Report cites warnings before September 11, 2001...

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:_v-dnTZne9YLgRHbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "Rotating Pies" <harryhairdo@icqmail.com> wrote in a message
>
>>> Armed with this specific information, stop it from happening.
>
>> what? and put down "my pet goat" just at the exciting point??
>
> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier (which he
> always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew immediately
> to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the sky before
> anyone knew what was happening.
>
Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to me.
How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the twin
towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the man who was
suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking and laughing?

 

[BDK]

In article <468c3d10$0$12810$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
>
> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20f5e1c9d23a227598b2fa@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <2tnn83dq81b9un3u3b9mtcoj505k1rohba@4ax.com>, US says...
> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:21:10 -0400, BDK <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Consider evidence too, and there isn't any.
> >>
> >> So you believe a million helpless civilian Iraqis
> >> should be murdered.
> >
> > LOL, You poor kook, I never said that. When you keep repeating it, it
> > makes you look even crazier than it made you look the first time you
> > said it.
> >
> >>
> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:06:10 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >< US > wrote in message
> >> >news:titm835bbv3nucqkqu8obiare9rko119j1@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:03:49 -0700, sj <sj@essjay.com> wrote:
> >> >>>... are you quite sure that the "Popular
> >> >>>Mechanics" folks didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it all with
> >> >>>some real science and logic?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. Can you learn how to use a search engine
> >> >> and find out how it's been debunked?
> >> >>
> >> >> Hint: Chertoff's cousin wrote it.
> >> >
> >> >And the 911 comission was a sham, those views we can both agree on. Was
> >> >911
> >> >a false flag attack? well for me the jury is still out.
> >>
> >> Consider means, motive, and opportunity.
> >>
> >
> > Consider how far gone US seems to be now.
> >
> No where but the oil companies and coroporations who have interests in Iraq
> and weapon contractors are rolling in the dole.
>
>
>

Please try to follow the thread Seon.

I was commenting on US's insanity, not the United States.

BDK

 

[BDK]

In article <468c3d8e$0$12837$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
>
> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20f5a10cfd765cbb98b2f1@news.buckeye-express.com...
> > In article <4g6n83pq16vlb9ddrhgtfe9vpbuhs5t19a@4ax.com>, US says...
> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:06:10 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >< US > wrote in message
> >> >news:titm835bbv3nucqkqu8obiare9rko119j1@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:03:49 -0700, sj <sj@essjay.com> wrote:
> >> >>>... are you quite sure that the "Popular
> >> >>>Mechanics" folks didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it all with
> >> >>>some real science and logic?
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes. Can you learn how to use a search engine
> >> >> and find out how it's been debunked?
> >> >>
> >> >> Hint: Chertoff's cousin wrote it.
> >> >
> >> >And the 911 comission was a sham, those views we can both agree on. Was
> >> >911
> >> >a false flag attack? well for me the jury is still out.
> >>
> >> Consider means, motive, and opportunity.
> >>
> >
> > Consider evidence too, and there isn't any.
> >
> There's certainly evidence that something went on before 911 to let it
> happen. How much did the government know? Well I'm still trying to figure it
> out but I wouldn't be at all surprised if 50 years from now it came out that
> the CIA had agents in the terrorist cells who carried out 911 like with the
> 7/7 London bombings with MI5 but allowed it to happen.
>
>
>

Much more likely it comes down in inter-agency rivalry, or just an
incompetent middle manager who didn't think a tip was "legit", or a
combination of both.

BDK

 

[John P.]

"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> wrote in a message

>>>what? and put down "my pet goat" just at the exciting point??

>> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier (which he
>> always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew immediately
>> to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the sky before
>> anyone knew what was happening.

> He would have, but he was told that as soon as the plane took off ground
> effect would force it right back into the ground.

Or, he'd be stuck in the air for all of eternity, unable to land.

 

[John P.]

"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message

>> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier (which he
>> always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew immediately
>> to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the sky before
>> anyone knew what was happening.

> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to me.
> How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the twin
> towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the man who
> was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking and
> laughing?

Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I would
very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's and other
emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the president was doing.
He is the Commander in Chief of the US military, which really wouldn't play
a role in a building fire, or even a terrorist attack. The military isn't
really set up for an immediate response to that type of incident.

