Rumsfeld Resigns: Let the Conspiracy Theories Begin
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is apparently resigning, and being replaced by former DCI Robert Gates. Robert Gates, interestingly enough, is president of Texas A & M University, the same university that Morgan "No Planes" Reynolds taught at. In fact last year the university had the following to say about him:
Dr. Morgan Reynolds is retired from Texas A&M University, but holds the title of Professor Emeritus-an honorary title bestowed upon select tenured faculty, who have retired with ten or more years of service. Additionally, contrary to some written reports, while some faculty emeriti are allocated office space at Texas A&M, Dr. Reynolds does not have an office on the Texas A&M campus. Any statements made by Dr. Reynolds are in his capacity as a private citizen and do not represent the views of Texas A&M University. Below is a statement released yesterday by Dr. Robert M. Gates, President of Texas A&M University: "The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11, 2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day goes beyond the pale.”
He is obviously being rewarded by the New World Order for his role in oppressing the 9/11 "truth" movement.
posted by James B. @ 10:35 AM
38 comments
38 Comments:
He is obviously being rewarded by the New World Order for his role in oppressing the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Heh. Gates is an old CIA guy and even ran it under Bush the Elder. By 3:00 today the Loosers will have named him as the mastermind of the whole thing and his appointment to DOD will be so that he can personally eliminate the clear and convincing evidence that was just about to be made public.
well the old CTers were becoming a little stale, and tiresome in terms of debunking them, so a fresh crop will at least keep things interesting for a while. We should thank Rumsie for leaving us with such.
TAM
You should really consider a recent Swedish poll which asked the question "which of the following countries is the largest threat to world peace? (Israel, China, Russia, USA, North Korea or Iran)"
29% responded USA, closely followed by North Korea since the country had been in the news recently. Iran came in third with 18% By respondents between 16-29 years of age, the US had 40% of the votes as the largest threat to world peace.
That is because of the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war(s) and all the other conflicts that has been escalated by your government. It has nothing to do with your presumed freedom. Nobody hates anyone for beeing free. Many hate imperialistic invasions and countries taking law into their own hands. The United States of America has been such a country for many years.
Letting Rumsfelt go was just the tip of the iceberg, but perhaps it is possible for your country to regain some of its lost values with this.
Hmm, sorry, their women are hot, but unless I am trying to get service at Ikea, the opinions of Swedish teenagers are very far down on my list of priorities.
argumentum ad populum
These extremist nuts are still saying the elections were rigged even though the Democrats won.
I'm so confused.
Well, it makes perfect sense. Like, according to the CTers, Bush was smart enough to pull off the biggest "false flag attack" ever, but stupid enough to blame the wrong people. Similarly, he was smart enough to pull off the biggest case of voter fraud in history without leaving any evidence behind, but dumb enough to screw up and steal the election for the Democrats instead of the Republicans :)
That is because of the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war(s) and all the other conflicts that has been escalated by your government.
Key word being "escalated". Technically speaking, the US "escalated" World War 2 as well. Meanwhile, 60 years later, Europe is still all about appeasing tyrants. Some things never change.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
29% responded USA, closely followed by North Korea since the country had been in the news recently. Iran came in third with 18% By respondents between 16-29 years of age, the US had 40% of the votes as the largest threat to world peace.
Thus proving the Swedes aren't the brighest bulbs in the circuit. Look! Americans aren't the dumbest when it comes to geopolitics after all!
I guess saving the world from the Nazis and the USSR just isn't good enough for some people.
That is because of the Afghanistan war
No one can argue this war wasn't justified. The Taliban was allowing al-Qaeda to train openly and freely in their country.
Letting Rumsfelt go was just the tip of the iceberg, but perhaps it is possible for your country to regain some of its lost values with this.
Lost values? Like ignoring a problem till your largest city becomes the graveyard for three thousand people?
Next time you guys need our help over there, don't bother.
Next time you guys need our help over there, don't bother.
Sweden didn't need our help the last time. They stayed ostensibly neutral, while they supplied Hitler's war machine with steel.
Sweden didn't need our help the last time. They stayed ostensibly neutral, while they supplied Hitler's war machine with steel.
Quite true, but they'd eventually be taken down. Hitler did of course want to wipe out all by the Aryan Germans and the slave races.
Since the Swedes in major parts were aryan themselves we should probably be part of der Dritte Reich had it not been for the allied forces. But a country as yours cannot live on past merits alone.
Not taking into account what countries with common value grounds think of you is just a further display of your arrogance and ignorance. Perhaps if it was not a fact that a large minority of your school children are not even capable of pointing out their own country on a world map, I would take your comments seriously.
