It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It's been all over TV

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
The sensitivity in this matter we speak of has to do with George W. Bush being unaccountable to the law and those who still (for whatever reason support him) getting mad at those who try and point that out.


Not at all.

How about get the proof, documentation, etc together and have a court case actually started? Have a trial and THEN get a decision. If that is a guilty verdict then I am all for it.

Judging the matter from my chair far, far away based off speculation and heresay is very closed minded and I tend not to pre-judge people in that way. That is what the media wants and rather than play into that...I prefer not to.

It's just as upsetting when someone comes out upset based on assumtions and bias, especially when they use terms like BushCo. and "nazi" before anything is actually proven the way the American system is SUPPOSED to be.




posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:11 PM
link   
hoo hoo!

bush is bad!
illegal is still illegal if someone else did it first. do we charge no one with murder because of CAIN?

ECK, i think you're right. those big red warning's really surprised me.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Not at all.

How about get the proof, documentation, etc together and have a court case actually started? Have a trial and THEN get a decision. If that is a guilty verdict then I am all for it.

Judging the matter from my chair far, far away based off speculation and heresay is very closed minded and I tend not to pre-judge people in that way. That is what the media wants and rather than play into that...I prefer not to.

It's just as upsetting when someone comes out upset based on assumtions and bias, especially when they use terms like BushCo. and "nazi" before anything is actually proven the way the American system is SUPPOSED to be.


why does this NOT apply to 'the terrorists'? how long was 'alleged terrorist, osama bin laden' before becoming '911 terrorist mastermind, osama bin laden'?

the whole point of terrorism is to make a big media splash, so that people will be forced into noticing your political stance.

yet, osama denied having any involvement.

the famous video of osama, is not osama. this is clear to anyone who looks at the video, and compares it to known images of osama.

osama was a cia guy. 'tim osman' was his fake name while he was given guided tours of military bases in america, pre-911.
while no other planes were allowed in the air on 911, not even LAW ENFORCEMENT or MILITARY, the bin laden family was given the red carpet treatment out of the country.

there is plenty of evidence, i think.

unocal hosted the taliban in texas for business talk while bush and co. declared loudly, 'you are either with us, or against us', and, 'we don't do business with terrorists'.

bush junior got rich out of business dealings with the bin ladens.

talk about cognitive dissonance.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
ECK, i think you're right. those big red warning's really surprised me.


Suprised me too. I mean really, we have a rule to not use profanity and/or purposefully bypass the censures and there was ECK, a former ATS Councilor just breaking the rule for the heck of it.

And now crying "poor me" after getting warned too. Next she might say she was actually told by bad intel that there was no rule about swearing.



Originally posted by billybob
why does this NOT apply to 'the terrorists'? how long was 'alleged terrorist, osama bin laden' before becoming '911 terrorist mastermind, osama bin laden'?


I assume you mean innocent until guilty? Well, probably when the matter was declared a "war" and the "enemy" in a war has less rights. It still doesn't change my view on how AMERICANS should not be prejudged by the public/media and how "innocent until PROVEN guilty" does apply to everyone...including the President.


the whole point of terrorism is to make a big media splash, so that people will be forced into noticing your political stance.

yet, osama denied having any involvement.


Why did Osama deny it? Well, I imagine just like in prison where most people are innocent, so is Osama.


the famous video of osama, is not osama. this is clear to anyone who looks at the video, and compares it to known images of osama.


Is it that clear? really? I have seen expert testamony that states they still are not sure. But yet it should just "be clear" to anyone who views it? I don't think so.


osama was a cia guy. 'tim osman' was his fake name while he was given guided tours of military bases in america, pre-911.
while no other planes were allowed in the air on 911, not even LAW ENFORCEMENT or MILITARY, the bin laden family was given the red carpet treatment out of the country.


Yay! Apples and oranges lumped together in the bowl. Mix in some heresay and speculation and viola! You have Nazi Cake.



there is plenty of evidence, i think.


Where? Just one piece of "evidence" is all it should take to start a case. Why is there nothing, nada, ziltch, zero? Maybe name just one...

And the rest of your stuff, more heresay and speculation DESIGNED with words like Bush Co. etc to convince people he is guilty.

No trial. No proof. Full of bias, speculation and anger. I'm not saying he HASN'T done wrong at all. What I am saying is to refuse him basic rights all Americans have and then to cry about yours being trampled (Patriot Act, NSA taps, etc) is hypocritical.

