Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Bin Laden Admits Responsibility for 9-11 Again

What's more, he denies Moussaoui was in on the plot:

"He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.

"I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers.

The al-Qaida chief said the Sept. 11 hijackers were divided into two groups, "pilots and assistants."

"Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning how to fly, he wasn't No. 20 in the group, as your government has claimed," bin Laden said. "It knows this very well," he added.


Reached for comment, Loose Change director Dylan Avery discounted Bin Laden's claim. "This is just another example of the US government's voice morphing technology in action. They know that the 9-11 Truth movement is gaining traction with the American people as revealed in the latest Zogby Poll."

Just kidding about that last part, but wait for it....

112 Comments:

At 23 May, 2006 16:22, Blogger MarkyX said...

There, coverup is dead.

 
At 23 May, 2006 16:28, Blogger ScottSl said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 May, 2006 16:41, Blogger nesNYC said...

LMAO! Bin Laden speaks from the grave and clears Moussaoui and gives Bu$h a kick so his numbers can climb a tad... hahahahahaaa

 
At 23 May, 2006 16:44, Blogger MarkyX said...

You have any proof it wasn't Bin laden?

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:15, Blogger nesNYC said...

You have any proof it wasn't Bin laden?

Yeah, he died in around Nov. 2001 possibly from organ failure. Look one of his last photos, he's all grey and obviously sick.

Sick Pic

More here.

Bush, 2002:
I don’t know where he is. Nor — you know, I just don’t spend that much time on him really, to be honest with you. I....I truly am not that concerned about him.

LMAO!

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:24, Blogger MarkyX said...

Funny about that "letter", it's really cooking instructions for currey.

Unless I see his remains, I won't believe he is dead. I'm sure someone would've leaked a dead picture of him quite easily.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:24, Blogger BG said...

Ha Ha Ha,

You actually think this is real?

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:31, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, he died in around Nov. 2001 possibly from organ failure.

Sure he did, that link says he MIGHT have a disease. Says nothing about his death.

Hey, nesnyc your internal logic is breaking down. You forget, bin Laden is actually a CIA agent named Tim Osman! Remember? Remember?

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:31, Blogger shawn said...

I'm sure someone would've leaked a dead picture of him quite easily.

Yup, if he died someone would have a picture somewhere.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:32, Blogger MarkyX said...

bg, what proof do you have that it isn't?

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:40, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:42, Blogger BG said...

Let me just ask a few questions of you numbskulls?

1. Do you believe bin Laden is a devout Muslim?

2. As a devout man, would part of his devotion be toward saving the life of his "brothers"?

3. Does he not speak of Moussaoui as being a "brother"?

4. Unless bin Laden could be %100 sure that the jury would not enforce the death penaly, is it not odd that he would wait until after the jury verdict before speaking out in support of Moussaoui not having anything to do with 9/11?

I suppose one could argue that bin Laden wanted Moussaoui to be Martryed, and when he wasn't he thought it would be a nice thing to tell the truth.

None of these questions have anything to do with the reason I think any admission of guilt of bin Laden for 9/11 is bin a hoax of some kind, but I'm curious about those of you who have refused to see the light before.

Does this BS (the latest audio) really make sense to you?

So, you may ask, what reason do I think this fake audio was released?

I think it was released to divert attention away from the national survey results release yesterday that showed a huge number of American doubt the official story of 9/11.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:51, Blogger shawn said...

Bin Laden and the others have always said Zacharias wasn't part of 9/11 last I checked. Seems like they're covering their asses for allowing a dumbass to join their cause.

Had the Z-man been executed, it wouldn't have technically been martyrdom. If you're executed while in the hands of the infidels, it's the ultimate embarrassment.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:55, Blogger nesNYC said...

4. Unless bin Laden could be %100 sure that the jury would not enforce the death penaly, is it not odd that he would wait until after the jury verdict before speaking out in support of Moussaoui not having anything to do with 9/11?

Fuckin' awesome BG! The clues are always around as to weather these "confessions" are authentic or not. Seems they always come out when Bush needs them most, LOL!

If it smells like bullshit, these guys will eat it up every time.

 
At 23 May, 2006 17:58, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I wish we could find a way to bet on this..... I'm not 100% sure, I'm researching.

I would be will to bet $1,000 (I know not that much to some people) that bin Ladin has never mentioned Moussaoui before.

