones, ALL (#95)
And, Destro, when one bases one's views on lies, this is all that's left to defend oneself.
#99. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#96)
so did ron brown move the wmd to syria or have you concocted a new story?
#100. To: Destro (#99)
#101. To: Morgana le Fay (#100)
that proves ron brown died from a gun shot wound, but this has been lost too.
#102. To: Destro, ALL (#97)
Then you should be against the entire Iraq war
then as well as the war America fought in Bosnia and Kosovo.
#103. To: Destro, ALL (#98)
I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation
#104. To: BeAChooser, Destro, All (#83)
That YOU consider the war illegal is immaterial.
#105. To: Destro, BeAChooser (#98)
I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.
#106. To: Destro, Morgana Le Fay, BeAChooser (#101)
The Honey Pot Trap is to get people to focus on the story that makes you look like a wild eyed loon and thus any investigation into a conspiracy is tainted. Ron Brown was not killed by gunshot to the head - but they want you to think that he was so you seem like a loon saying it and thus tainting any question the plane crash circumstances.
#107. To: BeAChooser (#102)
Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11.
#108. To: Destro, ALL (#99)
The Croatian air traffic controller responsible then "committed suicide" by firing a shotgun blast into his face.
Then stories spread that ROn Brown had a gunshot to his head. That was BS
#109. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#100)
he explains how rin brown was shot the instant the plane went in and there are even pictures to prove this.
there is an autopsy
#110. To: Diana, ALL (#104)
In this country, the citizens are still suppose to rule with their majority opinions
#111. To: Diana, ALL (#105)
I know full well about American lies since this scumbag of a nation launched 78 days of airstrikes against mostly civilian targets in Serbia.
BAC, can you explain why this was done?
#112. To: Diana, ALl (#106)
I also used to wonder why anyone would have bothered to shoot Ron Brown in the head when he was going to be dead anyway in the plane crash.
#113. To: Diana, ALL (#107)
"Iraq was still working with terrorists post 9/11."
"Iraq was allowing al-Qaeda to operate freely on Iraqi soil."
Talk about building a foundation of lies...
You can't possibly believe the stuff you post.
#114. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#108)
The official AFIP explanation is that the wound was probably caused by a rivet, rod, or bolt from the airplane wreckage.
#115. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#110)
(Edited)
No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
#116. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#111)
Just check out the timing with respect to other disclosures about Clinton and Clinton administration crimes, Diana.
#117. To: BeAChooser, Diana (#112)
Folks survive plane crashes all the time. This was a low speed impact. The back portion of the plane was even still intact. And in any case, you are avoiding the real issue. The photo, x-ray and what the pathologists say.
#118. To: BeAChooser, Diana, (#113)
We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists.
#119. To: BeAChooser (#103)
I'm glad to see you hold America in high esteem
#120. To: Destro, Diana, ALL (#114)
The problem with shooting Ron Brown in the head is that the plane is packed and the shooter can't get away as the plane goes down.
Therefore the plausible explanation is that the head wound was a result of the crash. But putting out a flase story that he mayhve been shot makes all who question the crash look like loons.
#121. To: Destro, ALL (#115)
Let me know when congress declares war
#122. To: Destro, ALL (#116)
Bush fully supported the bombings over the Republican party's objections.
#123. To: Destro, ALL (#117)
NO ONE SURVIVED THAT PLANE CRASH!!
Hence the shooter died as well
Thus I don't think Ron Brown was shot to t he head
though I think he was murdered.
#124. To: Destro, ALL (#119)
I don't hold this nation in esteem at all nor it's citizens except for a handful - myself included in the exception.
#125. To: BeAChooser (#109)
#126. To: BeAChooser (#123)
Now you have me confused as to what you believe, Destro. Murdered how, when and by whom?
#127. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
#128. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#125)
you said there were photos of the bullet hole. which were lost of course.
you also said he was shot right before the plane went in
#129. To: Morgana le Fay, Destro, ALL (#127)
i assume you can't say that congress would declare war the same way it conducts every other piece of business. and has conducted every other piece of business for for the past 230 years.
pass a bill.
#130. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#131. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#132. To: BeAChooser (#128)
#133. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#134. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#135. To: BeAChooser (#113)
We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.