I don't see why that basic concept is so hard for someone to understand, especially when they are supposed to be so careful NOT to lose their rights granted by the Constitution. Bush? Oh he is a Nazi, war criminal and needs to be hung. Evidence? Trial? No, you should just KNOW he is guilty. Look at his face. Look how he can't speak very well. He MUST be guilty. Just open your eyes!

What? Take my rights away? HOW DARE YOU!


What a joke.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

I assume you mean innocent until guilty? Well, probably when the matter was declared a "war" and the "enemy" in a war has less rights. It still doesn't change my view on how AMERICANS should not be prejudged by the public/media and how "innocent until PROVEN guilty" does apply to everyone...including the President.


i'm not going to do the whole point by point grand ballet with you.

going to war OUGHT to require even MORE 'proof', than convicting a small time hood.

and 'war' is a country against a country. what was declared, was a 'war' on a noun, and the ensuing actions had little to do with finding a criminal and holding him accountable for a crime. what ensued was a massacre of innocents, for the most part.

19 lousy (alleged) criminals, and the 'justice' that is meted out is tens of thousands of dead innocents. and still no USAma.

the cover-up is obvious. everything is obvious. including you. your a good word smith, i'll give you that, wizard. underplay the crimes of the criminals as much as you like, the truth is written in time and space.

you managed to twist a whole slew of flashing lights and loud noises into your post, without actually saying much. are you a politician in real life?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
and 'war' is a country against a country. what was declared, was a 'war' on a noun, and the ensuing actions had little to do with finding a criminal and holding him accountable for a crime. what ensued was a massacre of innocents, for the most part.


Oh, ok...I get it. You want to blur the line between the "War on Terror" and the War in Iraq. Even though they are separate "wars" it seems many people still wish to lump the two together into a single action. I suppose that can be your opinion just as I have mine, but I certainly don't confuse the two as happening together or for the same reason.


19 lousy (alleged) criminals, and the 'justice' that is meted out is tens of thousands of dead innocents. and still no USAma.


In the first quote you say "what ensued was a massacre of innocents" which is a complete slap in the face to everyone in the military serving this country. Nice. I suppose you might as well call them "baby-killers" too. Then again in the second quote you say "tens of thousands of dead innocents" again like the military is a roving gang of cutthroats.

Personally, I was not there and I say again...I won't play the "speculation game" but I still would not dishonor the people serving or that have served. I will not say you are a "terrorist" or anything of that nature for your comments (especially since your not in the USA) but I just don't share the notion that the military committed a massacre of a bunch of innocents and I'm sure many others won't buy into that either.


the cover-up is obvious. everything is obvious. including you. your a good word smith, i'll give you that, wizard. underplay the crimes of the criminals as much as you like, the truth is written in time and space.


Ok, see this is where I like diplomacy. I could agree that I might underplay things (of course my wording is I would like to see actual proof in court) but by that same token, couldn't you or others agree that you overplay some things?

Statements like "the cover-up is obvious" or "everything is obvious" are just canned answers of "I just know it's true." Well, who's "truth" are you buying into? The media? Comments from people around you? Were you there watching the "crimes" being committed? When someone is on the news accused of crimes, are you able to also just "know" they are guilty as well?

I am not so clairvoyant so I must rely on burden of proof, laws, and trials. Usually I also wait for the trial to be over before I pass judgement on someone. I don't always agree with the outcome...but those are the principals of the Constitution on which this country was founded. Innocent before proven guilty.


you managed to twist a whole slew of flashing lights and loud noises into your post, without actually saying much. are you a politician in real life?


So I twisted what exactly? I stated that I believe an accused criminal should have a trial and have any "proof" or "evidence" shown in a court of law BEFORE they are convicted. Your statements clearly show that you have convicted BEFORE there is an actual trial or any "proof" is shown.

In the 4 or so posts I have made on this thread, I don't think that point is so hard to miss and I have been consistant in stating that each time.

I'm not too sure of your point however other than the military are baby-killers and BushCo. is just evil because it's "obvious" and everyone who doesn't agree with that is obviously blind. All wrapped up in a blanket complete with vast speculation. I'm glad there are people that can just sniff out guilt in this world so easily. Reminds me of those people who could just sniff out an evil witch the same way. Of course a confession always followed to prove it, but hey...what's a little torture matter when it gets you what you want to hear right? Nothing like knowing the answer and then looking at the proof you want to make the answer right.