This is so cool. The result may embarrass me, but think this may once and for all show you just haven't done your research.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:02, Blogger shawn said...

This is so cool. The result may embarrass me, but think this may once and for all show you just haven't done your research.

It'd be the first time.

And recall I said "and the others". I do recall many leftie blogs laughing about Zacharias being charged because al-Qaeda itself disavowed him having anything to do with 9/11.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

Sure he did, that link says he MIGHT have a disease. Says nothing about his death.

Hey, nesnyc your internal logic is breaking down. You forget, bin Laden is actually a CIA agent named Tim Osman! Remember? Remember?


Yeah, Tim probably had a nice, non-Muslim funeral and is why there is not footage. But his obituary was written, and he really doesn't matter to Bush anymore. Face it guys, your government is LYING to YOU!

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:05, Blogger BG said...

Shawn:

And recall I said "and the others"

What are you referring to?

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:05, Blogger MarkyX said...

Fuckin' awesome BG! The clues are always around as to weather these "confessions" are authentic or not. Seems they always come out when Bush needs them most, LOL!


Timing is your evidence? You need to do better than that.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:05, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, Tim probably had a nice, non-Muslim funeral and is why there is not footage. But his obituary was written, and he really doesn't matter to Bush anymore. Face it guys, your government is LYING to YOU!

The government's lied in the past, sure, but Osama bin Laden is an actual human being and he's the head of an actual organization.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:08, Blogger BG said...

I'm right, Shawn.

Prove me wrong.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:11, Blogger Pat said...

BG, you ignore the possibility that Bin Laden may have been pissed that Moussaoui claimed he was part of the 9-11 conspiracy. Remember that the government does not contend he was the 20th hijacker (although he was one of several people suspected for a time of that role). It was Moussaoui that claimed that in court.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:12, Blogger BG said...

This link doesn't prove anything, but is intereting don't ya think?

Dershowitz, 2001

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:13, Blogger BG said...

Pat,

I respect your right to argue anything you want to.

I don't think it's unfair asking your help to validate my fundumental point and and put Shawn in his place, at least once.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:19, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

For the statement "bin Landin and others",

to be logically true, it mean both bin Laden and others said it.

If you said bin Laden OR others which you seem to want to shift to you would have a case.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:19, Blogger shawn said...

From Wikipedia:

"During the trial, Moussaoui initially stated that he was not involved in the September 11 attacks, but that he was planning an attack of his own. Some Al-Qaeda members reportedly corroborated Moussaoui's statement to an extent, saying that he was involved in a plot other than September 11"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hijacker3apr03,0,7920996.story?coll=la-story-footer

An al-Qaeda member says Zacarias was not the 20th hijacker.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:21, Blogger shawn said...

http://www.rotten.com/library/conspiracy/al-qaeda-and-the-assassins/agents-of-islam/

Read to understand why I say "Bin Laden and others".

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:24, Blogger shawn said...

If that's not enough for you, I'm not finding any more, so you can say you won.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:28, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I'm don't get much satisfaction out of proving you wrong. (I would if we has $1,000) on it.

I would get enormous satisfaction if anyone would take it to heart that the logic behind why my being right on this is more reason to question the official story.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:29, Blogger shawn said...

I would get enormous satisfaction if anyone would take it to heart that the logic behind why my being right on this is more reason to question the official story.

I don't follow. So you think bin Laden would've praised Zacarias after we executed him (as we should have)?

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:30, Blogger BG said...

Ok, now, Pat,

back to whatever you were saying...

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:34, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

Please reread my questions, man.

The logic is right there.

If bin Laden were (and I'm not saying I know one way or another) a dovout Musim and didn't want Mossoussi to be facing death, it would have been logical for him to have spoken up way, way before now, like before the trial...

like during the trial....

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:36, Blogger shawn said...

These people would sell out their mother. They suspend their religious practices all the time, as long as it's in the mission of jihad. I think bin Laden would've hurt Zacarias's case whether he spoke in defense or against the man.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

Timing is your evidence? You need to do better than that.

Some crimes are solved by timing alone.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:42, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

Based on how you will twist you argument at all cost to meet the situation makes me speculate that you are the more likely one to sell out you mother.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:44, Blogger nesNYC said...