#136. To: BeAChooser (#120)
#137. To: BeAChooser (#121)
#138. To: BeAChooser (#129)
#139. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)
#140. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
#141. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#125)
(Edited)
#142. To: BeAChooser (#121)
Let me know when you find the section in the Constitution where it defines how Congress is to declare war.
#143. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)
The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:
#144. To: BeAChooser (#128)
(Edited)
I said he MIGHT have been shot before the plane went down.
#145. To: ..., BeAChooser (#142)
How" Congress is to declare war?
#146. To: BeAChooser, Morgana le Fay (#129)
It authorized the United States to use military force to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
#147. To: All, BeAChooser (#113)
#148. To: BeAChooser, SkyDrifter, Diana (#95)
#149. To: BeAChooser (#113)
(Edited)
#150. To: BeAChooser (#110)
No, Diana ... we live in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.
#151. To: BeAChooser (#113)
(Edited)
Zal-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands.
#152. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#120)
Something clearly happened on that plane long before it just "accidently" crashed into the mountain.
#153. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#130)
there was no un security council resolution.
bush also cut the inspections short.
as the bush government has told us, there was no threat, the wmd's only existed in the stories the bush admin fed to guys like you.
defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq
#154. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser (#153)
He actually gave the inspectors more time than the UN authorized under UN Resolution 1441.
#155. To: Morgana le Fay, BeAChooser, Diana, SkyDrifter (#130)
there was no un security council resolution. bush utterly humiliated himself trying to get one
#156. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#131)
here is the resoluton
... snip ...
i notice that you couldn't post the full resolution
#157. To: Morgana le Fay, ALL (#132)
also recall that bush was expected to go back to congress and get a second war authorization before going into iraq.
#158. To: scrapper2, ALL (#134)
Except for the fact that Congress's own investigation showed that Iraq was no threat to the USA and that Saddam was not in league with AQ and that GWB used false intel to suggest the case was otherwise.
If GWB and Cheney had any sense of decency, they would have resigned their positions.
If they worked in private industry, their resignations for such grievous errors would have been demanded by the Board of Directors on the spot.
#159. To: All (#157)
#160. To: ..., ALL (#135)
"We have documents showing that the Iraqi regime was playing catch and release with al-Qaeda terrorists. al-Zarqawi even felt confident enough to meet IN BAGHDAD the terrorists who Jordan eventually caught with the materials they planned to use to kill tens of thousands."
No, NewsMax told you you
#161. To: ..., ALL (#136)
The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.
... snip ...
Do you have a shred of evidence for the SHIT that you just spewed above that comes out of a respectable publication?
#162. To: ..., ALL (#138)
Don't you find it odd that there are absolutely no respectable sources for the shit you spew?
#163. To: BeAChooser (#160)
#164. To: Destro, ALL (#140)
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
#165. To: ... (#142)
You know that Bush was supposed to return for a war resolution
#166. To: Destro, ALL (#143)
"The resolution cited many factors to justify action in Iraq:"
All of them Bullshit.
#167. To: BeAChooser (#164)
Ergo, the law that Congress passed authorizing the use of force in Iraq might be considered a valid Declaration of War.
#168. To: Destro, ALL (#144)
I say the more plausible because it is less complicated explanation is that the method of murder was the crash of the airplane.
I provided a link which I like because it does not mention any nonsense as a head shot.
If I see mention of a head shot I think disinfo attempt.
#169. To: BeAChooser (#168)
But the crash doesn't explain the head wound,
#170. To: BeAChooser, Destro, leveller, All (#164)
Destro: U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8
#171. To: Destro, ALL (#146)
Iraq posed no threat.
The UN did not authorize force to enforce its resolutions.
#172. To: Destro, Red Jones, Diana, ..., christine, ALL (#148)
I can only conclude that you are in fact a treasonous queer.
#173. To: Diana, ALL (#150)
But those we vote for are suppose to represent us.
#174. To: Diana, ALL (#151)
You, for one because you actually believe in the mythical Zarqawi who no one where he was supposedly causing trouble ever heard of him.
#175. To: Destro, ALL (#154)
Bush is not the boss of the UN
#176. To: All, Red Jones (#155)
Morgana, I don't mind telling you that I fully trust your version of these events and not BAC's.
