2
   

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 08:26 pm
For more than a century, revolutionary extremists have used the "cell" technique first perfected by Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin) for the Bolshevik appartus in Russia. The Tsarist government thought to break up the Bolshevik hold on the workers in the munitions factories at Petrograd by drafting known agitators, and sending them to the front, and spreading them out among the regiments so that they could not cooperate. The result, which ought to have been predictable, was the rapid spread of Bolshevik sentiment in the army.

Not only do such groups not need a locus, they work more effectively without one. The entire basis of the cell structure is to assure that one group cannot compromise any other group, and that works much better without a base and without concentration of personnel.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 08:39 pm
Joe--

I don't think they have to have an authority. They don't need a country to authorize what they do--but they need one to live in.

Unless they're invisible or exist on a plane unlike regular humans, they must live, eat, and hang out on earth.

Earth, for the most part, is divided into countries.

AQ is the most wanted, hunted group on the face of the earth.

Harboring them is seriously illegal; and holds dire consequences.

Therefore, AQ must either 1) live, eat and work in a country that doesn't know of their presence, or
2) Have the cooperation of the country they live, eat and work in.

Unless a country is in chaos, or has poor law enforcement, the country will discover AQ is operating there. Wouldn't you say?

Nuestra Familia could be arrested if law enforcement was on the ball. So, they are operating with the knowledge of the countries they work in.

BTW--

apparent: Definition, Synonyms and Much More From Answers.com
ap·par·ent ( ə-păr ' ənt, ə-pâr ' - ) adj. Readily seen; visible. Readily understood;
clear or obvious.

It is apparent to me I have been discussing this wilth people who have no concern for veracity.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 08:46 pm
Lash wrote:
AQ is the most wanted, hunted group on the face of the earth.

Harboring them is seriously illegal; and holds dire consequences.

Therefore, AQ must either 1) live, eat and work in a country that doesn't know of their presence, or
2) Have the cooperation of the country they live, eat and work in.

Unless a country is in chaos, or has poor law enforcement, the country will discover AQ is operating there. Wouldn't you say?


The U.S. didn't do so well in this regard in the decade prior to 9-11. Is anyone convinced it's doing well with it now?

There clearly were dire consequences for Washington and NYC as a result of the visas issued by the U.S. (is issuing a visa harbouring? most people would say so)

I'm going to try to get my library to order this

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/pubaffairs/releases/2005/05berkowitz.html

Quote:


Always interesting things coming out of The Hoover Institute.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 08:52 pm
That IS interesting, Beth. These are weighty issues, indeed.

Can you tell me more about the Hoover Institute?

I mean, I can look up their self-blurb - but you seem to know a bit?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:01 pm
It's one of my 'favourites', dlowan.

http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/homepage/about.html

Quote:


Quote:
MISSION STATEMENT

Now more than four decades old, Herbert Hoover's 1959 statement to the Board of Trustees of Stanford University on the purpose and scope of the Hoover Institution continues to guide and define its mission in the twenty-first century:

"This Institution supports the Constitution of the United States, its Bill of Rights and its method of representative government. Both our social and economic systems are based on private enterprise from which springs initiative and ingenuity.... Ours is a system where the Federal Government should undertake no governmental, social or economic action, except where local government, or the people, cannot undertake it for themselves.... The overall mission of this Institution is, from its records, to recall the voice of experience against the making of war, and by the study of these records and their publication, to recall man's endeavors to make and preserve peace, and to sustain for America the safeguards of the American way of life. This Institution is not, and must not be, a mere library. But with these purposes as its goal, the Institution itself must constantly and dynamically point the road to peace, to personal freedom, and to the safeguards of the American system."

The principles of individual, economic, and political freedom; private enterprise; and representative government were fundamental to the vision of the Institution's founder. By collecting knowledge, generating ideas, and disseminating both, the Institution seeks to secure and safeguard peace, improve the human condition, and limit government intrusion into the lives of individuals.


A lot of very interesting research comes out of the Institute.

I started looking at it, as folks like Victor Hanson (beacon of the freeper group) are fellows there, and I wanted to read their writing - not someone else's review or analysis.

Cases like Schiavo and national i.d. cards have put it at odds with certain elements of the right, as it is generally federalist - and against government involvement.


Worth poking around in every now and then.
,
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:03 pm
Prior to 911, there wasn't an international effort to destroy AQ.

It's weird that you would say that.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:09 pm
Setanta wrote:
I see that you ignored "reportedly," "apparently," "There are indications . . ." You may very well be right about this, but this report does not categorically state that these things are facts.

A best guess is not a bad basis for making a decision. But it is not, and never can be a fact.


You should all admit that it is a fact.

Apparently --obvious, clear to all.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:09 pm
Herbert Clark Hoover, long before he became President of the United States, was quite a remarkable individual. He was a member of the "pioneer" class at Stanford, and from there, was hired by an English mining firm to work in Western Australia (? ! ? ! ?). From there, he went China with his new family, and they made five circuits of the globe, a century ago.

