|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:45 am Post subject: Re: ... |
 |
|
| Nowhere Man wrote: |
| Quote: |
| what did the US have it for? Chemical weapons? |
Insecticide.
Why US have fertilizer McVeigh?
You no read Discovery Channel?
OK. Post again, but must go find. |
what did the US have it for?
Did Saddam get his most powerful stuff from the US yes or no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
(PRWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.
911Truth.org Urges 2006 Reform Candidates to Recognize a Powerful New Constituency
ChicagoMiniBanner.jpg
The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.
I guess half of American adults are nutjobs and moonbats as you'd call them. Everything is ok. Don't worry be happy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4
And stop saying "prove it" you utter jackass. Either read the articles I link or shut up about it.
You have such a wonderful personality. Everyone is crazy but me you say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Guri Guy"](PRWEB)
| Quote: |
| - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated. |
and that means what
Bush covering up incompetence sure, nothing more than that
| Quote: |
911Truth.org Urges 2006 Reform Candidates to Recognize a Powerful New Constituency |
moonbats. see if they get elected.
| Quote: |
| ChicagoMiniBanner.jpg |
blah blah
| Quote: |
| The poll is the first scientific survey of Americans' belief in a 9/11 cover up or the need to investigate possible US government complicity, and was commissioned to inform deliberations at the June 2~4 "9/11: Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" conference in Chicago. Poll results indicate 42% believe there has indeed been a cover up (with 10% unsure) and 45% think "Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success" (with 8% unsure). The poll of American residents was conducted from Friday, May 12 through Tuesday, May 16, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/- 2.9. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International. |
Ok
| Quote: |
| I guess half of American adults are nutjobs and moonbats as you'd call them. Everything is ok. Don't worry be happy. |
and they elected Bush. Was there some incompetence sure nothing more.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4
| Quote: |
| And stop saying "prove it" you utter jackass. Either read the articles I link or shut up about it. |
I read the articles you link and they don't prove anything.
You can't show anything , you can't prove anything ,.
All you can do is come up with misleading statements and information.
| Quote: |
| You have such a wonderful personality. Everyone is crazy but me you say.[ |
That is in fact what you say.
Bush was elected in 2004 .
I am sure that they think there was a conspiracy about the Kennedy assassination too.
So what?
If you have something then show it. Cause all we see from you is misleading statements
You said that the US was a big supporter of Bin Laden
| Quote: |
| While the charges that the CIA was responsible for the rise of the Afghan Arabs might make good copy, they don't make good history. The truth is more complicated, tinged with varying shades of gray. The United States wanted to be able to deny that the CIA was funding the Afghan war, so its support was funneled through Pakistan's Inter Services Intelligence agency (ISI). ISI in turn made the decisions about which Afghan factions to arm and train, tending to favor the most Islamist and pro-Pakistan. The Afghan Arabs generally fought alongside those factions, which is how the charge arose that they were creatures of the CIA. Former CIA official Milt Bearden, who ran the Agency's Afghan operation in the late 1980s, says, "The CIA did not recruit Arabs," as there was no need to do so. There were hundreds of thousands of Afghans all too willing to fight, and the Arabs who did come for jihad were "very disruptive . . . the Afghans thought they were a pain in the ass." Similar sentiments from Afghans who appreciated the money that flowed from the Gulf but did not appreciate the Arabs' holier-than-thou attempts to convert them to their ultra-purist version of Islam. ... There was simply no point in the CIA and the Afghan Arabs being in contact with each other. ... the Afghan Arabs functioned independently and had their own sources of funding. The CIA did not need the Afghan Arabs, and the Afghan Arabs did not need the CIA. So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading. The 'let's blame everything bad that happens on the CIA' school of thought vastly overestimates the Agency's powers, both for good and ill." [Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (New York: The Free Press, 2001), pp. 64-66.] |
Probably not true
GG
| Quote: |
FTW - Money connections between Bush Republicans and Osama bin Laden go way back and the political and economic connections have remained unbroken for 20 years. And what appears to be a "new" alliance with Pakistan is merely a new manifestation of a decades-long partnership in the heroin trade.