You are upset that a "war" was started by what you believe was manufactured truth, yet you will turn and believe your own manufactured truth in a second and still think you are morally superior to others? That doesn't strike you as a problem?



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:25 PM
link   
i don't think it is i who has blurred the lines. it is a hopelessly enthralled media that is PURPOSELY confusing everybody. bush himself related saddam and 911 openly in the press. another un-just 'war' for dubious political/personal reasons. there was outright lying by the administration to justify their INVASION of iraq.
the INVASION of afghanistan had no intention or hope of 'defeating terrorism'.

even now, you are trying to blur the lines between a real war vs. a criminal investigation and action(thousands died in afghanistan, too), and the meaning of 'innocents'. you see, if the military is involved in a police action sanctioned by the state, and they die, then they are innocent as long as they believe what they were doing was just.

i believe military men are heavily programmed, to just follow orders. (quite the stretch, eh?)

like many americans, post-911, the people in the military trust the brains of the country to come up with the right answers. like, REEEEALY trust, you know. they trust the american system, and the american way of life. dupes.

well, they used to, anyway.

facts and proof? i've seen it(tower seven's spectacular symmetrical, freefall collapse and media hush hush about it is enough 'proof', although, just the tip of the iceberg). i'm here to discuss potential solutions to the world's cognitive dissonance, and i believe what i believe for good reason. when a cop arrests someone, they don't need 'proof' if they actually witness the crime. sometimes they build a case, and collect evidence before the arrest. sometimes, there is so much evidence, that the truth is undeniable(i'm thinking jeffrey dawmer, or O.J. simpson, here). sometimes, they get emotional, and make an arrest too soon, and then the criminals get away because of 'technicalities'.
they know that they need SOME evidence in court, but the word of a police officer is generally more respected than the word of a societal rebel.
anyway, this massive crime against humanity(911 and the war on terror) has been unfolding for four years. it does not just affect america. canada has been turning into a police state, as well, and the push is on to tighten the noose.

if there was a decent justice system, somewhere out there, the citizens of the world would be protected from this totalitarian nightmare. unfortunately, the ministry of justice, is actually the ministry of oppression, and the ministry of truth is the ministry of lies.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I didnt want to jump into your guy's great debate, but I figured I need to voice a bit of an opinion.
Our Gov't is crooked, most of 'em are. Power currupts. I am sure that every president since the techonology has existed has spied illegally. I dont think its a question of legality. It is illegal. Thats a pointless debate.
Is it right?; This is the worthwhile fight.
While our leadership has always secretly broken its own rules, Bush has done it right out in the open. He didnt do it behind our backs to make the country safe. He came right out and said "I did it, and I will continue to do it." Its this blatent, outspoken disregard for our laws by leadership that needs to be addressed. I think most of us Americans understand that Uncle Sam is not honest with us all the time, but we hold hope that it is for our own good. We obey like good sheep.
This time I think they are rubbing it in our faces.
Nah nah nah, you cant stop us!



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
facts and proof? i've seen it(tower seven's spectacular symmetrical, freefall collapse and media hush hush about it is enough 'proof', although, just the tip of the iceberg). i'm here to discuss potential solutions to the world's cognitive dissonance, and i believe what i believe for good reason.

*snip*

if there was a decent justice system, somewhere out there, the citizens of the world would be protected from this totalitarian nightmare. unfortunately, the ministry of justice, is actually the ministry of oppression, and the ministry of truth is the ministry of lies.


So like I stated...you just seem to KNOW guilt when you hear it via media, word of mouth, etc, etc and seem to have no problem with that, despite the fact that you are claiming the Bush Administration did the same thing regarding Iraq or the War on Terror.

Seems like a "do as I say not as I do" approach to me. In general terms...hypocritical.

I could certainly agree I might "underplay" some issues, but I see there is no agreement that you might "overplay" some yourself. It seems that you are right because you just "know" and that is the end of it.


One day I suppose someone might just "know" you are guilty too, regardless of actual proof. I wonder how you will feel then?

Now this was funny:


when a cop arrests someone, they don't need 'proof' if they actually witness the crime. sometimes they build a case, and collect evidence before the arrest. sometimes, there is so much evidence, that the truth is undeniable(i'm thinking jeffrey dawmer, or O.J. simpson, here). sometimes, they get emotional, and make an arrest too soon, and then the criminals get away because of 'technicalities'.