He has also refused to share details of his date with Jeff Gannon.
#177. To: BeAChooser (#172)
#178. To: Destro, ALL (#169)
Occam's Razor explains it well enough.
#179. To: scrapper2, ALL (#170)
"No specific form is required.
But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#180. To: BeAChooser, Destro (#172)
See the way the folks at 4um debate, Destro, when they have nothing to counter the actual facts?
#181. To: Destro, ALL (#177)
You don't use facts either
Congress only authorized war as a last result
#182. To: BeAChooser, leveller (#179)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#183. To: BeAChooser (#178)
Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say.
#184. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#180)
#185. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser, leveller, burkeman1 (#182)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
#186. To: scrapper2 (#180)
#187. To: BeAChooser, ... (#161)
...: The stuff you are spewing above is only published in third tier goob fooler rags targeted to conspiracy kooks such as yourself.
#188. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, ALL, Just who is this All, BAC? He never posts . . . (#179)
#189. To: scrapper2, leveller, ALL (#182)
leveller: But any Congressional act which fails to assert that a state of war exists falls short of a declaration of war."
BAC: According to whom? Sorry, but that's just an OPINION.
And what is it that you post, BAC, but an opinion - your opinion specifically
#190. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#157)
#191. To: Destro, ALL (#183)
"Don't you think trained forensic pathologists are aware of Occam's Razor? You now seem desperate to avoid what those pathologists say."
All one of them said - I am not aware of plural - is that they would have liked to have done an autopsy.
#192. To: Destro, ALL (#184)
I think because I try and attempt to see the other side of all arguments
All I hear from BAC is standard Bushbot talking points on Iraq from BAC.
#193. To: christine, ALL (#186)
he's been soundly and roundly annihilated over and over and over
fortunately, Neil has now given us an ignore thread function.
#194. To: scrapper2, ..., ALL (#187)
The sources you point out to ... as showing him to be a fool does the very opposite - the sources show you to be the fool, the shill-dupe of reichwing prop.
#195. To: leveller, scrapper2, ALL (#188)
As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration."
#196. To: BeAChooser (#194)
So scrapper ... you are saying that NTI's Global Security Newswire, the Associated Press, Jordanian Times, Agence France-Presse, CSPAN, The Washington Times, the San Diego Union-Tribune, The Boston Globe, CNN, USATODAY, CBS News, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, The National Review, townhall, the Pittzburgh Post-Gazette, The Irish News, Powerline, FrontPageMag, Larry Elder, LittleGreenFootballs, Reuters and The Washington Post all are working together?
#197. To: BeAChooser (#189)
#198. To: BeAChooser (#191)
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists
#199. To: BeAChooser (#192)
Except when it comes to what the pathologists have said about the hole in Brown's head. Then you just ignore the arguments and facts.
#200. To: scrapper2, ALL (#196)
Come on - how different is FrontPage from Townhall from Fox news,from Little Green Footballs, from Larry Elder, from Washington Times?
#201. To: leveller, ALL whoever they are (#197)
Take a close look at the US declarations of war against Japan and Germany. You'll notice that each declares that a state of war exists betwen the US and a specific nation.
#202. To: BeAChooser (#200)
(Edited)
from CNN, from MSNBC, from CBS, from CSPAN, from ABC, from Washington Post, from USATODAY, from Boston Globe, from Associated Press, from AFP, from Reuters.
#203. To: leveller, BeAChooser (#197)
(Edited)
#204. To: Destro, ALL (#198)
Then you haven't been paying attention. I posted to you half a dozen named forensic pathologists
So? No link.
#205. To: BeAChooser (#204)
Gormley, who has approximately 25 years of experience in pathology, has said that he, too, identified the wound as a "red flag" and that he consulted with other pathologists present, including Hause and Navy Cmdr. Edward Kilbane. "They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.
#206. To: BeAChooser (#201)
But the fact remains that neither the Constitution or laws define the form a declaration of war must take.
#207. To: BeAChooser (#201)
He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war,
#208. To: Dakmar, ALL (#205)
"They agreed it looked like an entrance gunshot wound," Gormley recalled in a recent television interview.
That's hearsay, you idiot.