But hey, please stay ignorant and arrogant, it will just make it easier for the EU and/or China to take your place as world leader within a decade or two.
No one can argue [the afghanistan] war wasn't justified. The Taliban was allowing al-Qaeda to train openly and freely in their country.
Well I guess it was time for the CIA to quench their creation when they did not do as told anymore, so yes you are right.
Perhaps they should have thought about this the first time they tried to overthrow legitimate government and throwing in a Shah, or support Saddam Hussein with weapons of massdestruction hailing him as the saviour of middle east politics.
And yes, Sweden has sold weapons to questionable countries too. For instance, we have sold you $1 billion worth since the Afghanistan war, even if it is against our laws, because it is beneficial to our economy.
I just wish that the US population had the backbone to stand up and say that "we did it for oil and self interest", and not for some bulls**t "freedom and democracy".
You censor swearwords on national television, but you can go around killing millions of people if you are given the right excuse by your government. Hypocrites.
Key word being "escalated". Technically speaking, the US "escalated" World War 2 as well. Meanwhile, 60 years later, Europe is still all about appeasing tyrants. Some things never change.
Yeah, you've really convinced me to change my mindset. Lets start by invading Saudi Arabia.
Not taking into account what countries with common value grounds think of you is just a further display of your arrogance and ignorance.
I really could care less what a country that supplied the Reich cares. Or another that collaborated with them (France) or the ones that let them come to power (Germany). Believe me pal, I'm more knowledgable than you'll ever be - the fact I'm an American has nothing to do with it. And arrogance? Sure. But when you're the best you can be arrogant.
But hey, please stay ignorant and arrogant
Again, I'm smarter than you and know what I'm talking about - that isn't arrogance, it's the truth.
or support Saddam Hussein with weapons of massdestruction hailing him as the saviour of middle east politics.
Please - the French and Soviets armed him more than we ever did (we were one percent of his arms).
"we did it for oil and self interest"
Yup, since Afghanistan has loads of oil and IRaq supplies us with what? Four percent. If we really wanted the oil so bad we would've lifted the sanctions on Saddam - would've cost less in global opinion and money-wise.
but you can go around killing millions of people if you are given the right excuse by your government.
If you added up all the people we directly killed in warfare (barring the Civil War, since we were killing each other), it adds up to maybe a million.
I really could care less what a country that supplied the Reich cares. Or another that collaborated with them (France) or the ones that let them come to power (Germany). Believe me pal, I'm more knowledgable than you'll ever be - the fact I'm an American has nothing to do with it. And arrogance? Sure. But when you're the best you can be arrogant.
Well, there you go.
It takes some serious denial not to see the orwellian state that is developing as a result of your governments policies. I could quote Abraham Lincoln here, but I won't bother.
As far as direct or indirect killing goes, what is the essential difference? Sure, you don't actively pull the trigger, but people still die as a result.
Just continue to go around asking your pathetic "Ohh, my, why do they hate us?!" and let your pet-President answer it for you. Booohoo.
Enjoy your new congress.
up, since Afghanistan has loads of oil and IRaq supplies us with what? Four percent. If we really wanted the oil so bad we would've lifted the sanctions on Saddam - would've cost less in global opinion and money-wise.
Shawn you certainly claim to be smarter, but your arguement details otherwise. If you carefully trace President Bush's reasons for Iraq, you will see that the most recent reason is indeed for oil. So before you claim to be as smart as everyone else, educate yourself. Was it not you who stated saying nothing in 500 words? I thought so.
If you added up all the people we directly killed in warfare (barring the Civil War, since we were killing each other), it adds up to maybe a million.
Uhh what is your source for that information big guy?
The Oil argument is so idiotic it defies belief. What do you suppose a real war for oil would look like? Fuck Baghdad, and definitely fuck Fallujah. Why would you go there? THERE'S NO FUCKING OIL THERE. A war for oil would have seen US aircraft carpet-bombing a 4 miles wide corridor between the coast and the nearest oil fields, with troops rolling right behind and supertankers parked offshore in between aircraft carriers and supply ships. You'd see a fence thrown up, a highway set up, regular checkpoints, and oil trucks moving back and forth every 5 minutes. That's exactly the kind of operation US troops would be GREAT at. You would have seen, what, 5 casualties? 10? And half of those would be from incidents involving alcohol the words "hey guys, watch this!". Instead you've got 3,000 casualties and they're out there every day getting their asses blown up so that the Iraqis can sleep better at night, and maybe one day be able to lead a life a bit closer to what we enjoy. And what else don't you see? Well, no oil. Not from Iraq. How stupid do you have to be to invade a country for oil, and then not take any.