Conveniently ignored in all of the press coverage since the tragic events of Sept. 11 is the fact that on May 17 Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a gift of $43 million to the Taliban as a purported reward for its eradication of Afghanistan's opium crop this February. That, in effect, made the U.S. the Taliban's largest financial benefactor according to syndicated columnist Robert Scheer writing in The Los Angeles times on May 22. But -- as we described in FTW's March 2001 issue -- the Taliban's destruction of that crop was apparently the single most important act of economic warfare against U.S. economic interests that the Taliban had ever committed. So why the gift? |
Probably not true
GG
| Quote: |
| Space prevents a complete dissection of all Ruppert's dots. But in several instances, he misrepresents his source material. Item number 8 says that in February 2001, UPI reported that the National Security Agency had "broken bin Laden's encrypted communications." That would suggest the US government could have picked up word of the coming assault. But the actual story noted not that the US government had gained the capacity to eavesdrop on bin Laden at will but that it had "gone into foreign bank accounts [of bin Laden's organization] and deleted or transferred funds, and jammed or blocked the group's cell or satellite phones." Item number 9, based on a Los Angeles Times story, says the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in May 2001, "purportedly" to assist farmers starving since the destruction of their opium crop. Purportedly? Was the administration paying off the Taliban for something else? That is what Ruppert is hinting. The newspaper, though, reported that all US funds "are channeled through the United Nations and international agencies," not handed to the Taliban. Unless Ruppert can show that was not the case, this dot has no particular significance. What if Washington funded international programs assisting Afghan farmers? With his timeline, Ruppert implies far more than he proves. It is a document for those already predisposed to believe that world events are determined by secret, mind-boggling conspiracies of the powerful, by people too influential and wily to be caught but who leave a trail that can be decoded by a few brave outsiders who know where and how to look. |
| Quote: |
| Critics of the Gulf War well recall how, just prior to Sadam's invasion of Kuwait, President Bush (Sr.) dispatched Ambassador April Glaspie to visit Sadam with a letter and a "wink and a nod" telling the Iraqi leader that it was OK to invade his smaller neighbor. The May gift from Uncle Sam could well have been sending the same kind of message, along with necessary funds to complete the attacks. Drugs and terrorism go hand in hand |
probably not true
| Quote: |
Proponents of deterrence also argue that since nobody has ever actually tried to deter Saddam Hussein from attacking another country, how can we claim that doing so will be difficult in the future? The example most often cited is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, where the common wisdom holds that because of the botched messages he received from the American ambassador, April Glaspie, Iraq had no reason to believe we would fight.
In fact, all the evidence indicates the opposite: Saddam Hussein believed it was highly likely that the United States would try to liberate Kuwait, but convinced himself that we would send only lightly armed, rapidly deployable forces that would be quickly destroyed by his 120,000-man Republican Guard. After this, he assumed, Washington would acquiesce to his conquest.
Much of the evidence for this remains classified, but at least two points can be made using public material: Tariq Aziz has told reporters that this was what Saddam Hussein thought at the time; and we know that when the Republican Guards invaded Kuwait they moved quickly -- even before they had consolidated control over the country -- to set up defenses along Kuwait's borders and against amphibious and airborne landings.
In other words, Saddam Hussein thinks we tried to deter him, and that we failed. He was ready and willing to fight the United States for Kuwait. |
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:02 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What is a moonbat? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| you know one when you see it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wikipedia is awesome.
| Quote: |
| According to de Havilland, a moonbat is "someone on the extreme edge of whatever their -ism happens to be". Adriana Cronin defines the term as "someone who sacrifices sanity for the sake of consistency". This term has long been used to describe protesters on the political Left, but was originally coined to also describe commentators on the political Right as well as certain libertarians. |
It is an ad homonym. I'll add it to my lexicon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok. Bush is nearly godlike and a just and righteous man. Anyone that opposes the USA is evil and must be destroyed. The USA has never supplied brutal thugs and dictators with arms, chemicals and truckloads of money.
The war in Iraq is the most holy war in history. There was no ulterior motive whatsoever.
Half of America is insane. Hell 90% of the world is I guess.
There has never been any funny business. We are all making this up because we are jealous of the USA and their saintly ways. I finally see the light.
You deliver precise arguments with calm, measured tones. I have been schooled by the master. You win Joo. Am I brainwashed enough or do I need to go for more therapy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PS I voted for Gore in 2000 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo, who is that dude in your avatar? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guri Guy
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Location: Bamboo Island
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The avatar in question is from Lord of the Rings. Like the USA, Joo has strange bedfellows I guess. Not like the Lord of the Nazgul has any negative conotations does he? He wasn't evil, he was just misunderstood.
I do love Lord of the Rings though. A brilliant set of books written about a clear cut case of good versus evil. Not like in todays world. *Sigh* 
PS The Lord of the Nazgul never used or sold Anthrax to anyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Guri Guy wrote: |
The avatar in question is from Lord of the Rings. Like the USA, Joo has strange bedfellows I guess. Not like the Lord of the Nazgul has any negative conotations does he? He wasn't evil, he was just misunderstood.
I do love Lord of the Rings though. A brilliant set of books written about a clear cut case of good versus evil. Not like in todays world. *Sigh*
PS The Lord of the Nazgul never used or sold Anthrax to anyone. |
You have a problem confusing reality and fiction. You really ought to get some help. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GG
| Quote: |
| Ok. Bush is nearly godlike and a just and righteous man. |
Where did I say that?