#209. To: BeAChooser (#208)
Which makes me suspicious why you'd be desperate regarding that. You're not a democRAT, are you Dakmar?
#210. To: BeAChooser (#208)
You only make yourself look even more desperate to make the Ron Brown allegation go away
#211. To: SmokinOPs (#203)
delegatvs non potest delegare
#212. To: leveller, ALL (#207)
"He felt that since Tripoli had already declared war"
Therein lies an important distinction between the Jeffersonian adventure in Tripoli and the AUMF.
The targets of AUMF, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, did not declare war.
#213. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#214. To: BeAChooser (#212)
the targets in Afghanistan had most certainly declared war on the US. Bin Laden did it years earlier on a tape played on TV throughout the world. And surely you aren't claiming the Taliban were acting as honest brokers. Or that we shouldn't have done anything about Bin Laden just because the Taliban hadn't made a *formal* declaration of war (according you YOUR definition).
#215. To: BeAChooser (#212)
As to Iraq, tapes of Saddam talking to his associates make it quite clear that they still thought they were at war with the US despite the cease fire agreement. And surely you aren't claiming that we had no right to push Saddam out of Kuwait because he hadn't formally declared war on us. And I have news for you, leveller. I doubt that Saddam's *constitution* or *laws* specified the form that a declaration of war had to take either. And statements by Tariq Aziz about the conflict make it quite clear that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean WAR with the US. And since Saddam broke the cease fire agreement, a good case can be made that that first war was not over when we invaded.
#216. To: BeAChooser (#212)
First of all, at the time Jefferson ordered the fleet to the Med with orders to attack, he did not know that Tripoli had declared war.
#217. To: leveller (#214)
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
#218. To: leveller, ALL (#213)
Their orders wer to protect shipping on the high seas, in accordance with the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, accepted by the Founders.
#219. To: leveller, ALL (#214)
We had no right to invade Afghanistan to reach those targets.
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders.
If Bin Laden had had nationhood, his act of aggression would have created a state of war, and the President would have been authorized and duty-bound to respond against such a country.
#220. To: BeAChooser (#219)
The family of the Taliban leader also married into the family of bin Laden, suggesting a far more than arms length association between the two.
#221. To: leveller, ALL (#215)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
Congress has not declared war since WWII.
#222. To: Dakmar (#216)
Where in the Constitution is it specified which form a Declaration of War from Tripoli shall take?
#223. To: wbales, ALL (#217)
09/11 was a crime NOT an act of war
#224. To: Dakmar, ALL (#220)
Holy Cow but you are stupid.
#225. To: BeAChooser (#218)
No, the orders were NOT to "protect" shipping but to take out the pirates WHEREVER they might be hiding and to stop those helping them. Which is why Jefferson and Madison's Navy invaded A COUNTRY and DEPOSED a dictator.
#226. To: BeAChooser (#222)
#227. To: BeAChooser (#224)
Are you a typical 4um poster?
#228. To: BeAChooser, leveller, Dakmar (#221)
Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined.
#229. To: SmokinOPs, BeAChooser (#228)
It isn't defined because educated people of the time already knew what it was and what form it existed in. Just like Bill of Attainder, Bill of Credit, Letters of Marque, Oath, etc. aren't defined.
#230. To: leveller, ALL (#225)
Jefferson's words will wake you from your reverie:
#231. To: Dakmar, ALL (#226)
A peace treaty was signed with Tripoli by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate, thus establishing a precedent to regard Tripoli as a recognised state.
#232. To: Dakmar (#227)
Are you Jewish?
#233. To: BeAChooser (#230)
#234. To: BeAChooser (#231)
#235. To: BeAChooser (#231)
#236. To: Dakmar, ALL (#234)
Study your history, moron. Look up Adams presidency, note the years.
#237. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#238. To: BeAChooser (#236)
#239. To: BeAChooser (#236)
Letter from Israel
The new Barbary pirates
By Nechemia Meyers
#240. To: BeAChooser (#223)
Except that bin Laden actually had formally declared war on the US.
#241. To: wbales, ALL (#240)
The country of bin Laden? Where's that? What is the capital of bin Laden?
What if the American people don't want to fight bin Laden in a war?