The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were one
of my kids in that classroom with him?

The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those kids.

 

[seon ferguson]

< US > wrote in message news:kb6n835gq1domq9pruke6manhh1rd3k1g7@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:03:57 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
> wrote:
>
>>< US > wrote in message
>>news:sftm83ljch12opv2dqnpa6epkstr1s7j3f@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:15:37 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
>>> wrote:
>>>>"James McGill" <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote in message
>>>>news:f6eplp$ldi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>>>>> seon ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> If I lived in America i would help but its up to you guys to make the
>>>>>> world a better place. I'm just a bystander.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you imagine you would do?
>>>>> I think there's really nothing left but to wait for the
>>>>> soon-to-be-former
>>>>> administration to pass into "former administration."
>>>>> There's been talk of everything from impeachment to oversight to
>>>>> bringing
>>>>> the administration under the rule of law for the better part of a
>>>>> decade
>>>>> now. It should be clear that nothing is going to stop these leaders
>>>>> on
>>>>> their course.
>>>>
>>>>They are some genuine patriots getting congress to sign a bill that
>>>>would
>>>>impeach Bush. I'd probably join them or start my own impeachment
>>>>process.
>>>>I'm afraid if we waited that long the criminals at the white house would
>>>>lead
>>>>America into another unjust war and possible force our own children to
>>>>die
>>>>for oil and the defense contract companies. The only way to save America
>>>>is impeach the bastards before it's to late.
>>>
>>> Cheney first, then Bush.
>>>
>>> They won't hesitate to have the USA hit again.
>>
>>Nothing would suprise me anymore.
>
> More people should share your level of awareness.

Its not that big but I admit it is better then before. It was the Scooter
Libby pardoning that woke me up to the corruption and the crinimal nature of
these people. Hopefully a lot of other people will be woken up to.

 

[seon ferguson]

"BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20f61119c9fc749998b2ff@news.buckeye-express.com...
> In article <468c3d10$0$12810$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
>>
>> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.20f5e1c9d23a227598b2fa@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> > In article <2tnn83dq81b9un3u3b9mtcoj505k1rohba@4ax.com>, US says...
>> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 13:21:10 -0400, BDK <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Consider evidence too, and there isn't any.
>> >>
>> >> So you believe a million helpless civilian Iraqis
>> >> should be murdered.
>> >
>> > LOL, You poor kook, I never said that. When you keep repeating it, it
>> > makes you look even crazier than it made you look the first time you
>> > said it.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:06:10 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >< US > wrote in message
>> >> >news:titm835bbv3nucqkqu8obiare9rko119j1@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:03:49 -0700, sj <sj@essjay.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>... are you quite sure that the "Popular
>> >> >>>Mechanics" folks didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it all
>> >> >>>with
>> >> >>>some real science and logic?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. Can you learn how to use a search engine
>> >> >> and find out how it's been debunked?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hint: Chertoff's cousin wrote it.
>> >> >
>> >> >And the 911 comission was a sham, those views we can both agree on.
>> >> >Was
>> >> >911
>> >> >a false flag attack? well for me the jury is still out.
>> >>
>> >> Consider means, motive, and opportunity.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Consider how far gone US seems to be now.
>> >
>> No where but the oil companies and coroporations who have interests in
>> Iraq
>> and weapon contractors are rolling in the dole.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Please try to follow the thread Seon.
>
> I was commenting on US's insanity, not the United States.
>
Oh oops sorry my bad.

 

[seon ferguson]

"BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20f6117ce20c6eff98b300@news.buckeye-express.com...
> In article <468c3d8e$0$12837$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
> 01.iinet.net.au>, seon@iinet.net.au says...
>>
>> "BDK" <BDK@shillsrus.com> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.20f5a10cfd765cbb98b2f1@news.buckeye-express.com...
>> > In article <4g6n83pq16vlb9ddrhgtfe9vpbuhs5t19a@4ax.com>, US says...
>> >> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:06:10 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >< US > wrote in message
>> >> >news:titm835bbv3nucqkqu8obiare9rko119j1@4ax.com...
>> >> >> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 00:03:49 -0700, sj <sj@essjay.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>... are you quite sure that the "Popular
>> >> >>>Mechanics" folks didn't do a pretty good job of explaining it all
>> >> >>>with
>> >> >>>some real science and logic?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes. Can you learn how to use a search engine
>> >> >> and find out how it's been debunked?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Hint: Chertoff's cousin wrote it.
>> >> >
>> >> >And the 911 comission was a sham, those views we can both agree on.
>> >> >Was
>> >> >911
>> >> >a false flag attack? well for me the jury is still out.
>> >>
>> >> Consider means, motive, and opportunity.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Consider evidence too, and there isn't any.
>> >
>> There's certainly evidence that something went on before 911 to let it
>> happen. How much did the government know? Well I'm still trying to figure
>> it
>> out but I wouldn't be at all surprised if 50 years from now it came out
>> that
>> the CIA had agents in the terrorist cells who carried out 911 like with
>> the
>> 7/7 London bombings with MI5 but allowed it to happen.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Much more likely it comes down in inter-agency rivalry, or just an
> incompetent middle manager who didn't think a tip was "legit", or a
> combination of both.
>

Or maybe they were part of the neo conservative movement (like the writers
of rebuilding America's defences) who wanted another terrorist attack.

Even if it was just incompetence or people downsizing the nature of the
threat its still wrong to reward someone with a pay rise for screwing up
when heads should have rolled.

 

[John P.]

"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message

> Its not that big but I admit it is better then before. It was the Scooter
> Libby pardoning that woke me up to the corruption and the crinimal nature
> of these people. Hopefully a lot of other people will be woken up to.

If you think that is something new and exciting from the current
administration, you might want to do some digging into past presidential
pardons.

Some of the biggies you might find interesting are Gerald Ford's pardon of
Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton pardoning 16 members of FALN, and, on his last
day in office, signing 140 pardons for various criminals.

 

[John P.]

"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message

> Or maybe they were part of the neo conservative movement (like the writers
> of rebuilding America's defences) who wanted another terrorist attack.

The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more accurately,
another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would take to gain
the support of the American people. There's a big difference there.

 

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:VfCdnVtTuooV4xHbnZ2dnUVZ_v-tnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>> Or maybe they were part of the neo conservative movement (like the
>> writers of rebuilding America's defences) who wanted another terrorist
>> attack.
>
> The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more
> accurately, another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would
> take to gain the support of the American people. There's a big difference
> there.
>
True no one actually said they wanted a new Pearl harbor but i wonder how
many of these "Patriots" would be willing to let 911 happen so they can have
an excuse to invade other countries.

 

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:3fSdnZuqGIhF6hHbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>>> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier (which
>>> he always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew
>>> immediately to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the
>>> sky before anyone knew what was happening.
>
>> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
>> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
>> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to me.
>> How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the twin
>> towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the man who
>> was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking and
>> laughing?
>
> Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
> position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I would
> very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's and other
> emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the president was doing.
> He is the Commander in Chief of the US military, which really wouldn't
> play a role in a building fire, or even a terrorist attack. The military
> isn't really set up for an immediate response to that type of incident.
>
> The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were one
> of my kids in that classroom with him?
>
> The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those kids.
>
Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the
members of his administration can help scare the American people with there
fear mongering.

Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear more
commander in chiefly later on.

All in know is if my elected leader acted the way he did when my loved ones
were dying (joking and laughing) I'd be disgusted.

 

[GovShill]

On Jul 5, 3:36 pm, "seon ferguson" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3fSdnZuqGIhF6hHbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "seon ferguson" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
> >>> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier (which
> >>> he always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew
> >>> immediately to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the
> >>> sky before anyone knew what was happening.
>
> >> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
> >> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
> >> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to me.
> >> How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the twin
> >> towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the man who
> >> was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking and
> >> laughing?
>
> > Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
> > position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I would
> > very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's and other
> > emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the president was doing.
> > He is the Commander in Chief of the US military, which really wouldn't
> > play a role in a building fire, or even a terrorist attack. The military
> > isn't really set up for an immediate response to that type of incident.
>
> > The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were one
> > of my kids in that classroom with him?
>
> > The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those kids.
>
> Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the

The "war on terror" is not a fraud. The involvement of Iraq in the
"war on terror" is a fraud.