You seem to be supportive of the emotional cop who just senses guilt with his spidey-sense and has to collect evidence to support what he knows, but yet can't see that perhaps the Bush Administration is guilty of the same thing.


You certainly don't seem to consider that the potential outcome of abuse by what you describe as police who can just "feel" someone is guilty. So, once again...you disagree with certain actions (by some), but yet support them at the same time when they're used by people you just "know" are ok.

And supposedly I was the one who twisted "a whole slew of flashing lights and loud noises into [my] post, without actually saying much?" You didn't twist it, but went in a complete circle and still you just "know" who is a criminal based on....well, hunches and heresay it seems. Amazing.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
While our leadership has always secretly broken its own rules, Bush has done it right out in the open. He didnt do it behind our backs to make the country safe. He came right out and said "I did it, and I will continue to do it." Its this blatent, outspoken disregard for our laws by leadership that needs to be addressed.


Maybe you should thank him for making public what the NSA has been doing ACTIVELY since the 70's.

DO I KNOW they have? Yes. I personally know someone involved.

The NSA has been actively involved in listening to calls from FN numbers (foreign nationals) in the USA to numbers outside the USA and vice versa. It's been secret all this time until Bush admitted that he too is currently making use of this NSA program.

He didn't start it. He just used it, so maybe we should blame past presidents and or other government officials.

Or maybe we just realize that it's no different than everyone getting screened at the airport. It must be done and if you have nothing to hide, there is no worry.



posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander

Originally posted by billybob
facts and proof? i've seen it(tower seven's spectacular symmetrical, freefall collapse and media hush hush about it is enough 'proof', although, just the tip of the iceberg).


So like I stated...you just seem to KNOW guilt when you hear it via media, word of mouth, etc, etc and seem to have no problem with that, despite the fact that you are claiming the Bush Administration did the same thing regarding Iraq or the War on Terror.


okay, so let me get this straight....
word of mouth, ....out.
media, ....out.
knowing through research, ...out.

buying big brother's hook, line, and sinker ....in. (delivered through, word of mouth, media, and knowing through research)

a real catch-22, that.



Seems like a "do as I say not as I do" approach to me. In general terms...hypocritical.

I could certainly agree I might "underplay" some issues, but I see there is no agreement that you might "overplay" some yourself. It seems that you are right because you just "know" and that is the end of it.


One day I suppose someone might just "know" you are guilty too, regardless of actual proof. I wonder how you will feel then?


i will feel like i'm not very fond of globalist totalitarians and their literally TORTUOUS 'accomodations'. much like many greviously injured, or dead, innocent 'terrorism suspects' are feeling not very fond of all that. (or not feeling, in the case of disembodiment)


Now this was funny:


thanks





when a cop arrests someone, they don't need 'proof' if they actually witness the crime. sometimes they build a case, and collect evidence before the arrest. sometimes, there is so much evidence, that the truth is undeniable(i'm thinking jeffrey dawmer, or O.J. simpson, here). sometimes, they get emotional, and make an arrest too soon, and then the criminals get away because of 'technicalities'.


You seem to be supportive of the emotional cop who just senses guilt with his spidey-sense and has to collect evidence to support what he knows, but yet can't see that perhaps the Bush Administration is guilty of the same thing.


what's funny about that? i stated three types of cop response. i never 'supported' one over the other(although, i say, wait until you have enough evidence, and then arrest/prosecute, since your looking for a stance) you're saying it's okay for the bush admin, but no one else? you support that? i'm saying they are GUILTY. where is the disconnect?


You certainly don't seem to consider that the potential outcome of abuse by what you describe as police who can just "feel" someone is guilty. So, once again...you disagree with certain actions (by some), but yet support them at the same time when they're used by people you just "know" are ok.


i don't believe i've voiced any sort of support for anything, except a forum for actual truth(ie. a non-totalitarian society).
nor have i said that i just 'feel' someone is guilty. i have done homework, and i know what's going on enough to be worried about certain patterns. it would take a whole forum's worth of text to undeniably 'prove' it.
however, once again, WTC7 is undeniable proof that the media and government are involved in a cover-up of, ....something. you take physics in school? i did. i got 95% in college, because i was careless on the exam. a stupid mistake.
much like a president admitting he wants to be a dictator. (bush)
or saying the terrorists used, 'planes and missiles' to attack the country, when clearly, the official story is 'just planes'. (rumsfeld)
or saying they made a decision to 'pull it'. (silverstien)
or holding a kindergarten book upside down. (bush)
or twice saying you saw something on t.v.(the first tower strike), that had never been on t.v. . (bush
we are just here(on this thread) to discuss the penchant some people and agencies have for using 'extreme prejudice' to protect the accused(the nazi-spawned bushco., lol).