Instead of trying to invade, conquer and occupy bin Laden half way around the world, would it be better to station our troops along the border so bin Laden's military can't sneak in and attack us? Or at least, do both? Is Bush doing that now?
If Bush hadn't attacked bin Laden, do you think bin Laden would have invaded, conquered and occupied all of America by now?
#242. To: BeAChooser (#241)
It's a brand new world.
#243. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#244. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#245. To: BeAChooser (#241)
#246. To: BeAChooser (#204)
Asked recently about the head wound, Gormley told the Tribune-Review that it was a matter of concern because of its size and shape. But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot.
#247. To: wbales, ALL (#243)
Hey, and moving on, who did the Anthrax?
#248. To: Destro, ALL (#246)
"But he said his examination showed it definitely wasn't caused by a bullet because it didn't completely perforate the skull and there was no exit wound. The institute's chief forensic scientist, who was present during the examination, says evidence at the crash site ruled out the possibility of a gunshot."
Good enough for me.
And while you retards
#249. To: BeAChooser (#247)
#250. To: ..., ALL (#249)
And you have a yellow, dog eared National Enquirer or NewsMax article to prove every point.
#251. To: BeAChooser, wbales (#247)
Like the fact that Iraq had tried to procure the 9/11 strain of anthrax
#252. To: BeAChooser (#250)
The points I listed about the hijackers, anthrax, atta and al-Ani don't come from Newsmax or the National Enquirer.
#253. To: BeAChooser (#219)
We are playing by new rules now.
#254. To: BeAChooser (#219)
Those targets had committed a criminal offense within our borders. No, they committed an act of war. A war they formally declared before 9/11.
#255. To: BeAChooser (#219)
So we are legally helpless against terrorists. That's your message, lawyer? ROTFLOL!
#256. To: leveller (#254)
#257. To: BeAChooser (#221)
Show me in the Constitution or our laws where the form of a Declaration of War is defined. You can't
#258. To: BeAChooser (#221)
Voice of Reason: April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
#259. To: BeAChooser (#230)
Jefferson deployed the navy, without consulting Congress, with permission to attack the pirates or any entity aiding the pirates, before any *formal* declaration of war had actually been received by the US.
#260. To: SKYDRIFTER (#256)
BAC's "Troll" tactics are at work again. He 'grounds' the emotional and intellectual energy of the forum - and he's successful, at it. Reply to his shit, at your own peril.
#261. To: BeAChooser (#221)
(Edited)
April Glaspie gave Iraq the green light to invade, but this issue is beside the point.
#262. To: leveller, ALL (#254)
If the Mafia "declared war" on the US, would Congress issue a solemn declaration of war against the Mafia?
#263. To: leveller, ALL (#255)
Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals.
#264. To: leveller (#257)
The substantive elements of a declaration of war were well known to the Framers.
#265. To: BeAChooser, ... (#250)
Here you go again, making a false assertion.
#266. To: leveller, ALL (#258)
"U.S. Ambassador Glaspie - We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960's, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America. (Saddam smiles)"
Transcript of Meeting Between Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie. - July 25, 1990 (Eight days before the August 2, 1990 Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait)
#267. To: BeAChooser (#266)
both put out by Iraq (which as we all know has a history of not being honest), WHICH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. H
#268. To: BeAChooser (#266)
It is almost pathetic that you would make such an inflammatory claim on such flimsy evidence.
#269. To: BeAChooser (#266)
Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US,
#270. To: leveller, ALL (#259)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war.
Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed vessels of the United States to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."
Consequently, in May of 1801, the Pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli.
#271. To: ..., ALL (#261)
Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly.
Here you are telling a deliberate bald faced lie.
#272. To: BeAChooser (#271)
#273. To: scrapper2, ALL (#265)
Strange but I found many of the "facts" you quoted in a 5 part NewsMax series by Phil Brennan and the Al-Ani thingie in a newsmax article as well.
Al Ani was captured by Coalition forces in July and has reportedly denied to U.S. interrogators any meeting with Atta.
Neither the CIA nor the FBI can confirm, for instance, that Atta met specifically with Iraqi intelligence.
#274. To: tom007, ALL (#268)
You could get alot more milage by not be constantly so accusing, In my humble opinion.