> members of his administration can help scare the American people with there
> fear mongering.

PostIt, Seon.

> Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
> president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear more
> commander in chiefly later on.
>
> All in know is if my elected leader acted the way he did when my loved ones
> were dying (joking and laughing) I'd be disgusted.

So, he should have looked like he was doing something, even if there
was nothing he could actually do at the time? Or... was there
something you think he could have done? What was that?

Shill #312

 

[John P.]

"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message

>> The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more
>> accurately, another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would
>> take to gain the support of the American people. There's a big difference
>> there.

> True no one actually said they wanted a new Pearl harbor but i wonder how
> many of these "Patriots" would be willing to let 911 happen so they can
> have an excuse to invade other countries.

Just so you understand, the PNAC did make mention of a "new Pearl Harbor".

This is the line conspiracy kooks focus on, while ignoring the context of
the comments;
"Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Here it is in context;
"Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework
of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets.
The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic pause" while
experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts. Nor can it
choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple American and
allied interests.A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities
for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed
forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy
goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary
change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy
will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the
requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate
aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified
by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval.
Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22 fighter, for
example - will be in service inventories for decades to come. Wise
management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring out the
right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and shift to
radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs can make
them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the Joint Strike
Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion, seems an unwise
investment. Thus this report advocates a two-stage process of change -
transition and transformation - over the coming decades."

Here's a copy of the entire document;
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

 

[John P.]

"seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message

>>> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
>>> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
>>> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to
>>> me. How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the
>>> twin towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the
>>> man who was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking
>>> and laughing?

>> Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
>> position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I
>> would very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's
>> and other emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the president
>> was doing. He is the Commander in Chief of the US military, which really
>> wouldn't play a role in a building fire, or even a terrorist attack. The
>> military isn't really set up for an immediate response to that type of
>> incident.
>>
>> The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were
>> one of my kids in that classroom with him?
>>
>> The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those
>> kids.

> Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the
> members of his administration can help scare the American people with
> there fear mongering.

Pffft.

> Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
> president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear
> more commander in chiefly later on.

It's pretty clear Bush didn't know what was going on. He'd have little
choice as to what he might do once he learned of the attack. At that point,
the Secret Service is running through a whole list of options. They're
checking the surrounding area (maybe part of the attack plan assumed the
president would leave the school immediately, where he'd then be hit by a
suicide bomber, a shoulder launched missile at his limo, etc.).

Since the school and surrounding area would have been checked prior to his
arrival at the school, for the immediate time, he was in a 'known safe"
area. ... or, at least more known safe than anywhere outside the school.

The only thing GW could do was wait.


> All in know is if my elected leader acted the way he did when my loved
> ones were dying (joking and laughing) I'd be disgusted.

I'm pretty disgusted with everyone in Washington. They don't need to do
anything more to make me feel that way,

Lower your expectations - then you won't be so easily disappointed.

I expect nothing. ... and I get it, in abundance.

 

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:_rCdnVWwqrG94xHbnZ2dnUVZ_rWnnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>> Its not that big but I admit it is better then before. It was the Scooter
>> Libby pardoning that woke me up to the corruption and the crinimal nature
>> of these people. Hopefully a lot of other people will be woken up to.
>
> If you think that is something new and exciting from the current
> administration, you might want to do some digging into past presidential
> pardons.
>
> Some of the biggies you might find interesting are Gerald Ford's pardon of
> Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton pardoning 16 members of FALN, and, on his last
> day in office, signing 140 pardons for various criminals.
>
I know about ford pardoning Nixon. That was even worse then pardoning some
adviser. i'll have to research FALN though but even if Clinton pardoned 140
crinimals it still doest make pardoning Libby ok. It just means if the
democrats were the ones in charge they would do the same.