GG
| Quote: |
Anyone that opposes the USA is evil and must be destroyed. |
See Below. coincidence?
| Quote: |
| Behind Algeria, on a score of 110.55, come North Korea, Burma, Indonesia, Libya, Colombia, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia and China. Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and Nigeria follow closely. The United Kingdom comes 141st; a good score on a global basis but not so admirable when compared with other rich, industrialised countries - we are seventh out of 23. |
| Quote: |
| A country with a wretched record of human rights abuse could score a maximum total of 190. Saddam Hussein's Iraq proves the winner of the unmodified list - which measures human rights abuses outside of their economic context - with an unadjusted score of 155. |
http://www.algeria-watch.org/mrv/mrvrap/observe4.htm
GG
| Quote: |
| The USA has never supplied brutal thugs and dictators with arms, chemicals and truckloads of money. |
Most of the time when the US supported a dictator he was fighting against groups just as oppressive and undemocratic.
There is nothing wrong with supporting a dictator who is on your side IF the opposition is just as bad , is your enemy and there is no liberal democratic alternative.
Better the Shah then Khomeni.
Oh yeah the US was right to fight the cold war.
GG
| Quote: |
| The war in Iraq is the most holy war in history. There was no ulterior motive whatsoever. |
There were some uterior motives but the real reason for the war was to get force Saudi Arabia to go after Al Qaeda. Iraq is the most strategic country in the mideast.
GG
| Quote: |
| Half of America is insane. |
They voted for Bush
GG
| Quote: |
| Hell 90% of the world is I guess. |
they don't like superpowers.
They since the USSR is gone they don't need the US anymore and they want it cut down to size.
GG
| Quote: |
| There has never been any funny business. We are all making this up because we are jealous of the USA and their saintly ways. I finally see the light. |
Yes that is about right
GG
| Quote: |
| You deliver precise arguments with calm, measured tones. I have been schooled by the master. You win Joo. Am I brainwashed enough or do I need to go for more therapy? |
and you were schooled.
Yes you do need therapy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have a look
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/
Who Is The American Free Press?
| Quote: |
Loose Change mentions "The American Free Press" on at least 4 occasions. I found this rather interesting because I had never heard of them before. This is more than they mention the New York Times, which is amazing, because in addition to it being one of the country's most widely read newspapers, most of the events took place in New York. So how did this obscure little newspaper become such a major source for this film? What is it?
Well just go to their website:
Find out why maverick, independent grass-roots media voices such as American Free Press have declared all-out war on the elite-controlled Big Media Monopoly in America and around the globe . . .
OK, I have no problem with being an independent source of information, blogs do that to a certain extent. But what type of information are they reporting? Here are some of the articles:
Prospects Sour for White Males in United States
CIA Death Squad Continues to Pile Up More Bodies
Milosevic Trial in The Hague Embarrasses West
Educators Advocate Homosexuality, Pedophilia
Zionist Circles Benefit From WTC Collapse
Or how about some of the ads they display prominently on their home page?
The High Priests of War: The The Secret History of How America's Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global EmpireZionism and Christianity - An unholy alliance
1-800-BEAT IRS - we have the tax information that you need!
White Christian Heritage. Souvenirs, Books & Stuff. Christian Identity, Southern, T-shirts, Flags. Visit us at: www.whiteheritagestore.com
The people of earth before Adam. The Jews are not the Israelites of the Bible, who the Israelites are today, when people's skin were changed, explains what causes around 400 kinds of cancer in US and our livestock, explains why Canaan was cursed. $3.50 to
I didn't link to the ads, because I in no way wish to support these types of people. So we essentially have here a group of paranoid, anti-Semitic, white supremacist conspiracy theorists, and this is one of the major sources for Loose Change. That says a lot.
Thanks to reader Truth, whose research contributed to this post. |
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/who-is-american-free-press.html
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
Conspiracy theorist say World Trade Center 7 is the best proof for controlled demolition because it wasn't hit by Airliners and only had a few fires. It also had a confession from the building owner who said he "Pulled" it. But this is deceptive because while building 7 wasn't hit by an airliner it was hit by the large perimeter columns of the Tower collapse. It was 400 ft away but the towers were more than 1300 ft tall. As the tower peeled open it easily tilted over to reach building 7. Below is evidence conspiracy theorist are wrong.
As you can see from the graphic below, all the buildings just as far away from both towers were hit. The others were either very short buildings which didn't have to support a massive load above or had no fire. Only Building 7 had unfought fires and the massive load of 40 stories above the them.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes I know about that.
My link, did you check it out?
Comments, opinions? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