And supposedly I was the one who twisted "a whole slew of flashing lights and loud noises into [my] post, without actually saying much?" You didn't twist it, but went in a complete circle and still you just "know" who is a criminal based on....well, hunches and heresay it seems. Amazing.


agreed. amazing. good twistin', once again, oh wizard of words.

at least you used the word 'seems' in the correct manner. this 'proves' that you don't really know what i think, and indeed are more interested in pidgeonholing me into one or more of the discredited, debunked, hare-brained conspiracy theorist categories to discredit me.



[edit on 4-1-2006 by billybob]



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
buying big brother's hook, line, and sinker ....in. (delivered through, word of mouth, media, and knowing through research)

a real catch-22, that.


Nope. Try again. I have stated over and over that I'm not saying they DIDN'T to anything wrong (hello? is this thing on?). I said that just like all other Americans...they should get a trial with EVIDENCE and then be pronounce guilty. Prejudging someone and then being upset when you are prejudged in return (ie. Patriot Act, profiling, NSA listening) is hypocritical.

You seem to dance over that issue. I've only posted it here in this thread 4-5 times now. Guess you have no answer and you know you are being hypocrite.


i will feel like i'm not very fond of globalist totalitarians and their literally TORTUOUS 'accomodations'. much like many greviously injured, or dead, innocent 'terrorism suspects' are feeling not very fond of all that. (or not feeling, in the case of disembodiment)


Ummmm, okaaaay.


what's funny about that? i stated three types of cop response. i never 'supported' one over the other(although, i say, wait until you have enough evidence, and then arrest/prosecute, since your looking for a stance) you're saying it's okay for the bush admin, but no one else? you support that? i'm saying they are GUILTY. where is the disconnect?


There's that circle logic again. You say wait for evidence, but in Bush's case you just know they're guilty already. So when it doesn't involve Bush, by all means...the person has rights (innocent until PROVEN...) but for Bush (Guilty until proven...)

Maybe being outside the USA you don't get this concept, but it IS an important one. You can't just break the rules because you just believe someone is guilty and then be upset when others break the rules on you.


nor have i said that i just 'feel' someone is guilty. i have done homework, and i know what's going on enough to be worried about certain patterns. it would take a whole forum's worth of text to undeniably 'prove' it.
however, once again, WTC7 is undeniable proof that the media and government are involved in a cover-up of, ....something. you take physics in school? i did. i got 95% in college, because i was careless on the exam. a stupid mistake.


Fine. Then prove it. Prove any of it. I would bet money you can't.

If something could be proven...then it would be in court (or on the way). You really think someone would sit on proof that would impeach the President? No way. If there were proof, I say get it to court...so do your part and write it up and we can get him out. Podcast it if you need to save time.



much like a president admitting he wants to be a dictator. (bush)


What I heard was a joke, as in it would be a lot easier to get stuff done. A poor joke I grant you but I've heard many people tell bad jokes.


or saying the terrorists used, 'planes and missiles' to attack the country, when clearly, the official story is 'just planes'. (rumsfeld)


Maybe planes AS missiles? That's what I remember hearing, but so what? Proves nothing.


or saying they made a decision to 'pull it'. (silverstien)


Hmmm, pull the fire crews out because it was lost? Maybe a fireman saw a power switch and the Chief said "pull it." If you were not there, then you don't know.


or holding a kindergarten book upside down. (bush)


Because he was not paying attention and watching the kids as the teacher read the story?


or twice saying you saw something on t.v.(the first tower strike), that had never been on t.v. . (bush)


On a day of chaos who cares if he said he saw fluffy pink bunnies. He's human and humans DO make mistakes.


we are just here(on this thread) to discuss the penchant some people and agencies have for using 'extreme prejudice' to protect the accused(the nazi-spawned bushco., lol).


And there you go with the name-calling. Typical.


at least you used the word 'seems' in the correct manner. this 'proves' that you don't really know what i think, and indeed are more interested in pidgeonholing me into one or more of the discredited, debunked, hare-brained conspiracy theorist categories to discredit me.


Not at all. Have you been reading?

