What the Mega-Mosque at Ground Zero Means to Worldwide Islam

[ImWithStupid]

Thousands for, against mosque march on tragic day

By JOE WALKER, DOUGLAS MONTERO, AMBER SUTHERLAND and KATHIANNE BONIELLO

 

Last Updated: 6:57 PM, September 11, 2010

 

Posted: 1:17 PM, September 11, 2010

 

Thousands of rowdy protestors with dueling agendas converged on Lower Manhattan today, using the spotlight of 9/11 as a showcase for the Ground Zero mosque debate.

 

Both sides drew large, boisterous, with about 3,000 pro-mosque demonstrators marching from City Hall to the Federal Building and 2,500 anti-mosque protestors rallying near the controversial Park Place site of the Islamic Center.

 

No arrests have been reported, though things got heated when several college kids agitated a group of anti-mosque demonstrators.

 

Anti-mosque rally leader Pam Geller opened the demonstration with a moment of silence — but it was loud and rowdy from there on.

 

A trumpet player played TAPS, the crowd sang the Star Spangled Banner, waved American flags and chanted U-S-A.

 

"Every year it’s bad," Nelly Braginsky, who lost her 38-year old son Alex in the towers, told the crowd. "Nobody can bring me back my son. ... It’s not about freedom of religion. This is about geography."

 

Geert Wilders, politician from Holland and keynote speaker asked the crowd: "Did New York deserve this? Did America deserve this? Did the West deserve this?"

 

The crowd answered with shouts of "NO!"

 

"We do not deserve a mosque at Ground Zero either," he told them. "We are here today because we have not forgotten. ... When the faces of Jihad attacked New York, they attacked the world."

 

Jackie Drew, 45, of Staten Island, who works as a clerical staff for NYPD, said the anti-mosque protest was her first, but that she felt it was important.

 

"I don’t trust this isn’t terrorist-related," she said. "Muslims build where they had a victory. We shouldn’t have to bow down to other groups. I’m tired of Americans bowing down."

 

An angry anti-mosque protestor was allegedly ready to clock one of the young students before cops swooped in and separated the two groups.

 

Natalie Sowinski, 19, and her friends Andressa Leite, 20 and Dennis Grabowski, 20, were watching the protest – Sowinski with a scarf wrapped around her head like a hijab and Leite, blowing a notoriously loud vuvuzela at the anti-mosque demonstrators.

 

The demonstrators set upon the three, ripping the scarf off Sowinski’s head, grabbing the horn and screaming in their faces: "Did you lose someone on 9/11?"

 

"There was a moment when I got scared for my life," Sowinski told The Post.

 

Another college student, Cat Glenn, 22, tried to intervene, grabbing at the demonstrators who were snatching at Sowinski’s head.

 

"I’m very intolerant of injustice when it’s physical and in front of my face," Glenn said.

 

Glenn said she was about to get socked by the man she grabbed when police pushed the college students away.

 

A crowd 15 to 20 deep listening to speakers including former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark before marching from City Hall to the Federal Building on Worth Street in an orderly fashion, with a heavy police presence on hand.

 

They were noisy, but not violent.

 

Beating drums and ringing bells, the crowd chanted: "Bigots go home."

 

The demonstrators also carried signs reading: "Tea Party Bigots funded by Corporate $"; and "Our Grief is No excuse for bigotry and racism."

 

In another earlier display, a solitary, wild card protestor walked up to the intersection of Murray and Church streets and started tearing out the pages of a green Koran he was holding, eventually burning a few of the pages.

 

The man said nothing as he was escorted to safety by the police and left the scene via the Path Train. He later told The Post his protest was about freedom of speech.

 

"People have the right to build that mosque," the bizarrely calm man said, refusing to identify himself. "They own that property. I wanted to show that I have the right to free speech. Rights are a two way street."

 

The fiery political statement recalled the condemnations of Florida Pastor Terry Jones, who for days said he planned to burn the Koran on 9/11 but today recanted that.