**Some Al-Qaeda** members reportedly corroborated Moussaoui's statement to an extent, saying that he was involved in a plot other than September 11"

"Some?" Is that the goat farmers they have in Gitmo who will confess to anything in order to try and get out? Bwa ha ha ha :D

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:46, Blogger shawn said...

Based on how you will twist you argument at all cost to meet the situation makes me speculate that you are the more likely one to sell out you mother.

Did you even read my links?

"Some?" Is that the goat farmers they have in Gitmo who will confess to anything in order to try and get out? Bwa ha ha ha :D

Want out so bad, they wish they could go back

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:56, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 May, 2006 18:57, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

The reality is that as humans we all see the world based on our preconceptions.

You evidently have been convinced for a long time that bin Laden did it, and that the bin Laden tapes were real. With that assumption, of course you won't have been watching for this kind of inconsistency.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:01, Blogger shawn said...

You evidently have been convinced for a long time that bin Laden did it, and that the bin Laden tapes were real. With that assumption, of course you won't have been watching for this kind of inconsistency.

I don't see it as an inconsistency. Ask most Muslims in America if mass killings of civilians is something they think it part of their religion. Sure it says so in the Quran, but it also has statements against it. Most Jews don't stone women to death for wearing skirts of multiple fabrics (Old Testament forbids this practice). There is a distinction between Islamism (which is a political ideology above all) and Islam. You don't seem to get this difference.

Bin Laden's group was responsible for 9/11, and as he was the head, he is responsible. We don't even know if this audio is real, the articles I've seen have been vague on this.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:03, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I'm sure someone finds your arguments persuasive.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:04, Blogger shawn said...

I'm sure someone finds your arguments persuasive.

Anyone with an understanding of geopolitics.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:04, Blogger BG said...

I wonder,

Where are the 101st fighting keyboardists when ya need them?

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:05, Blogger shawn said...

I wonder,

Where are the 101st fighting keyboardists when ya need them?


What does this red herring have to do with anything?

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:14, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:15, Blogger BG said...

You've got admit....

Just for a second, imagine if you had this all wrong.

Look at my side.

I am so enormously disappointed in my fellow Americans who have swallowed this hooey, and they treat me and others as if we are ment patients or religious fanatics, or just doopey.

I'm sick of it.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:16, Blogger shawn said...

I am so enormously disappointed in my fellow Americans who have swallowed this hooey, and they treat me and others as if we are ment patients or religious fanatics, or just doopey.

Bg, to be honest, you seem like you're a fine human being in your personal life. Since I have a big heart, I feel bad when you feign hurt when I insult you.

But pal, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong. If it means anything, you're by far the most sane of the CTs here. But that doesn't for a second change the fact that you're wrong.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

Want out so bad, they wish they could go back

The Americans would be VERY cruel if they treated children like THIS. THESE GUYS surly don't want to go back and in fact some have tried to commit suicide.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:21, Blogger BG said...

Even Anderson Cooper on CNN asked the same question I did just now.

Why would he wait and come out now?

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:25, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

I appreciate you comments.

Even if you personally changed you mind about any small detail, the whole fucking Country on the whole is mostly clueless, the the power aligned against us is enormous.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:28, Blogger BG said...

David Ensor, CNN's terrorist "expert" just provided an extended hooey lesson on bin Ladin.

It's putrid.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:28, Blogger shawn said...

and in fact some have tried to commit suicide.

Speaking of the faked suicides to lure guards into communal rooms?

And what should we do with our prisoners? Give them plush apartments like Ramzi?

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:32, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:33, Blogger Alex said...

"But pal, you're wrong. You're just plain wrong. If it means anything, you're by far the most sane of the CTs here."

That's REALLY not saying much. I too feel rather bad for BG since he seems like he's otherwise a fairly decent human being. I have an uncle who's exactly the same. Great guy, always willing to help you out, always offering his advice and expertise with whatever you may be working on at the moment. But start talking about politics and he can go on for hours about how the americans faked pearl harbour, the moon landing, and 9/11, about how every war the US was ever in was for oil or natural resources, and about the zionist conspiracy to enslave us all. The fact that both him and BG may be fine human beings in every other respect in no way changes the fact that they're both mentaly unbalanced. And, while I don't want to make this sound like an attack on BG, I have to point out that the first thing you hear on the news from friends of rapists and murderers is how they were "such nice guys", and how "this whole thing is such a shock".

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:34, Blogger BG said...