In other words, Buddy J, you may want to consider your own intellect before you start repeating that stereotype about Americans not being able to read a map.
Just continue to go around asking your pathetic "Ohh, my, why do they hate us?!"
Only the really stupid Democrats ask that. The rest of us know exactly why they hate us. The terrorists hate us because we'll be their undoing. And Europe hates the US because people have lost all common sense. As a good man recently said, "Civilizations fall because people bitch and complain when the electricity is off for fifteen minutes, and never give a thought to the fact that it has been on for their entire lives". Europe hasn't learned a fucking thing from WW2.
I wonder what the industrial nations would look like with out oil? Every modern nation needs oil and will do what ever is necessary to keep it flowing. We need to get off the oil drug. There will always be a need for oil for a long time but the US should have started in 79 like Brazil did.
As for knowledge of geography, consider this.
I'm not padding Sweden on the back or anything like that, I just want to show a basis for my statements. I couldn't find the survey regarding the own country on a world map, sorry.
Regarding oil or no oil i Iraq:
Here's what I mean. What do YOU mean?
I think 112.5 billion barrels qualify as a rather big reserve. As for the tactics of getting the oil out of the country, consider googling for "Halliburton Iraq no-bid contract". That would get you started. If you have never been on an oil-rig, I can tell you that oil takes time to extract. Especially the estimated 112.5 billion barrels. Pro-USA democracy is just a side effect, but I salute you for that. It's definitely better than dictatorship.
As for the stupid democrats, I'm glad for their sake.
To revert what your brother in arms james b. said, just because a majority of the US population thinks that their country is doing good things around the world does not necessarily make it so.
Side effect? You IDIOT. If oil is all the US wanted they could have taken less than a hundred casualties total, and spent less than a hundredth of the money that's been spent on the war. That's like saying that when a fireman goes into your home, saving your kids from the basement is just a side-effect. The REAL effort was rescuing your bunny slippers from the front hallway.
Goddamit man. This is why conspiracy theories are so much more prevalent in Europe. You people will brainwash yourselves into believing just about anything, as long as it's critical of the US. I should know, I was born there, and had the same damn uninformed opinions until I had the chance to spend some time working with US soldiers. Amazing how your views change once you actually get some experience in the things you're discussing.
And the size of the Iraqi reserve is irrelevant. Who's going to take it, the Democrats? The republicans sure as hell haven't. Check your facts, most American oil comes from Canada, and a good chunk comes from South America. Not to mention that there's a huge reserve in Alaska, and the US just found a massive oil deposit off their southern coast. The middle east states are becoming replaceable, and there's a reason Bush has been encouraging alternate fuels research. Nobody wants to be dependent on the middle east any more.
Aw, I'm sorry for calling you an idiot, you seem like a bright guy, just brainwashed the way I was and the way many, MANY Europeans still are. And many Canadians, and Americans too for that matter.
Seriously.
If we wanted to "Steal their oil" we could have done it. What would a real "war for oil" look like? Well, US troops would have sped to the oilfields with everything we had. Everything we had. Then, secure convoy routes would have been established to the nearest port – probably Basra – and the US Navy would essentially line the entire gulf with wall-to-wall warships in order to ensure the safe passage of US-flagged tankers into and out of the region.
We could just post a couple of Nuke Submarines conspicuously and let the OPEC countries know that if they DON'T hand over the oil, they will be vaporised. The Saudi and Iran would object, probably violently, but we could take them out easily. Little countries like Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar would have no choice but to submit and give us their black gold.
Thats what a war for oil would look like.
This cracks me up, supposedly we went to Iraq to steal their oil, but who gets the contracts to pump the oil? British Petroluem, and Royal Dutch Shell. I knew Queen Beatrix was behind the whole thing.
These idiots even claim that we invaded Afghanistan for the oil, even though there is no freaking oil there.
Queen Beatrix was banging Col. Sanders, everyone knows that. And Col. Sanders is (when he's not making new addictive chemicals for his chicken) a military man, and a close friend of Donald Rumsfield. Ipso Facto, the US went into Iraq so Col. Sanders could continue getting laid.
True story.
I don't think that any of us is going to convince the other part of who's right or not, so I'll stop here.
I just want to give you this link to show you that oil imported from Iraq is not that insignificant. 6% and increasing. I agree that Saudi Arabia constitutes a larger percentage, next after Canada and Mexico, but being in the top six is not half bad.