 

Earlier in the day, a firefighter, in full uniform, was livid, getting into a shouting match with pro-mosque demonstrators.

 

"They are giving them a platform on the same block I’m being excluded from walking down the street in an FDNY uniform," he said, refusing to give his name.

 

A retired firefighter lieutenant from Brooklyn’s Engine 226 angrily flipped the bird to a pro-mosque demonstrator wearing a Mao cap. He was there on 9/11, in the North Tower, he said.

 

"I don’t care if they build a mosque, but I don’t want to hear their Islamic prayers wafting over the grave site," he fumed.

 

The irony wasn’t lost on some anti-mosque people who responded to cat-callers that Kamal was on their side.

 

Then there was pony-tailed man in his 60s, sporting a shirt that exhorted: "Let’s all come together and unite."

 

Yet his sign carried a decidedly anti-mosque message: "Christ turned the other cheek; Muhammad Never Did; He Beheaded Instead."

 

Not everyone was willing to pick a side. A pair of college kids were so disgusted by what they saw in Lower Manhattan today, they bought poster boards and a marker and held their own protest.

 

Timothy Breuer, 18, marked along with the phrase "I have a sign" on his poster, while friend Eric Ohrt, declared: "I’m tired" on another.

 

"I know none of these people were here on 9/11, and I don’t think they should be here today," Breuer said.

 

http://www.nypost.co...L#ixzz0zG4tziDR

 

Notice anything missing from the Pro Mosque demonstrators?

 

[attach=full]2912[/attach]

 

Bongo drums? Check.

 

Bells to ring? Check.

 

Mass produced signs provided by the Commie-Socialist-Labor complex? Check.

 

Trite, yet catchy chants? Check.

 

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

[builder]

 

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

 

That would be because this is a religious issue, rather than a state or national issue.

 

Where are the bible-thumpers on the nay side of the fence, would be a better question, IWS.

[ImWithStupid]

American flags? [sound of crickets chirping]

 

That would be because this is a religious issue, rather than a state or national issue.

 

Where are the bible-thumpers on the nay side of the fence, would be a better question, IWS.

 

No. It's hardly a religious issue.

 

Everyone concedes that they have the right to do so, under the 1A, religious protection, so it's less than a religious issue than a sensitivity/patriotic issue.

 

As for "Bible thumpers" as you call them, there are many against this, but most are far right, radical, sorts, like the douchebag in Gainsville, FL.

 

I'd actually argue there are more people wanting the government to force the Pastor in Florida not to burn the koran, than want the government to stop the building of the mosque.

[builder]

 

 

As for "Bible thumpers" as you call them, there are many against this, but most are far right, radical, sorts, like the douchebag in Gainsville, FL.

 

I'd actually argue there are more people wanting the government to force the Pastor in Florida not to burn the koran, than want the government to stop the building of the mosque.

 

Last I heard, the pinheaded pastor has called it off. He's had his ten seconds in the limelight, and most of his flock have deserted him.

 

There's two sides to radicalism in any religion. Not pretty whichever way you look at it.

[ImWithStupid]

[attach=full]2913[/attach]

[ImWithStupid]

To those who cling to the argument that the Mosque is being built two blocks away...

 

 

 

TWO BLOCKS AWAY!

 

Please point out the Burlington Coat Factory to me. Please pinpoint exactly where you want to place the Victory Mosque. Thank you!

 

 

 

[attach=full]2914[/attach]

 

[attach=full]2915[/attach]

 

 

[attach=full]2916[/attach]

 

[attach=full]2917[/attach]

 

.

 

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=35368

 

 

And even though the landing gear from one of the planes crashed through the Burlington Coat Factory building, this site has still not been searched for remains of those murdered on 09/11/01.

[hugo]

 

 

As for "Bible thumpers" as you call them, there are many against this, but most are far right, radical, sorts, like the douchebag in Gainsville, FL.

 

I'd actually argue there are more people wanting the government to force the Pastor in Florida not to burn the koran, than want the government to stop the building of the mosque.