Do any of you Ladies and Gentlement support the insanity (official govt. story) realise that Zelikow, the exec director of 911 Commission, wrote a Book with Condi before 2000?

Do you realise he (his staff) takes credit for writing most of the report, especialy the parts that have the highest progaganda value. (my words not his)

He claims as part of his "studies" during his education methods of mass control of the public.

7:32 PM

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:35, Blogger nesNYC said...

the fact that they're both mentaly unbalanced

Let me finish this sentence:

"in the context of the current system."

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:35, Blogger BG said...

I'll catch you gents later....

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:36, Blogger shawn said...

Loose Change is actually one of the best examples of how well propaganda can be disseminanted.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:37, Blogger shawn said...

Let me finish this sentence:

"in the context of the current system."


Err no, mentally unbalanced is an absolutist terms. There's no system, or spectrum. There's no relativism.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:37, Blogger shawn said...

is on absolutist*

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:38, Blogger nesNYC said...

realise that Zelikow, the exec director of 911 Commission, wrote a Book with Condi before 2000?

SSSSshhhhhtttt! That make TOO much sense; it's all a coincidence.. eh, um.. yeah, a COINCIDENCE! </mocking>

You gotta love it. These little fascists will never admit they're wrong.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:40, Blogger nesNYC said...

Err no, mentally unbalanced is an absolutist terms. There's no system, or spectrum. There's no relativism.

Refer to Quantum physics for absolutes, basically, there ARE NONE.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:41, Blogger shawn said...

You gotta love it. These little fascists will never admit they're wrong.

So you support the use of the logical fallacy?

Showing connections between people doesn't prove your point. It's a red herring AND ad hominem logical fallacy.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:42, Blogger shawn said...

Hell, one of the guys who made Loose Change looks retarded.

The other two look like the cliche idiotic college kid who thinks he knows everything.

But I don't use those to shoot down the film.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:47, Blogger nesNYC said...

So you support the use of the logical fallacy?

Showing connections between people doesn't prove your point. It's a red herring AND ad hominem logical fallacy.


Whatever! In fascism, propaganda and "right might" you trust. Anything else is "nut bar-ish" and "idiotic." That's your line or reasoning isn't it?

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:49, Blogger nesNYC said...

Hell, one of the guys who made Loose Change looks retarded.

The other two look like the cliche idiotic college kid who thinks he knows everything.

But I don't use those to shoot down the film.


You guys call them "retards" all the time so in tradition of the fascist sprit, de-humanization before facts. It's the only way! </more mocking>

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:49, Blogger shawn said...

Whatever! In fascism, propaganda and "right might" you trust. Anything else is "nut bar-ish" and "idiotic." That's your line or reasoning isn't it?

No my line of reasoning is the use of logic. You haven't used one concrete fact to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy in any way, shape, or fom. You and bg and joan have to rely on red herring accusations (which are logically fallacious) to make your case. Hell, the king of skeptics knows the conspiracy theories are ridiculous.

Someone writes a book with Rice and that proves 9/11's a conspiracy? Yeah, in your dreams.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:51, Blogger shawn said...

You guys call them "retards" all the time so in tradition of the fascist sprit, de-humanization before facts. It's the only way!

Did you see the one with the big buck teeth breathing through his mouth?

And I was pointing out how YOU would make my argument.

And last I checked, being small government is antithetical to fascism. Not to mention it's a communal ideology, while I'm an individualist.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:57, Blogger nesNYC said...

You haven't used one concrete fact to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy in any way, shape, or fom.

Yes I have. The only problem is that fascistic patriotism blinds you to see it.

 
At 23 May, 2006 19:58, Blogger nesNYC said...

while I'm an individualist.

Who's going with the flow. Mmmmkay ;)

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:01, Blogger shawn said...

Yes I have. The only problem is that fascistic patriotism blinds you to see it.

Ah so patriotism and fascism are the same now? Anyway, ad hominem.

Who's going with the flow. Mmmmkay ;)

I guess since I support Darwinism (the more popular evolutionary model) over creationism (the bastion of select kooks), I must be some majority shill? Darwinism has the evidence, creationism has none. Sound familiar?

You're an idiot.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:01, Blogger shawn said...

Individualism isn't being different for the sake of being different. Thinking for yourself doesn't mean ignoring facts and logic. There's a reason scientific laws become laws.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:04, Blogger nesNYC said...