 

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:cbmdnfhORIn2CBHbnZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>>> The PNAC did not say they wanted a terrorist attack (or, more
>>> accurately, another Pearl Harbor). They were saying that's what it would
>>> take to gain the support of the American people. There's a big
>>> difference there.
>
>> True no one actually said they wanted a new Pearl harbor but i wonder how
>> many of these "Patriots" would be willing to let 911 happen so they can
>> have an excuse to invade other countries.
>
> Just so you understand, the PNAC did make mention of a "new Pearl
> Harbor".
>
> This is the line conspiracy kooks focus on, while ignoring the context of
> the comments;
> "Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary
> change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
> catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
>
> Here it is in context;
> "Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger
> framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and
> defense budgets. The United States cannot simply declare a "strategic
> pause" while experimenting with new technologies and operational concepts.
> Nor can it choose to pursue a transformation strategy that would decouple
> American and allied interests.A transformation strategy that solely
> pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for
> example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with
> larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.
>
> Further, the process of transformation even if it brings revolutionary
> change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and
> catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and
> industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as
> much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or
> terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and
> as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause
> great upheaval. Likewise, systems entering production today - the F-22
> fighter, for example - will be in service inventories for decades to come.
> Wise management of this process will consist in large measure of figuring
> out the right moments to halt production of current-paradigm weapons and
> shift to radically new designs. The expense associated with some programs
> can make them roadblocks to the larger process of transformation - the
> Joint Strike Fighter program, at a total of approximately $200 billion,
> seems an unwise investment. Thus this report advocates a two-stage
> process of change - transition and transformation - over the coming
> decades."
>
> Here's a copy of the entire document;
> http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
>
Thats the one I read. You have a point they didnt say we must have a new
pearl harbour to pursure our agenda.
I still find all the warnings, breifings and things like w199-eye, Able
Danger and other smoking guns unusual.

 

[seon ferguson]

"GovShill" <Gov.Shill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183614772.444481.236640@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 5, 3:36 pm, "seon ferguson" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>> "John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_...@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> news:3fSdnZuqGIhF6hHbnZ2dnUVZ_gmdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > "seon ferguson" <s...@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>>
>> >>> True. GW really blew it. He should have whipped out his Harrier
>> >>> (which
>> >>> he always carries in an invisible trailer behind his limo), flew
>> >>> immediately to each of the hijacked planes, and blown them out of the
>> >>> sky before anyone knew what was happening.
>>
>> >> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his
>> >> fellow
>> >> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything
>> >> I
>> >> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to
>> >> me.
>> >> How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the
>> >> twin
>> >> towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the man
>> >> who
>> >> was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking and
>> >> laughing?
>>
>> > Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
>> > position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I
>> > would
>> > very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's and
>> > other
>> > emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the president was
>> > doing.
>> > He is the Commander in Chief of the US military, which really wouldn't
>> > play a role in a building fire, or even a terrorist attack. The
>> > military
>> > isn't really set up for an immediate response to that type of incident.
>>
>> > The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were
>> > one
>> > of my kids in that classroom with him?
>>
>> > The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those
>> > kids.
>>
>> Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the
>
> The "war on terror" is not a fraud. The involvement of Iraq in the
> "war on terror" is a fraud.
>
>> members of his administration can help scare the American people with
>> there
>> fear mongering.
>
> PostIt, Seon.
>
>> Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
>> president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear
>> more
>> commander in chiefly later on.
>>
>> All in know is if my elected leader acted the way he did when my loved
>> ones
>> were dying (joking and laughing) I'd be disgusted.
>
> So, he should have looked like he was doing something, even if there
> was nothing he could actually do at the time? Or... was there
> something you think he could have done? What was that?
>
Just not laugh and joke like that. I mean he stayed in that room for 7
minutes, ignoring the questions that he could be a possible target the least
he could do was end the photo op or something.

 

[seon ferguson]

"John P." <JohnP_Da_Evil_Joo@WhyAreMoronsAttractedToMe.com> wrote in message
news:t6qdnfPWGIxqCxHbnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote in a message
>
>>>> Anything would have been better then just sitting there when his fellow
>>>> Americans were being burnt alive. I mean even if he didnt do anything I
>>>> wouldnt mind so much its the joking he did with the kids that gets to
>>>> me. How would you like it if you had a wife who was burnt alive in the
>>>> twin towers or who had no choice to jumo to her death and you saw the
>>>> man who was suposed to be commander and chief just sitting there joking
>>>> and laughing?
>
>>> Well Seon, I have no expectation that the President of the US is in a
>>> position to do anything to rescue my wife from a burning building. I
>>> would very much want the fire department to be there, as well as EMT's
>>> and other emergency crews, but, I really wouldn't care what the
>>> president was doing. He is the Commander in Chief of the US military,
>>> which really wouldn't play a role in a building fire, or even a
>>> terrorist attack. The military isn't really set up for an immediate
>>> response to that type of incident.
>>>
>>> The question should really be, how would I want GW to act if that were
>>> one of my kids in that classroom with him?
>>>
>>> The answer is, I'd prefer he not do anything to alarm or panic those
>>> kids.
>
>> Yeah he can do that later with the whole "war on terror" fraud and the
>> members of his administration can help scare the American people with
>> there fear mongering.
>
> Pffft.
>
If this really is a "war on terror" why is it only terrorists when they
attack America or American targets or when American interests are in that
region?