And "side effect" was not quite the proper words for the point I was trying to make. Sorry, this is after all just my second language. In matter of public opinion I do not think that the scenario of invading Iraq and just create a corridor for the oil-trucks or build a nice little pipeline would go well with either the US population or the world population. Therefore, it is necessary to have a higher purpose, real or not so real. This is where our opinions differ.
After my two year tour in some African countries as well as the middle east, Saudi Arabia to name one, I have met and hung out with US military personnel and gotten a rather insightful view of the way they live and work. I haven't, thank god, been to Iraq and experienced the pressure that they must be under there. Neither have I been to Afghanistan.
I do not have anything against americans in general, my best friend during my six months in Nigeria was american. It is the american forreign policy that I have a problem with. Not McDonalds, not Yankee Stadium or Yosemite National Park. The country in question probably still is the land of the free, yada yada. But it votes no to the first step of a global Arms Trade Treaty, which is just one of the reasons why I don't like US forreign policy.
I end my part of the discussion now. Thank you for an entertaining afternoon.
As a sidenote, (sorry, just couldn't help myself) there are many countries that I dislike in regard to their foreign policy, Sweden being one of them. Others include France, China, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Palestine.. I could probably go on for a while. But they were not in question here.
Just continue to go around asking your pathetic "Ohh, my, why do they hate us?!" and let your pet-President answer it for you. Booohoo.
Not a Republican, idiot.
I know why the hate us. Because we have troops in Saudi Arabia (at the request of the monarchy), and we support Israel. Oh and we're not their specific brand of Muslim. They are takfiri, after all.
But I'm sure you'll say "evil foreign policy" like all the morons who blame the victim.
Not a Republican, idiot.
Well, neither was Bill Clinton, you imbecill shortsighted ass. He was still able to use the same rhetoric:
"..They were in Africa to promote the values America shares with friends of freedom everywhere -- and for that they were murdered by terrorists."
You think that this is unique for Dubya and his ranching buddies you are mistaken. The US always seem to be on Gods side, defending Mom, Apple-pie and the seven virtues for all its skipping and jumping of joy citizens. It's just worse now than ever before.
This is not about radical extremists hating your country, this is about average joes in several countries that despise your foreign policy.
It is about this, this and this.
And they probably hate you for supporting both Iran and Iraq between 1980-1988 topped with the "too bad one of them had to win"-quote, the CIA via Pakistani ISI creation of the mujahideen in Afghanistan, the toppling of prime minister Mossadeq in Iran, G.HW.Bush war in the early 90s, the CIA bombings of religious leaders (a.k.a terrorist leaders) in Libya or Syria or wherever etc. etc.
I'm sure you will debunk this book as utter crap, since you do that with everything not in 100% accordance to your world view, but I still recommend reading John K. Cooleys Unholy Wars. Perhaps you will get something out of it.
Beheaded Girls Were Ramadan Trophies
New details have emerged about the horrific murders of three Indonesian Christian schoolgirls in October last year: Beheaded girls were Ramadan ‘trophies’.
THREE Christian high school girls were beheaded as a Ramadan “trophy” by Indonesian militants who conceived the idea after a visit to Philippines jihadists, a court heard yesterday.
The girls’ severed heads were dumped in plastic bags in their village in Indonesia’s strife-torn Central Sulawesi province, along with a handwritten note threatening more such attacks. The note read: “Wanted: 100 more Christian heads, teenaged or adult, male or female; blood shall be answered with blood, soul with soul, head with head.”
Javanese trader Hasanuddin appeared in Jakarta Central Court yesterday charged with planning and directing the murders in October last year. He faces a death sentence if found guilty under anti-terrorism legislation.
Hasanuddin allegedly returned from a visit to members of Philippines Islamist group the Moro Islamic Liberation Front with tales of how that organisation regularly staged bombings to coincide with Lebaran, the festival that ends the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. He later spoke with a preacher in Poso, Central Sulawesi, about whether such a plan could work in Indonesia, but expressed doubt about whether it was appropriate.
However, after further discussion with friends, he decided that beheading Christians could qualify as an act of Muslim charity.
Conscripting several accomplices at a local pesantren, or Islamic school, he directed one of them, Lilik Purnomo, to seek out “the head of a Christian”, prosecutors alleged.
“It would be a great Lebaran trophy if we got a Christian. Go search for the best place for us to find one,” Hasanuddin allegedly ordered his companion.
Lilik returned to say he had found an “excellent” target - a group of schoolgirls who travelled to and from class by foot in the Central Sulawesi village of Gebong Rejo.