Fascism:

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:06, Blogger shawn said...

a very high degree of nationalism,

Subjective, but I'll allow this one. I love America.

economic corporatism,

That's actually incorrect, as fascism uses state-controlled economy.

a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

I didn't vote for Bush. Nor is he a dictator. He doesn't have supreme power, and the power he does has derives from the people. And last I checked, Europe is wary of America because of our perceived ultraindividualism.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:09, Blogger nesNYC said...

Individualism isn't being different for the sake of being different. Thinking for yourself doesn't mean ignoring facts and logic. There's a reason scientific laws become laws.

Individuals who can think for themselves, and that fit your above definition, don't believe the government's account of 9/11 because the official explanation is a deception designed to deceive the populace.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:12, Blogger shawn said...

Individuals who can think for themselves, and that fit your above definition, don't believe the government's account of 9/11 because the official explanation is a deception designed to deceive the populace.

That's not true at all. Do you ever tire of being wrong.

You state something as if it has been concluded, when it isn't supported by any facts. That's ANOTHER logical fallacy. I should go through all your posts and see how many you've used. I'd put money that it's almost one fallacy per post.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:13, Blogger Alex said...

"Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics:"

Obviously in addition to being unable to think logicaly, you're unable to read as well.

Using your line of logic we'd get something like this:

if "a" is associated with "b" and "c", and "d" is also associated with "b" and "c", then "d" must be equal to "a".

Which, as anyone with a total brain can tell you, is utter horse shit. If John Lennon drove a Mustang and liked beer, and I also drive a Mustang and like beer, that must mean I'm a great musician too, right?

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:15, Blogger nesNYC said...

and the power he does has derives from the people.

This is not accurate. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq so why hasn't he responded favorably to them? Because he is every bit of a dictator as Hitler and Mussolini ever was.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:16, Blogger shawn said...

This is not accurate. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq so why hasn't he responded favorably to them? Because he is every bit of a dictator as Hitler and Mussolini ever was.

How? Congress has to continually allow the funding of the war.

Also, your argument is real great. Most Americans didn't want to get involved in WW2, though.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:20, Blogger nesNYC said...

How? Congress has to continually allow the funding of the war.

Who is Congress really listening to?

Fact is none of them really wants to stand up to Bush. Maybe Ron Paul is the exception and there are a few others but for the most part, the congress is in the hands of the fascist AIPAC and Bush handlers.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:20, Blogger Alex said...

"This is not accurate. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq so why hasn't he responded favorably to them? Because he is every bit of a dictator as Hitler and Mussolini ever was."

If you asked every american whether they would like to pay no taxes at all, I'm sure the vast majority would say yes. That does not, however, mean that the government is going to eliminate all taxes, nor does it make Bush equivelent to Hitler for refusing to do so.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:24, Blogger shawn said...

Who is Congress really listening to?

I've gone to a number of those types of protests. Those are the last people who want running any country.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:24, Blogger shawn said...

you want*

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:32, Blogger nesNYC said...

If you asked every american whether they would like to pay no taxes at all, I'm sure the vast majority would say yes. That does not, however, mean that the government is going to eliminate all taxes, nor does it make Bush equivelent to Hitler for refusing to do so.

The people know inherintly they are getting ripped off and is why they instintively know they don't want to pay tribute.

The fact is, the federal government was never given the authority to directly tax US national's income. In other words, there is no law on the books making individuals liable for any tax. All tax laws on the books apply only to residents of DC and other Federal jurisdictions. The fact that the government and media alike cover up this fact up tells us a lot about the type of government we really have.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:35, Blogger shawn said...

The fact is, the federal government was never given the authority to directly tax US national's income. In other words, there is no law on the books making individuals liable for any tax. All tax laws on the books apply only to residents of DC and other Federal jurisdictions. The fact that the government and media alike cover up this fact up tells us a lot about the type of government we really have.


As long as people want welfare and social security, we'll be taxed. If people weren't so damn lazy, we wouldn't need taxes. But FDR implemented a system that we're stuck with.

 
At 23 May, 2006 20:42, Blogger nesNYC said...

As long as people want welfare and social security, we'll be taxed. If people weren't so damn lazy, we wouldn't need taxes. But FDR implemented a system that we're stuck with.