 

Last I heard, the pinheaded pastor has called it off. He's had his ten seconds in the limelight, and most of his flock have deserted him.

 

There's two sides to radicalism in any religion. Not pretty whichever way you look at it.

Would a Quran still burn if the media was not there?

[hugo]

To those who cling to the argument that the Mosque is being built two blocks away...

 

 

 

TWO BLOCKS AWAY!

 

Please point out the Burlington Coat Factory to me. Please pinpoint exactly where you want to place the Victory Mosque. Thank you!

 

 

 

[attach=full]2918[/attach]

 

[attach=full]2919[/attach]

 

 

[attach=full]2920[/attach]

 

[attach=full]2921[/attach]

 

.

 

http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=35368

 

 

And even though the landing gear from one of the planes crashed through the Burlington Coat Factory building, this site has still not been searched for remains of those murdered on 09/11/01.

I would say it is a football field away. Speaking of football, Mizzou beat previously undefeated perennial powerhouse McNeese State 50-6!

[ImWithStupid]

I would say it is a football field away. Speaking of football, Mizzou beat previously undefeated perennial powerhouse McNeese State 50-6!

 

Speaking of football and distances. While we're correcting the record on if this is considered "Ground Zero" or not...

 

 

AP, New York Times: While You Are Correcting the Record About the Ground Zero Mosque ...

 

Stop with the "New York" Giants, "New York" Jets, and "Washington" Redskins.

 

BY Daniel Halper

 

The AP and New York Times have decided to avoid using the term the "Ground Zero mosque." Why? Well, because the proposed 'Islamic cultural center' is not just a mosque (though it would contain a mosque) and because it's not right at Ground Zero (but a whole two blocks from Ground Zero).

 

Allow me to submit, in the name of accuracy and integrity in journalism, a few corrections for the Associated Press and New York Times to consider:

 

– Both consistently (and erroneously) call a football team that is housed in New Jersey the New York Giants (emphasis is my own).

 

Correction: The New York Giants are not in New York. To call them the “New York” Giants is itself a disgrace. Please correct the record immediately. I’ll defer to the map:

 

[attach=full]2922[/attach]

 

 

 

 

Wherein A is where the football team plays (in the Meadowlands, New Jersey) and B is the line dividing the states of New Jersey and New York. Driving distance: Approximately 6 miles.

 

I propose, for the sake of accuracy and integrity, that the AP and New York Times call the New York Giants the “Giants Located Near New York.”

 

– The New York Times and AP shamefully commit the same fallacy when referring to that other New Jersey football team – the Jets – which they call the "New York Jets." The Jets play in the same stadium as the Giants, so the map above serves as a good reference.

 

Proposed correction: How about, for the sake of consistency, the "Jets Located Near New York."

 

– The New York Times and AP, again, refer to a football team by its wrong location. The "Washington" Redskins do not play in Washington, D.C. They are housed in Landover, Maryland. I'll defer to the map:

 

 

[attach=full]2923[/attach]

 

 

Wherein A is where the football team plays (in Landover, Maryland) and B is the line dividing the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C. Driving distance: Approximately 6 miles.

 

Proposed name, for the sake of accuracy: The Landover Redskins. Now that's a team I could get behind.

 

To be fair to the New York Times and AP, there are numerous examples of places that are located near, but not in, the location that their name indicates.

 

 

Take, for example, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. In Washington, D.C.? Nope. It's in Arlington, Virginia.

 

What about Washington Dulles International Airport? Not in Washington, D.C., either. That's in Sterling, Virginia.

 

Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport? You guessed it: Not in Baltimore or Washington, D.C. That would be Hanover, Maryland.

 

Which brings us back to the Associated Press and New York Times, and accuracy and integrity in journalism.

 

Apparently, with regard to the proposed Islamic cultural center that would house a mosque, Ground Zero only encompasses the exact site of the Twin Towers, where thousands of Americans were murdered by Islamists on September 11. If, say, a building were to have pieces from the wreckage, including the landing gear of a plane that was flown into the Twin Towers, on its site on September 11, then it still does not constitute being at Ground Zero. At least, that is the case with the site that this Islamic cultural center with a mosque would sit on.