I don't care about discrediting you at all. Prove or don't prove their guilt...I don't care. All I am saying is a person has no right to prejudge someone based on vague events, heresay, media bias, or anything else.

You judge them in court, find them guilty AND THEN they are judged.

If you prejudge the Bush Admin, then you are no better then those you accused for didn't they prejudge Iraq? Didn't they prejudge them to have WMD's where there is in fact none? Did they not prejudge Osama? They later found proof but in the first few days they bounced his name around well before they had the evidence.

Isn't Bush prejudging most Foreign Nationals and so the NSA is tapping phone calls?

THAT is what I am talking about. You complain about what he has done by prejudging people, yet you turn and DO THE VERY SAME THING to him. That is hypocritical. That is being no better than him and what he represents. That is also not giving someone their rights afforded by the constitution.

Bush didn't or isn't doing that (as the claim goes) and neither are you then.
Congrats...you have become that which you dispise.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Let's be real here. Anyone who opposes BushCo. are essentially deemedterrorists.

It's very creepy.

[edit on 1/1/06 by EastCoastKid]


Yes, EastCoastKid, I consider you a terrorist
.

Come on... Get real. You can't sit there and tell me that you really believe that "We" (To whom are you referring, anyway?) deem anyone who disagrees with "us" a terrorist. That seems a bit over-the-edge.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Super Mod, sorry I can not spell your handle name there. You have made some excellent points here. Youve kept your competition running in circles chasing their tail. I guess thats your job and I now see why you have it and the title that goes with it.

You have brought up something I have never noticed before. Some claim their rights are being infringed but would be ok with bypassing the presidents rights as an American citizen because its "obvious" hes guilty. If they are so intune with their rights they would know that what they are saying is HYPOCRITICAL. Thanks for pointing that out.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   
now, you see the way i see it is...

all the stupid slip-ups(when liars tell the truth by accident) i pointed out, you just waved away as being your interpretation of them.

all of them.

and no, it wasn't "planes AS missiles", it was "planes AND missiles".

and no, i don't think you can say you saw a plane hit the tower on teevee by accident. how many times have you seen one of the twin towers hit by a jetliner? it doesn't happen every day. he HAD to have seen it on closed circuit television, which means foreknowledge of the event, that he knew it was going to happen, or maybe he is living in a bizarre fantasy world that is strangely a reflection of the near future. there isn't even good (public) footage of the first strike, now. and yet, bush saw it before anyone.

tower seven was brought down by controlled demolition. until the government can prove that a building can do that under ANY amount of damage, without explosives, the government and the media are guilty of a cover-up.

oswald didn't kill kennedy.

the rich get rich through war and oppression.

there is nothing new under the sun.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Sorry Olde Man..but I have to agree with Zed and some of the other posters. This has been going on much longer than this administration. Someone has been spying on the American public for along time. We as the public also help them to do so. Help them make it easier by using technology already suited to eavesdropping. Cell phones...computers especially with DSL and cable hookups, our regular land line phones, bank accounts..et al..etc etc etc. Even our school systems file reports on us...especially on gifted and talented children. This is particularly what they are looking for..to seperate these kids out for special training/identification. In case you didnt know it ..the school system also files reports and information on parents. This is called spying and they get our children to help in this.

As for the CIA and other organizations.. The CIA has operated for years and years in a capacity not always in the best intrest of the Amerian People. They obviously operate in the intrest of someone ..but not Americans. I have been hearing from sources that the CIA is a extension of the State Department and the State Department is heavily infiltrated with Communist Sympathizers. It has been since back in the time of FDR. THere appears to be a conflict ..mostly kept out of the public view. The Defense department is dominantly pro Israel/anti communist and is often in conflict with the State department/CIA.
I suspect that this is why Condaleza Rice was sent to the State Department to help keep a reign on this dispute.
What I am getting at is that there appears to be a struggle in Government between these groups for power and influence often at the expense of the pubic as the public seldome seem to understand the possibility of this line of thought . This is a struggle over territory and influence..a fiefdom, a royal entitlement. It seems to have spread over to the arena of public perception through political manipulation ie..news releases.
None of these groups trust the American public or anyone else for that matter. They are all in the buisness of spying on anyone they suspect. The military itself, all branchs, have Criminal investigation departments who conduct surveillance on the public as well as their military people. I know this to be fact having dated women who are apartment managers. You might be surprised to know how often apartment managers are approached by varoius agencys to acquire access to information or vacant apartments for weeks at a time. Sometimes they rent them just as any customer..sometimes they are granted access gratis. This did not start with this administration. NSA,Criminal Investigation Divisions, Secret Service, FBI, State and Local agencys..et al...all in the buisness of watching us. The huge difference today is the access to this infomation is more readily shared by different departments.
By the way..they are keeping a eye on the churchs in this country too ..not just mosques. Remember this . I became aware of this after the Oklahoma Federal Building bombings. This did not start with this administration...nor the last administration either.
I suppose I shouldnt be but I am often astonished at the realization that most Americans dont seem to know this. They have been so secure behind thier television sets and shopping centers that they dont realize what is right in front of them ...daily.
This did not start with this administration and I can assure you that the partys in this difference of Ideologies dont care one whit about the privacy of the American people. The privacy of the American people is a disposable and expendable commodity for both partys if it means maintaining political power. You should already know this East Coast Kid.
I am not saying your concerns are unfounded....just that this is a much bigger picture and occurence than just this administration.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
that was a great post, orangetom.