He was just an agent of the banking elite. Welfare has nothing to do with taxes. Interest of the money supply does. Look at the history of the Bank of England and you'll see striking parallels to the FED.

Fiat Banking IS the cause of taxes.

 
At 23 May, 2006 21:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Also note, "social security" is just another tax. It's a way to get you in a higher tax bracket without being so obvious about it.

 
At 24 May, 2006 05:37, Blogger MarkyX said...

This is not accurate. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq so why hasn't he responded favorably to them? Because he is every bit of a dictator as Hitler and Mussolini ever was.

Because we all know Citizens make grant commanders and knows exactly what is going on in Iraq.

 
At 24 May, 2006 06:21, Blogger undense said...

This is not accurate. The majority of Americans want out of Iraq so why hasn't he responded favorably to them? Because he is every bit of a dictator as Hitler and Mussolini ever was.

nesnyc. Whatever you're full of, it sure isn't facts.

The majority of Americans don't like being involved in Iraq, but a majority also wants the troops to remain there until the job is finished. Poll after poll has consistently demonstrated that desire by the majority.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1417603

 
At 24 May, 2006 06:28, Blogger BG said...

I'm taking off in a slightly different direction here.

This comment is related to bin Laden. It's not meant to specifically address any of ongoing comments previous to this.

I would imagine that a lot of visitors to this blog has disdain for Bill Clinton and the Clinton adminstration. I know some reasons that my thoughts go beyond disdain... I believe murders were committed and covered up, and Bill or Hillary were, at the very least, ignorant on purpose.

Evidently for many honorable citizens that have ties to the Americans Armed Services, there was a good bit about Clinton and his Admin. that did to not suit their sence running our Country honorably and consistent with our best interest.

Perhaps some of you based on the above, or based on other factors don't have much use for Sandy Berger, either.

Check out this article: DGSE report, dated January 9, 2001, is classified "Defense Confidential" and "National (French) Use Only"

The article is not a particularly well-sourced website, nor do I have any other way to confirm or discredit many of the details. Well, I need to update that statement, David Shayler (Here's a listing of every post on Shayler I have made to my Blog)
, the whistle blower MI5 dude actually provides very powerful corroborating narrative with respect to Al Qaida.

Check it out and see which parts, if any, you find credible.

 
At 24 May, 2006 06:39, Blogger BG said...

For a more hard hitting compact analysis of Al Quaeda and bin Laden, try this
Is al Qaeda a hoax?

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:47, Blogger cypher said...

shawn, if by your definition fascism runs a state-sponsored economy, what do you make of Lockheed-Martin? If that's not a state-sponsored company, I don't know what company will qualify.

 
At 24 May, 2006 18:15, Blogger shawn said...

shawn, if by your definition fascism runs a state-sponsored economy, what do you make of Lockheed-Martin? If that's not a state-sponsored company, I don't know what company will qualify.

The economy is state-controlled, not sponsored. And it's not one (or just a handful of companies). It's a majority of the economy. Fascism and communism are different sides of the same coin.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:26, Blogger nesNYC said...

Because we all know Citizens make grant commanders and knows exactly what is going on in Iraq.

HELL YEAH! There were many skeptics about the whole WMD lie. Nearly 3k US soldiers didn’t' have to die even though they were on the ground, some of the folks at home knew best. Basically, Rumsfeld and all the Neocon chicken hawks knew the truth but their desire to conquer that area meant that a few dead US troops didn't mean squat to them. Again, the US has NO BUSINESS in Iraq. The guys on the ground have no choice because the politicians put them there.

 
At 24 May, 2006 19:38, Blogger shawn said...

Oh god, that tired ol' "chickenhawk" line.

And we didn't find WMDs, so what? He paid bounties to the families of suicide bombers and held Islamic terror conferences. He's given asylum to American-killing terrorists and tried to kill an American president.

 
At 24 May, 2006 23:56, Blogger cypher said...

shawn: in that case, why not shut down the CIA, since it financed and trained the mujahideens, including Bin Laden, during the Afghan war? You don't create a monster then wash your hands off it.

 
At 25 May, 2006 05:36, Blogger cypher said...

@shawn: btw, a president that writes signing orders is by definition more powerful than the house of reps, he can dismiss anything he doesn't like them making into law, or alter it so it fits his views, rather than what the reps devise in the name of their electorate (if, God forbid, they actually did such a thing rather than pass laws that please their campaign donors). And if the argument does not convince you against Bush's dictatorial tendencies, imagine Al Gore writing signing orders for one minute.