 

Look, AP and New York Times, I'm all for accuracy and integrity in journalism. All I ask is that you be consistent in your standards when covering the Giants, Jets, and Redskins.

 

http://www.weeklysta...o-mosque?page=2

[builder]

 

Would a Quran still burn if the media was not there?

 

Would a fart still stink if there's nobody to share it with?

 

Both very interesting questions, Hugo. :ninja:

[jokersarewild]

I would say it is a football field away. Speaking of football, Mizzou beat previously undefeated perennial powerhouse McNeese State 50-6!

 

Speaking of football and distances. While we're correcting the record on if this is considered "Ground Zero" or not...

 

 

AP, New York Times: While You Are Correcting the Record About the Ground Zero Mosque ...

 

Stop with the "New York" Giants, "New York" Jets, and "Washington" Redskins.

 

BY Daniel Halper

 

The AP and New York Times have decided to avoid using the term the "Ground Zero mosque." Why? Well, because the proposed 'Islamic cultural center' is not just a mosque (though it would contain a mosque) and because it's not right at Ground Zero (but a whole two blocks from Ground Zero).

 

Allow me to submit, in the name of accuracy and integrity in journalism, a few corrections for the Associated Press and New York Times to consider:

 

– Both consistently (and erroneously) call a football team that is housed in New Jersey the New York Giants (emphasis is my own).

 

Correction: The New York Giants are not in New York. To call them the “New York” Giants is itself a disgrace. Please correct the record immediately. I’ll defer to the map:

 

[attach=full]2924[/attach]

 

 

 

 

Wherein A is where the football team plays (in the Meadowlands, New Jersey) and B is the line dividing the states of New Jersey and New York. Driving distance: Approximately 6 miles.

 

I propose, for the sake of accuracy and integrity, that the AP and New York Times call the New York Giants the “Giants Located Near New York.”

 

– The New York Times and AP shamefully commit the same fallacy when referring to that other New Jersey football team – the Jets – which they call the "New York Jets." The Jets play in the same stadium as the Giants, so the map above serves as a good reference.

 

Proposed correction: How about, for the sake of consistency, the "Jets Located Near New York."

 

– The New York Times and AP, again, refer to a football team by its wrong location. The "Washington" Redskins do not play in Washington, D.C. They are housed in Landover, Maryland. I'll defer to the map:

 

 

[attach=full]2925[/attach]

 

 

Wherein A is where the football team plays (in Landover, Maryland) and B is the line dividing the state of Maryland and Washington, D.C. Driving distance: Approximately 6 miles.

 

Proposed name, for the sake of accuracy: The Landover Redskins. Now that's a team I could get behind.

 

To be fair to the New York Times and AP, there are numerous examples of places that are located near, but not in, the location that their name indicates.

 

 

Take, for example, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. In Washington, D.C.? Nope. It's in Arlington, Virginia.

 

What about Washington Dulles International Airport? Not in Washington, D.C., either. That's in Sterling, Virginia.

 

Baltimore-Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport? You guessed it: Not in Baltimore or Washington, D.C. That would be Hanover, Maryland.

 

Which brings us back to the Associated Press and New York Times, and accuracy and integrity in journalism.

 

Apparently, with regard to the proposed Islamic cultural center that would house a mosque, Ground Zero only encompasses the exact site of the Twin Towers, where thousands of Americans were murdered by Islamists on September 11. If, say, a building were to have pieces from the wreckage, including the landing gear of a plane that was flown into the Twin Towers, on its site on September 11, then it still does not constitute being at Ground Zero. At least, that is the case with the site that this Islamic cultural center with a mosque would sit on.

 

Look, AP and New York Times, I'm all for accuracy and integrity in journalism. All I ask is that you be consistent in your standards when covering the Giants, Jets, and Redskins.

 

http://www.weeklysta...o-mosque?page=2

 

Difference being that they call themselves that.