#275. To: BeAChooser (#274)
So tom, did you say anything when I was called "evil" and worse because I dared to note that a free fall collapse of the WTC towers would take 10 seconds but the towers actually took 15 seconds to fall?
#276. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
#277. To: ..., ALL (#269)
"Tariq Aziz said publically that Saddam was under NO ILLUSIONS that invading Kuwait would mean war with the US,"
Ahhhh .... the old dancing paraphrased quote tactic.
... snip ...
"Tariq Aziz, who was at the meeting between Glaspie and Saddam, is on the record stating that NO green light was given, that Glaspie said nothing out of the ordinary, that the transcript on which you base this claim is "incomplete*, that Saddam knew invading Kuwait would mean war with the US, and that they prepared accordingly."
And both of these "quotes" are nothing more than your BULLSHIT interpretation of what Aziz actually said - if he said anything at all. Or dare I say it? Both of your phoney quotes are a BULLSHIT paraphrasing that puts the words you need into somebody elses mouth.
#278. To: ..., ALL (#272)
So Aziz, the war shill, paraphased Glaspie's statement long after the fact and just as it started to damage Bush's war effort.
#279. To: BeAChooser (#278)
#280. To: BeAChooser (#248)
#281. To: Destro, all (#280)
When you can figure out the methodology of the hit involving the bullet wound let me know.
#282. To: BeAChooser (#273)
(Edited)
Do you know that neither the CIA or FBI can confirm that Atta was in the United States during the same period?
#283. To: BeAChooser (#281)
#284. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#281)
Here's a feasible possibility.
#285. To: scrapper2, ALL (#282)
Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians
#286. To: BeAChooser, Christine (#285)
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that,
#287. To: BeAChooser (#281)
They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head).
#288. To: BeAChooser (#285)
#289. To: Destro, ALL (#287)
"They make sure he's dead (with a bullet, perhaps from an exotic gun, through the top of the head)."
I find that as plausable as demolition charges bringing down the WTC.
#290. To: BeAChooser (#289)
(Edited)
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility.
#291. To: BeAChooser (#285)
Now if you're going to go about regurgitating nonsense like that, there no sense attempting any rational debate with you. If you don't know by now that John Hopkins did NOT claim 650,000 CIVILIANS were killed, you are clueless. But of course, I can't call anyone clueless on 4um because that would be insulting. And I'm not allowed to be insulting.
#292. To: SKYDRIFTER (#256)
#293. To: BeAChooser (#262)
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
#294. To: scrapper2, ALL (#291)
#295. To: BeAChooser (#294)
The illumnatai had planned this long ago.
#296. To: SKYDRIFTER, BeAChooser (#284)
#297. To: BeAChooser, ... (#294)
What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?
#298. To: BeAChooser (#294)
(Edited)
What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?
#299. To: BeAChooser (#289)
Except in the Brown case I can quote a REAL expert in such things who suggests that's a possibility.
#300. To: scrapper2 (#298)
#301. To: Diana. ..., bluedogtxn, aristeides, nolu_chan, robin, leveller, BeAChooser (#300)
(Edited)
I find that very strange, White Sands is one of the worst and most vicious of the radicals over there. He regularly calls for the deaths of posters from other forums, or used to.
#302. To: scrapper2 (#301)
The Washington Post front page today exposes the lies of these pigs. So now they are jumping from a sinking ship - pointing to other folks as being "the problem." Illuminati - yah, rigggght - that's an intellectual construct
#303. To: Diana (#302)
Very strange though, it's like we've been living in Twilight Zone these past several years. I hope to God it all finally comes to an end and all this madness can stop.
#304. To: ..., ALL (#295)
You believe this crap?
#305. To: Destro, ALL (#299)
Name me the exotic gun.
#306. To: BeAChooser (#262)
If the Mafia was operating openly in a state after declaring war on us, would Congress simply ignore them and that state?
#307. To: BeAChooser (#263)
Extradition treaties provide remedies against international criminals.
#308. To: BeAChooser (#264)
Yet one of the key Framers didn't declare war ... didn't even consult Congress ... before sending his fleet to attack countries in the Med
#309. To: BeAChooser (#266)
And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting
#310. To: BeAChooser (#270)
Jefferson deployed the navy to protect shipping, when attacked, under the doctrine of the freedom of the seas. He did not authorize the Navy to wage aggressive war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Barbary_War
#311. To: Diana (#296)
#312. To: leveller, ALL (#308)
That's because he didn't send them there to start a war or to commence hostilities.