 
At 25 May, 2006 06:10, Blogger undense said...

shawn: in that case, why not shut down the CIA, since it financed and trained the mujahideens, including Bin Laden, during the Afghan war? You don't create a monster then wash your hands off it.

You sound like you're channeling Michael Moore's bullshit. It's the constant repetition of those urban legends that discredit the CT crowd.

bin Laden has repeatedly denied receiving money from the CIA. In addition, the CIA money during the Afghan war was funneled through the Pakistani ISI. It was the ISI who determined how the funds were disbursed and who was trained. bin Laden was not a receipient of those funds.

 
At 25 May, 2006 08:52, Blogger Alex said...

Even if the US HAD funded Osama/Al Qaeda during the Afghan war, who gives a flying fuck?

The US aided and worked with Russia durring WW2, and dropped two nuclear weapons on Japan. THEN all of a sudden the US and the USSR became the worst of enemies, while the US and Japan formed an excellent working relationship which continues to this day.

So, by cypher's logic, the US should be held accountable for "funding" the USSR and causing the cold war. In the future, instead of funding various groups/countries, the US should try nuking more countries since that obviously has a positive effect on them and makes them good allies in the long run. Or some such nonsense.

 
At 25 May, 2006 13:43, Blogger shawn said...

hawn: in that case, why not shut down the CIA, since it financed and trained the mujahideens, including Bin Laden, during the Afghan war? You don't create a monster then wash your hands off it.

The CIA funding bin Laden is a myth. Why would a millionaire need our money? He funded his own goddamn holy warriors.

@shawn: btw, a president that writes signing orders is by definition more powerful than the house of reps, he can dismiss anything he doesn't like them making into law, or alter it so it fits his views, rather than what the reps devise in the name of their electorate (if, God forbid, they actually did such a thing rather than pass laws that please their campaign donors). And if the argument does not convince you against Bush's dictatorial tendencies, imagine Al Gore writing signing orders for one minute.

Well, first off, the President's veto can be overturned (what? you say you didn't know that? Well, shuck). Bush's dictatorial tendencies? He's the first president who didn't technically have absolute power since FDR (a national emergency act had been active since the war and wasn't deactivated till under Clinton). And why would I worry about Al Gore signing orders? He'd just make us waste money on Kyoto and he'd ban SUVs.

 
At 25 May, 2006 15:56, Blogger cypher said...

@alex why did the russians suddenly became the US' enemy? Cuz the US tried to negate on previous post-war accords which forced renegociations at Yalta.

Why did Japan become allies? Hmm, let me think, having been blasted to smitherens by 2 nuclear bombs, what choice did they have exactly? Army undersecretary William Draper "considered it doubtful that Japan would ever sell enough to the United States to earn the dollars to pay for American raw materials."

Feel free to read NSC 68, or even "deterring democracy" by Noam Chomsky, "The understanding that reconstruction of European (and Japanese) capitalism was essential to the health of the US economic order recapitulated the thinking of the Harding Administration after WWI"

 
At 25 May, 2006 16:02, Blogger cypher said...

@shawn: president's signing orders cannot be overturned since they are added after the law has been passed, so has been enacted by the the president signing it into law. The only power to be able to overturn the law is the supreme court, whose members are picked by hmmm the president. Let me remind you that Bush declared about the Constitution "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

 
At 25 May, 2006 17:35, Blogger shawn said...

Let me remind you that Bush declared about the Constitution "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

I remember when I used to be a member of a left-leaning message board community, and those folks debunked that bull about an hour after it was posted. The man never said that.

 
At 25 May, 2006 17:36, Blogger Alex said...

"why did the russians suddenly became the US' enemy? Cuz the US tried to negate on previous post-war accords which forced renegociations at Yalta."

Well, personaly I'd go with "because the crazy ruskies had their minds set on starting a global communist movement", but hey, whatever makes you happy. What do I know, it's not like I spent the first decade of my life living under a communist regime.

 
At 25 May, 2006 17:37, Blogger shawn said...

@alex why did the russians suddenly became the US' enemy? Cuz the US tried to negate on previous post-war accords which forced renegociations at Yalta.