This crap has been going on for deacdes so we should just play nice
This is not about radical extremists hating your country, this is about average joes in several countries that despise your foreign policy.
You do have it backwards.
It is about this, this and this.
Wow, polls. You do realize I think a vast majority of the world is retarded, right? (Not to mention that using polls to defend your point is argumentum ad populum - a logical fallacy.) Most people don't read on their own, most don't follow world events, most don't understand history or geopolitics. They hear some "higher up" say something and believe it (I hear the utterly moronic Chomsky has a fairly large following in Euorpe).
He was still able to use the same rhetoric
Because America could never fight for freedom and democracy, could it?
This is not about radical extremists hating your country, this is about average joes in several countries that despise your foreign policy.
That's how appeasement starts. "Oh they're not REALLY bad guys, they're just trying to right an injustice". What do you think people said about Hitler? Why do you think he got so far unopposed? And now, many years later, we know that if the French had delayed Hitler when he invaded the Rhineland, he most likely would have been assassinated by his own Generals and government opposition. World War 2 could have been avoided. Some 50 MILLION people would not have died. Instead we went through some of the most horrible warfare in history, all because people though Hitler wasn't really so bad, and that it was ok to let him invade a couple countries.
Don't get me wrong, I hope you're right about everything. I really do. But I'm not willing to gamble everything on that chance. If you're right and we follow this course, you know what happens? Nothing. The world keeps spinning, peoples lives keep improving, and they continue to hate the US. Same old, same old. But....if the US changes it's policies, and you turn out to be wrong? I hope you've got lots of lead sitting around the house, 'cos this one's going nuclear.
This is like talking you into rid yourselves of the second amendment in that it in most likelyhood lessen the number of people killed by firearms.
You go: "No way. It is impossible that a decreased number of weapons in circulation would decrease the number of shot to death every year."
Violence breed violence. And as long as you don't get that basic premise, I'll leave you to it.
People getting shot isn't the problem, it's the WRONG people being shot that's a problem. Statistically speaking, any time concealed carry laws have been passed and used, crime of all kinds has gone down. From rape to robbery, murder, and assault, they all tend to go down. That's because one a few dozen criminals get killed while attending to their normal "work day", the rest get the message pretty quickly.
This is like talking you into rid yourselves of the second amendment in that it in most likelyhood lessen the number of people killed by firearms.
..actually the places that have concealed carry laws have the lowest gun violence.
Not only that but SIXTY times more criminals are hurt by guns with citizens using them in defense than vice versa.
Another point - when the UK banned handguns the rate of EVERY type of crime but murder increased higher than the rates over here.
Not to mention you don't understand the Amendment. It's not there for home protection or hunting. It's there so if the time comes, we have weapons to overthrow the government.
Remember? The colonists had just got down doing that?
You go: "No way. It is impossible that a decreased number of weapons in circulation would decrease the number of shot to death every year."
I guess you've never heard "when guns are outlawed only outlaws have guns". Only the people who won't use the guns for nefarious purposes would follow the law that you can't have guns. You Europeans really are dumb as bricks, aren't you?
Violence breed violence. And as long as you don't get that basic premise, I'll leave you to it.
And if you don't just say "enough" it keeps going. Why'd we fight Hitler? If violence breeds violence, why did we take part? Why'd we Americans fight the Japanese if our response would just breed more violence? This pussified European idea that violence is NEVER the answer is so inhuman and illogical that I'm so surpised it caught on (especially since you're the ones who experienced first-hand what happens when you don';t stand up to evil).
But it's ok, you European statists live with the government taking care of you while bitching about the PATRIOT Act and not realizing what utter hypocrites you are.
Here is crime statistics comparing the US and Sweden for 2005, per 100,000 inhabitants.
US stats rounded to zero decimal points, swedish with zero decimal points.
USA
Index: 11,556
Violent crime: 1,390
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 16
Forcible rape: 94
Robbery: 417
Aggravated assault: 863
Property Crime: 10,166
Burglary: 2,154
Larceny theft: 6,777
Motor Vehicle theft: 1,235
Sweden
Index: 11,951
Violent crime: No equal term in the statistics
Murder and non-negligent manslaughter: 3
Forcible rape: 42
Robbery: 104
Aggravated assault: 805
Property Crime: No equal term in statistics
Burglary: 184
Larceny theft: 3915
Motor Vehicle theft: 467
It's there so if the time comes, we have weapons to overthrow the government.
When the government convinces you, against all evidence to the contrary, that it still serves you, what's the point?
If that law was worth something you should have overthrown your own government years ago, instead of every other country you have invaded since WW2.
Post a Comment
<< Home