#313. To: beachooser, Minerva, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#266)
#314. To: leveller, SkyDrifter, Diana, BeAChooser (#310)
#315. To: BeAChooser (#271)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
#316. To: Red Jones, BeAChooser (#314)
#317. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2 (#285)
Traitors like Doug Feith caused the deaths of 650,000 Iraqi civilians
#318. To: Diana (#316)
#319. To: BeAChooser (#312)
#320. To: leveller, ALL (#309)
"And you fail to mention to our readers that there are TWO transcripts of the meeting"
We need a cite.
#321. To: leveller, all (#310)
Fascinating. You reversed the order of teh two passages that you cited, to create the false impression that Jefferson sent the forces before war had been declared by Tripoli.
#322. To: Diana, ALL (#315)
You don't know the meaning of lie.
What is 9/11 anthrax?
#323. To: BeAChooser (#320)
#324. To: BeAChooser (#321)
wouldn't some of the things that Saddam did be considered a declaration of war? And if Jefferson was justified in sending forces to deal with Tripoli (up to and including toppling the despot who ruled it using Marines), don't you think Bush as justified in sending Marines to topple Saddam?
#325. To: leveller, ALL (#323)
Why bring up the existence of the two transcripts,
#326. To: leveller, ALL (#324)
then you must be aware that the US and Britain conducted No-Fly Zone bombings without UN authorization
#327. To: BeAChooser (#326)
Did the UN say stop?
#328. To: BeAChooser (#325)
#329. To: BeAChooser (#326)
Did the UN say stop?
#330. To: BeAChooser (#322)
Are you suggesting, Diana, that there wasn't an anthrax attack about the time of 9/11?
#331. To: Diana, ALL (#330)
Are you implying that there is a connection?
#332. To: BeAChooser (#331)
#333. To: leveller, ALL (#328)
Do you really expect any rational person to believe that Saddam, who was practically the creature of the US, would have invaded Kuwait if Glaspie had not given the green light?
#334. To: BeAChooser (#333)
I only expect them to use their brains and realize that Iraq lied all the time,
#335. To: ..., nolu_chan, ALL (#332)
#336. To: BeAChooser (#331)
(Edited)
Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
#337. To: BeAChooser (#335)
You claim I fabricated this quote:
#338. To: BeAChooser (#331)
Especially when doctors at John Hopkins have gone on record saying the skin disorder that Atta and another hijacker sought treatment for before 9/11 is most likely anthrax.
#339. To: BeAChooser (#335)
#340. To: Diana, BeAChooser (#338)
So now we are suppose to think Mohammad Atta was responsible for the anthrax attacks as well?
#341. To: BeAChooser, ... (#335)
So are you accusing nolu_chan of posting fake quotes and making up links to support them?
#342. To: Arator, BeAChooser, ... (#340)
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
#343. To: Diana, ALL (#336)
I thought you don't think John Hopkins is a valid source.
Also the anthrax was a special highly-milled strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD,
#344. To: Diana, ALL (#338)
Did those doctors at John Hopkins actually examine Mohammad Atta?
#345. To: BeAChooser (#343)
#346. To: Diana, ..., nolu_chan, ALL (#341)
Did you attend law school, is that where you learned the art of twisting things around so?
#347. To: Diana, Arator, ALL (#342)
That's quite a feat he pulled off, considering that he was (according to the official story) dead.
#348. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#349. To: BeAChooser (#344)
No, but the doctor and pharmacist who did are ALSO on record saying that in hindsight the skin problems they had were anthrax.
#350. To: BeAChooser (#347)
Do you know the incubation time of anthrax?
#351. To: BeAChooser (#347)
#352. To: Diana, ALL (#348)
What does that have to do with your claim?
#353. To: Diana (#352)
What does that have to do with your claim?
#354. To: Diana, ALL (#348)
#355. To: BeAChooser (#354)
By the way, I couldn't help but notice that you simply ignored the amazing coincidence that the first case of anthrax would show up within a few miles of where the hijackers were staying.
#356. To: BeAChooser (#352)
Well think about it.