Not entirely true. Stalin had always planned to turn on us after the war. He died the day he had planned to start his drive at communist expansionism.

Feel free to read NSC 68, or even "deterring democracy" by Noam Chomsky, "The understanding that reconstruction of European (and Japanese) capitalism was essential to the health of the US economic order recapitulated the thinking of the Harding Administration after WWI"

Please don't quote Chomsky. He completely inverts the Cold War in the face of undeniable facts.

 
At 25 May, 2006 17:39, Blogger shawn said...

What I mean by that is he makes America the aggressors, and the Soviets the defenders. And also says the Soviets allowed democratic reforms in its sphere of influence, which is completely contrary to what actually happened.

 
At 26 May, 2006 04:27, Blogger cypher said...

@shawn & alex: have you ever read
"Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam - The Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation with Soviet Power" by Gar Alperovitz?

From this book, it's rather clear who was set on expansionism. If you think about it for 1 second, it makes a lot more sense, the russians did not have nuclear power at the end of WWII, they were not in a position of force with regards post-war negotiations. The US set a first nuke on Hiroshima, the Japanese capitulated, but the US decided to drop another bomb on Nagasaki regardless. Who do you think this message of intent was for? The Japs who had just capitulated or the Russians?

as for communist expansionism, it's true that communist states, like capitalist states, were always trying to "spread their doctrine". How can you fault them for it but not fault the US for doing exactly the same? Or do you live by double-standards?

 
At 26 May, 2006 08:15, Blogger Alex said...

Nice revisionism. FYI, "the Japs" didn't surrender untill after the second bomb was dropped. You can argue, if you want, that they were thinking about it, and even that there were signs after dropping the first bomb that they were GOING to, but you cannot state that they "capitulated" after the first bomb. Not without being wrong anyway.

Nobody's faulting the commies for trying to spread their doctrine. I mean, I could argue about the differences, mainly being that they ACTUALLY occupied other countries, but whatever, we didn't need to fault them. What we DID need to do was oppose them. Just like I can't neccesarily fault extremists muslims for beleiving that theirs is the only true faith, and that it's their duty to Allah to either convert or execute every person on this planet. The Christian faith went through the same stage. But just because I can't fault them doesn't mean I can't oppose them, and it doesn't mean I won't kill them.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:34, Blogger cypher said...

@alex: fair point, though I would argue that there was no need for opposing communism at it did not threaten the US as a country, maybe Europe, which is a totally different matter. I don't see how the US "needed" to oppose the russians. This doctrine of containment was a mere excuse for controlling potential economic markets, as is well documented in NSC 68.

Also, I cannot condone killing another human being, even if I "oppose their doctrine". In the end, it's more a matter of "educating" them, as you guys are trying to do I suppose with this blogspot. Like I oppose every bit of what Israel is doing in the occupied territories, but I would not wish any of them death. I suppose it's a difference of culture between the US and Europe. France suffered terrorist attacks from Algeria during the war, and again in the 80s, but never did this country retaliate by carpet-bombing Casablanca to make a point. Violence breeds violence.

 
At 26 May, 2006 15:58, Blogger cypher said...

@alex: Fair point about capitulating, maybe too strong a word, however:

"By July 13, 1945, Secretary of the Navy Forrestal described the latest intercepted cables [between Foreign Minister Togo and the Japanese ambassador in Moscow] as 'real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war' [...] Forrestal notes 'Togo said further that the unconditional surrender terms of the Allies was (sic) about the only thing in the way of termination of the war...'"
Atomic Diplomacy by Gar Alperovitz, p.12 (1985 edition, reprinted 1987)

So the US military knew by July, 13 that Japan was "committed to capitulate" not that "there were signs after dropping the 1st bomb" [August, 6, 1945].

 
At 24 November, 2010 15:26, Blogger Hieronaut said...

Let's take a look at what Dick Cheney has to say:

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming."
—Dick Cheney, "Interview of the Vice President by Tony Snow", March 29, 2006

Or CNN, September 17, 2001:

Islamic militant leader Osama bin Laden, the man the United States considers the prime suspect in last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, denied any role Sunday in the actions believed to have killed thousands.

 
At 28 November, 2010 08:38, Blogger Pat said...

Hieronaut, and I'm going to guess that Cheney either corrected himself or Snow corrected him to indicate that what he really meant to say was Saddam Hussein had no connection to 9-11.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home