 

http://www.redskins.com/gen/index.jsp

 

http://www.newyorkjets.com/

 

http://www.giants.com/index.html

 

And obviously, what one considers "ground zero" is opinion. So while I may not consider the site of the center "ground zero", you do.

[timesjoke]

Actually, I just realized that I can't even afford that this month. I apologize, but must retract my wager.

So all your willing to do is shoot off your mouth about things you know nothing about.......right? Thought so.

 

 

 

 

I wonder why it is progressives like you say we should not hold Muslim communities accountable for the radicals they refuse to stand up to, but at the same time all of them believe one idiot buring a Quran means all of america has burned a Quran.......

 

 

 

Double standard? As I keep saying but people like Joker ignore, I don't think all muslims are terrorists or are infiltrating any way they can, but I do know without any doubt that not "all" Muslims stand up against the radicals. All these radicals already want to kill us because we are infidels, nothing we do will incease or decrease their hate of the 'West'.

 

We cannot appease the terrorists Joker, they are not motivated by what your motivated with, you think "be nice" and they will be nice back, and your wrong.

[builder]

Oh, look TJ. http://www.mujca.com/

 

Looks like those damn "progressives" are everywhere. :whistling:

[jokersarewild]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-09/14/c_13493106.htm

[timesjoke]

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2010-09/14/c_13493106.htm

Exactly, the Muslims desire that specific spot because it is their intention to have a victory monument to the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

 

 

If the piece of land did not matter and only the so called community center was all that was important then why would they care where it is built? Obiously the only thing they care about is being close to the attack site.

 

 

 

You have to know your screwed up when your on the same side of an arguement with Builder who is so stupid he believes 9/11 was an inside job.

[builder]

 

 

 

 

You have to know your screwed up when your on the same side of an arguement with Builder who is so stupid he believes 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Can you feel the love?

[timesjoke]

 

 

 

 

You have to know your screwed up when your on the same side of an arguement with Builder who is so stupid he believes 9/11 was an inside job.

 

Can you feel the love?

But your in good company Builder, one of the imams who preachs and will preach at this mosque is on record as also saying that 9/11 was an inside job and Muslims had nothing to do with it.

 

 

As I keep saying, it is up to the Muslims to stand up to their radical elements but they can't aven agree they have radical elements, some of the people directly involved with this ground zero Mosque can't even call a terrorist a terrorist or even admit it was their extreme elements who attacked us.

 

 

If they refuse to agree on the most basic of facts, how can we build bridges or even call them blameless?

 

 

 

 

Nobody has said "don't build the Mosque" all they have said is not that specific spot because of it's sensative nature. But these radicals don't want to build their Mosque anywhere else, they flat refuse any other spot, now why are they so stuck on that specific location if it is not very important to them to be on ground zero?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why should we be the only people to show tolerance? One idiot in Florida wants to burn a Quran and all Muslims blame all Americans? Really?

 

 

And did you see where this so called moderate Muslim said attacks would happen if they could not build their Mosque on that exact spot?

 

 

Ya, it seems pretty clear they are the people who need to work on their tolerance.

[builder]

 

 

We cannot appease the terrorists Joker, they are not motivated by what your motivated with, you think "be nice" and they will be nice back, and your wrong.

 

I can see ya now, Marshall, with one six shooter in your right hand, an' one o' the same in the other hand.

 

Not flinchin' not fussin'. Just a'waitin'.

[timesjoke]

 

 

We cannot appease the terrorists Joker, they are not motivated by what your motivated with, you think "be nice" and they will be nice back, and your wrong.

 

I can see ya now, Marshall, with one six shooter in your right hand, an' one o' the same in the other hand.

 

Not flinchin' not fussin'. Just a'waitin'.

Your not that far from the truth, while we had a very strong leader who was very clear about his being willing to knock the crap out of people, we didn't have any attacks, the terrorists lost almost all interest in coming to America to attack us, but during weak Presidents like Clinton and Obama, we have attack, after attack, after attack.