In the era of the Great War, he was first head of the committee for relief of Belgium, and was later head of the Food Administration in the United States after we entered that war. In 1919, when the Paris Peace conference was setting up, Hoover was placed in charge of relief efforts for Europe, an incredibly vast and daunting portfolio, and i doubt many men could have handled it as he did.

Unfortunately, what Americans call The Great Depression happened on his watch--it was something with which his many talents and great energy could not cope. Shanty towns became known as "Hoovervilles," and he was badly and very unjustly tarnished in American history as a result. Few Americans know what the man was really like, and just how great was his contribution to the world, and not simply his nation.

Best Hoover bio i could find in a few minutes time
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:22 pm
Thanks guys - I will pop it into Favourites.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:23 pm
Lash - have you forgotten the first WTC attack in 1993?

Quote:
Together with the recent staff reports of the 9-11 commission (found at www.9-11commission.org), the Clarke book is worth reading for a history of our lack of anti-terrorism protective measures from 1981 to the present. One can learn that Clarke and a few others were alone in their cries of "wolf"; that they saw the threat of al Quaeda coming to the U.S. homeland and not just to targets abroad. But few listened and most did nothing to deal with the threat, causing Clarke to become a very frustrated official who eventually asked to be relieved on his job a few months before 9-11




1981


24 years ago



The Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations knew there was something brewing. Or at least, some members of their administrations and some employees at government agencies were aware and concerned.

There are whacks of references on that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

International effort to destroy A-Q?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Have you forgotten that while some law enforcement agencies were looking for A-Q members in the U.S., they were travelling in and out of the U.S. - and in two cases got their visas after they'd crashed into the WTC

Quote:
Ashcroft asked the inspector general to investigate why the INS sent visa approval notices for Atta and Al-Shehhi to the Florida flight school in March, more than six months after the terror attacks.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511204.shtml
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:24 pm
Lash wrote:
It is apparent to me I have been discussing this wilth people who have no concern for veracity.


Interesting perspective.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:26 pm
ehBeth said, unfortunately--

There clearly were dire consequences for Washington and NYC as a result of the visas issued by the U.S. (is issuing a visa harbouring? most people would say so)
------
Issuing visas to people you don't know are terrorists is not harboring.

You have to KNOW they're terrorists to harbor them.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:29 pm
We'll keep your definition in mind, lash.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:30 pm
Of course, as the visas were issued six months after the jets were flown into the WTC - that would count as harbouring using lash's definition.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:36 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Lash - have you forgotten the first WTC attack in 1993?

Quote:
Together with the recent staff reports of the 9-11 commission (found at www.9-11commission.org), the Clarke book is worth reading for a history of our lack of anti-terrorism protective measures from 1981 to the present. One can learn that Clarke and a few others were alone in their cries of "wolf"; that they saw the threat of al Quaeda coming to the U.S. homeland and not just to targets abroad. But few listened and most did nothing to deal with the threat, causing Clarke to become a very frustrated official who eventually asked to be relieved on his job a few months before 9-11




1981


24 years ago



The Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton administrations knew there was something brewing. Or at least, some members of their administrations and some employees at government agencies were aware and concerned.

There are whacks of references on that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

International effort to destroy A-Q?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Have you forgotten that while some law enforcement agencies were looking for A-Q members in the U.S., they were travelling in and out of the U.S. - and in two cases got their visas after they'd crashed into the WTC

Quote:
Ashcroft asked the inspector general to investigate why the INS sent visa approval notices for Atta and Al-Shehhi to the Florida flight school in March, more than six months after the terror attacks.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/06/05/national/main511204.shtml


Which doesn't effect my statement.

Did the US government approve their visas knowing they were AQ members?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:39 pm
Obviously--or should I say APPARENTLY not, or Ashcroft wouldn't have been making inquiries.

I guess you're NOT keeping my definition in mind.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:48 pm
Set and Beth - had the US even stopped funding and arming Al Quaeda at the time of the first WTC bombing?

I am unsure when the funding ceased.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:50 pm
Ah - 1993 - I see they would have ceased well before then - sorry.

For some dumb reason I thought it was in the eighties. Oh - it was bercause of the mention of 1981 in a post above.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 09:55 pm
Joe--said--

BTW : the committee's point in reviewing those inconsequential contacts was to expose their spareness as opposed to the overblown pronouncements of the current administration.

----------
But, in fact, they expected to find NO evidence of meetings, and yet found plenty of evidence of meetings and offers of cooperation, and stuff that made them calm their hot asses down from all the pontificating rhetoric.

And, I think you take liberties referring to those meetings as inconsequential.

They may have been quite consequential. We don't know.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 21 May, 2005 10:02 pm
"They may have been quite consequential. We don't know."

Good grief.

At last.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/11/2025 at 01:29:33