>> Or maybe Bush didn't know what was going on and maybe the whole "mr
>> president were under attack" business was just a lie to make him appear
>> more commander in chiefly later on.
>
> It's pretty clear Bush didn't know what was going on. He'd have little
> choice as to what he might do once he learned of the attack. At that
> point, the Secret Service is running through a whole list of options.
> They're checking the surrounding area (maybe part of the attack plan
> assumed the president would leave the school immediately, where he'd then
> be hit by a suicide bomber, a shoulder launched missile at his limo,
> etc.).
>
> Since the school and surrounding area would have been checked prior to his
> arrival at the school, for the immediate time, he was in a 'known safe"
> area. ... or, at least more known safe than anywhere outside the school.
>
> The only thing GW could do was wait.
>
>
And laugh with the kids. Perhaps he didnt know what was going on, thats a
more realistic approach.

>> All in know is if my elected leader acted the way he did when my loved
>> ones were dying (joking and laughing) I'd be disgusted.
>
> I'm pretty disgusted with everyone in Washington. They don't need to do
> anything more to make me feel that way,
>
> Lower your expectations - then you won't be so easily disappointed.
>
> I expect nothing. ... and I get it, in abundance.
>
I do that but I do know they are some decent politicians out there. Not as
many compared to the amount after the war of independence though.

 

[* US *]

On Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:39:05 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote:

>< US > wrote in message news:kb6n835gq1domq9pruke6manhh1rd3k1g7@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 21:03:57 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>< US > wrote in message news:sftm83ljch12opv2dqnpa6epkstr1s7j3f@4ax.com...
>>>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:15:37 +1000, "seon ferguson" <seon@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>>>>>"James McGill" <jmcgill@email.arizona.edu> wrote in message news:f6eplp$ldi$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
>>>>>> seon ferguson wrote:
>>>>>>> If I lived in America i would help but its up to you guys to make the
>>>>>>> world a better place. I'm just a bystander.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you imagine you would do?
>>>>>> I think there's really nothing left but to wait for the
>>>>>> soon-to-be-former
>>>>>> administration to pass into "former administration."
>>>>>> There's been talk of everything from impeachment to oversight to
>>>>>> bringing
>>>>>> the administration under the rule of law for the better part of a
>>>>>> decade
>>>>>> now. It should be clear that nothing is going to stop these leaders
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> their course.
>>>>>
>>>>>They are some genuine patriots getting congress to sign a bill that
>>>>>would
>>>>>impeach Bush. I'd probably join them or start my own impeachment
>>>>>process.
>>>>>I'm afraid if we waited that long the criminals at the white house would
>>>>>lead
>>>>>America into another unjust war and possible force our own children to
>>>>>die
>>>>>for oil and the defense contract companies. The only way to save America
>>>>>is impeach the bastards before it's to late.
>>>>
>>>> Cheney first, then Bush.
>>>>
>>>> They won't hesitate to have the USA hit again.
>>>
>>>Nothing would suprise me anymore.
>>
>> More people should share your level of awareness.
>
>Its not that big but I admit it is better then before. It was the Scooter
>Libby pardoning that woke me up to the corruption and the crinimal nature of
>these people. Hopefully a lot of other people will be woken up to.
>

The fact that Bush and Cheney will gleefully massacre
a million totally innocent Iraqis has awakened the world
to their terrorism. Humans won't be able to claim to be
civilized unless Bush and Cheney are brought to justice.
They'll do to you what they're doing to the Iraqis the
instant it makes them enough money.