 

 

If appeasement was going to work, why do they still want to attack us with the most soft on Muslims President to ever serve in that office? You would think attacks would go down but even Iran slapped Obama in the face. All that big talk from Obama about how he was going to reach out to Iran and show how the agressive stance of the Bush Whitehouse was the real problem was proven to be BS. Iran is just as, if not more insulting to Obama with all his groveling as he was with Bush.

[builder]

Are you on crystal meth? or what?

 

Sounds to me like you're just craving attention, my friend.

 

I'm sure that in a country as populated and proud as your own, there's gotta be some place that would welcome your kinda propaganda with open arms.

 

Good luck with your search.

 

Builder, signing out now. Seeya on the board sometime, chum.

[timesjoke]

Are you on crystal meth? or what?

 

Sounds to me like you're just craving attention, my friend.

 

I'm sure that in a country as populated and proud as your own, there's gotta be some place that would welcome your kinda propaganda with open arms.

 

Good luck with your search.

 

Builder, signing out now. Seeya on the board sometime, chum.

Being as your the wacko talking about 9/11 conspiracies and such that would make you the attention whore my friend, not me.

 

 

I offered you pure fact, under Clinton we had tons of attacks and the biggest attack of 9/11 was planned and the terrorists were here in America during almost all of his two terms. So the result of 8 years of a progressive mostly kissing their behinds was more attacks and the 9/11 plan.

 

 

 

Under Obama we have more attacks to include the Fort Hood terrorist attack and Iran closer to a nuclear weapon than ever before and not even trying to hide it anymore. North Korea is openly attacking ships, firing lots of missles and more agressive than ever during the 8 years under Bush. Radical Muslims are more worked up and attacking us more under Obama than under Bush so how can any idiot claim that being soft and weak will get the Muslims to like us?

 

 

We are Infidels, we can never be more than an infidel to the strict followers of Islam.

[builder]

Are you on crystal meth? or what?

 

Sounds to me like you're just craving attention, my friend.

 

I'm sure that in a country as populated and proud as your own, there's gotta be some place that would welcome your kinda propaganda with open arms.

 

Good luck with your search.

 

Builder, signing out now. Seeya on the board sometime, chum.

Being as your the wacko talking about 9/11 conspiracies and such that would make you the attention whore my friend, not me.

 

 

I offered you pure fact, under Clinton we had tons of attacks and the biggest attack of 9/11 was planned and the terrorists were here in America during almost all of his two terms. So the result of 8 years of a progressive mostly kissing their behinds was more attacks and the 9/11 plan.

 

 

 

So I guess JFK saying no to operation Northwoods and sacking the plotters of an attack on Americans, along with staged terrorist attacks on American soil, hijacking planes and substituting drones painted up to look like commercial jets, was more "progressive" bullshit, TJ?

------------------------------------------

 

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[18]

 

# Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba. Concurrently, genuine defections of Cuban civil and military air and surface craft should be encouraged.

 

 

# It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

 

a. An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

 

 

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will begin transmitting on the international distress frequency a "MAY DAY" message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio[16] stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to "sell" the incident.

 

# It is possible to create an incident which will make it appear that Communist Cuban MIGs have destroyed a USAF aircraft over international waters in an unprovoked attack.

 

a. Approximately 4 or 5 F-101 aircraft will be dispatched in trail from Homestead AFB, Florida, to the vicinity of Cuba. Their mission will be to reverse course and simulate fakir aircraft for an air defense exercise in southern Florida. These aircraft would conduct variations of these flights at frequent Intervals. Crews would be briefed to remain at least 12 miles off the Cuban coast; however, they would be required to carry live ammunition in the event that hostile actions were taken by the Cuban MIGs.

 

 

b. On one such flight, a pre-briefed pilot would fly tail-end Charley at considerable interval between aircraft. While near the Cuban Island this pilot would broadcast that he had been jumped by MIGs and was going down. No other calls would be made. The pilot would then fly directly west at extremely low altitude and land at a secure base, an Eglin auxiliary. The aircraft would be met by the proper people, quickly stored and given a new tail number. The pilot who had performed the mission under an alias, would resume his proper identity and return to his normal place of business. The pilot and aircraft would then have disappeared.