#357. To: BeAChooser (#347)
Also the anthrax was a special highly-milled strain produced at Ft. Detrick, MD,
#358. To: BeAChooser (#354)
#359. To: BeAChooser (#355)
#360. To: Diana (#351)
What do you mean I don't know what I'm talking about when I
said the stain was a kind produced at Ft. Detrick?
#361. To: BeAChooser (#360)
#362. To: BeAChooser (#360)
#363. To: Arator, BeAChooser (#356)
#364. To: All, BeAChooser (#357)
#365. To: Red Jones (#363)
(Edited)
Just to let you know - BAC has admitted to being a TREASONOUS QUEER!
#366. To: Arator (#365)
#367. To: Red Jones (#366)
In BAC's case he has told us that he met Jeff Gannon.
#368. To: BeAChooser, ..., Red Jones, Randge, Arator (#360)
#369. To: ... (#361)
I am curious Chooser, if one single shred of this shit that you spew is correct, then why doesn't Bush get on national TV and save his Presidency with it?
#370. To: christine (#369)
#371. To: ... (#370)
#372. To: Diana (#368)
#373. To: BeAChooser, All (#357)
The analysis revealed a number of differences that ruled out laboratories in England, and subsequent testing showed the anthrax to be identical to the original Ames strain from Fort Detrick.
#374. To: Diana (#371)
(Edited)
Like he's ignoring me now.
#375. To: Red Jones (#372)
what post are those links in you put up? I'll look tomorrow.
#376. To: Diana (#373)
#377. To: All, BeAChooser (#375)
#378. To: Diana, ALL (#364)
Simply put, the man most likely responsible for stealing the anthrax is Dr. Philip Zack.
the high degree of 'weaponization' of the spores, but DNA tests which showed the anthrax in the letters to be the exact same strain used at Fort Detrich.
Next week marks the five-year anniversary of Bob Stevens' death. Stevens, a photo editor for Boca Raton-based tabloid The Sun, was the first casualty from exposure to anthrax.
#379. To: Diana, ALL (#371)
Like he's ignoring me now.
#380. To: Diana, ALL (#375)
See my posts #360 and #364.
#381. To: Diana, ALL (#377)
Is that a good example of honesty on your part, just to run away when confronted by evidence you want to remain hidden?
#382. To: BeAChooser (#381)
"Will "crickets" be all I hear?"
#383. To: BeAChooser (#378)
How do you explain the coincidence of Stevens working within a few miles of where the hijackers stayed in Florida, Diana? So far, you've just ignored that question, Diana.
#384. To: BeAChooser (#380)
Actually post #360 was mine, Diana.
#385. To: BeAChooser (#381)
Will "crickets" be all I hear?
#386. To: BeAChooser (#379)
Not ignoring you. My life just doesn't revolve around you.
#387. To: Diana, ALL (#383)
As you have pointed out many times sometimes coincidences are just that, such as Atta's passport which was mysteriously found on the street nearby the Twin Towers.
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:tI2PQRqfJiIJ:www.msnbc.com/local/MYOC/M324557.asp
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20011230flight931230p3.asp
Page 40
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/911_TerrTrav_Ch2.pdf
Other accounts certainly suggest some parts of the plane were left outside the building.
Page 20, “102 Minutes”
Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn
http://zibili.com/sept11/91103.htm
(Download the full-size version by clicking here).
New York Times
December 20, 2001
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_worms_030501.html It's known that Zack hated Assaad
Well since I don't have access to so many resources as you do
CNN actually reported they had found the suspect, Dr. Richard Zack.
#388. To: Diana, ALL (#385)
No, I don't do the disappearing act when confronted with uncomfortable information.
#389. To: BeAChooser, christine (#387)
#390. To: Diana, ALL (#389)
Can you fix this thread?
#391. To: Diana (#389)
Can you fix this thread? I think that picture did something as now you have to scroll to far to read it, so it's difficult to read.
#392. To: BeAChooser (#390)
#393. To: BeAChooser (#387)
#394. To: Diana, robin (#393)
Did you read the manual? (which manual???)
Get away from there, I'll fix it.
Okay, who stole my lunch?
Why did you do that! ?
And, finally, I can do it, but it'll take about two weeks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