 

 

c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down, a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts, parachute, etc., at approximately 15 to 20 miles off the Cuban coast and depart. The pilots returning to Homestead would have a true story as far as they knew. Search ships and aircraft could be dispatched and parts of aircraft found.

 

-------------------------------------------------

 

Sound familiar?

[timesjoke]

 

 

So I guess JFK saying no to operation Northwoods and sacking the plotters of an attack on Americans, along with staged terrorist attacks on American soil, hijacking planes and substituting drones painted up to look like commercial jets, was more "progressive" bullshit, TJ?

 

 

You really are brainwashed, I was wondering for awile but you have completely lost all connection to reality. I had not really understood your brand of lunacy until recently when a friend of mine gave me a book explaining anti-colonialism, and this is another root motivation for Obama as well.

 

 

To you, any lie is justified as long as it fills your need to attack the systems you hate.

 

 

 

For the few on the forum interested in knowing what Builder is talking about, the joint chiefs were instrusted to provide a list of available options for dealing with Cuba. This concept was indeed included among a huge number of other ideas all brainstorming from different angles. It was never fully developed and never completely accepted as an alternative by anyone in power.

 

 

 

 

BUT.

 

 

 

Even if it was, we are still stuck on the same problem, a problem Builder refuses to address because he knows it proves an inside job to be impossible for 9/11.

 

 

 

The "regular Joe" who must be in on the conspiracy for it to work. It is one thing for a President, or even a General to offer theories or ideas to try and conduct some kind of "false-flag" operation, but these Generals and leaders are not going to be the one doing the deeds, these operations must be performed by "little guys" and other civilian groups like first responders (fire fighters, cops, etc.) must also be pulled into the conspiracy.

 

None of these "regular Joes" would have any reason to keep that blood on their hands. They would have nothing to gain, no reason to lie, so no reasonable excuse not to tell.

 

How can someone pull that off when Clinton could not even get a hummer in the Whitehouse without the entire world finding out?

[timesjoke]

Back on the subject of the intent of those who are building this ground zero Mosque:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib9rofXQl6w

 

Interesting to be sure.....

[snafu]

So I guess JFK saying no to operation Northwoods and sacking the plotters of an attack on Americans, along with staged terrorist attacks on American soil, hijacking planes and substituting drones painted up to look like commercial jets, was more "progressive" bullshit, TJ?

 

 

You really are brainwashed, I was wondering for awile but you have completely lost all connection to reality. I had not really understood your brand of lunacy until recently when a friend of mine gave me a book explaining anti-colonialism, and this is another root motivation for Obama as well.

 

 

To you, any lie is justified as long as it fills your need to attack the systems you hate.

 

 

 

For the few on the forum interested in knowing what Builder is talking about, the joint chiefs were instrusted to provide a list of available options for dealing with Cuba. This concept was indeed included among a huge number of other ideas all brainstorming from different angles. It was never fully developed and never completely accepted as an alternative by anyone in power.

 

 

 

 

BUT.

 

 

 

Even if it was, we are still stuck on the same problem, a problem Builder refuses to address because he knows it proves an inside job to be impossible for 9/11.

 

 

 

The "regular Joe" who must be in on the conspiracy for it to work. It is one thing for a President, or even a General to offer theories or ideas to try and conduct some kind of "false-flag" operation, but these Generals and leaders are not going to be the one doing the deeds, these operations must be performed by "little guys" and other civilian groups like first responders (fire fighters, cops, etc.) must also be pulled into the conspiracy.

 

None of these "regular Joes" would have any reason to keep that blood on their hands. They would have nothing to gain, no reason to lie, so no reasonable excuse not to tell.

 

How can someone pull that off when Clinton could not even get a hummer in the Whitehouse without the entire world finding out?

 

 

Well thats the whole thing. There are so many people involved a conspiracy would be ludicrus.