we ALL know that the government overstepped it's authority LONG ago, and has since become a mere facade of what it claims to be(democratic), however, the difference between ECK and i, and zed and you, is that you guys would rather tonguelash people for wanting to change it, than admit that there is a problem.

like is said, do we charge no one with murder because CAIN got away with killing ABEL?

clearly people who are whisked away in the middle of the night and held indefinitely without trial and tortured have had their god-given human rights violated. (SOME are AMERICAN!)

to instantly turn that around, and say, oh yeah, you can't do that to the president, 'cause you got no proof, hypocrite is a little simplistic, and indeed HYPOCRITICAL. you say it's alright to do it to 'terrorism suspects'. i say it's not right to do it to anyone.

i clearly took a stance. EVIDENCE first, and then, ARREST, and then TRIAL. it's a revolutionary take on justice, these days. that is not hypocritical.

all the quotes i gave are evidence, for example. not nearly enough to close a case, but still would be considered evidence in a court of law.

what happened? was it put into an evidence locker? no. it was JUDGED, and DISMISSED. this tactic serves to take the attention off the actual problem(corporate nepotism), andfocus it on people who are concerned about the actual problem('conspiracy theorists' and 'liberals'.

tower seven? DISMISSED.

i am not america's saviour, and there is no burden of proof on me for anything. anyone who thinks i need to prove something, can sue me and take me to court.

i also find it rather darkly humorous that it is up to me to prove bush guilty, when he is admitting guilt(illegal spying). now, it's not about guilt. the argument has shifted to how much evidence i have. i don't know. maybe a confession is less accurate if it's not tortured out of you on some legally invisible nightmare island.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Privacy is a way of thinking and a way of living. It is structuring your way of living around a knowlege and dicipline one gets from this knowlege. Notice that you dont see classes in college or high school on how to maintain privacy for yourself..from local, state , or federal ..or even foreign snooping. Why is this ...dont you think they should teach you this useful knowlege???
Or are they in on it...the loss of your privacy??
Information is available on this from many sources. It requires a significant change in the way you live.
As I posted in another board. The people who are not in this system of surveilance are like the Mennonites and Amish .who dont have social secuirty numbers and are very discrete in what they do. Most people have no idea how much thier social security numbers tie you into the controlled system for monitoring. I know five people not Mennonites and not Amish who dont have social security numbers.
I would dare say ..I have more privacy talking coast to coast ..or around the world on my amateur radio than I do on a telephone, cell phone , or on this computer. I can assure you I am in no hurry to hook my cell phone to a computer. I never check my bank accounts on a cordless phone or on a cell phone. Not smart. These devices are even less secure than a land line and a land line is not that secure.

You mentioned people being snatch and grabbed in the middle of the night. I have not heard any accounts of this ..names..etc...
Do you have any information on these people..the numbers of them??? How many??

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999

You mentioned people being snatch and grabbed in the middle of the night. I have not heard any accounts of this ..names..etc...
Do you have any information on these people..the numbers of them??? How many??

Thanks,
Orangetom


guantamo bay and abu gharib are full of them. i don't know names and numbers. the public aren't allowed to know how many or who they are. that is a matter of 'national security'.

'national'ism IS the american way. (americans MUST swear allegiance to a FLAG)
the nazis were nationlists.
just like the truth of JFK was buried under a veil of 'national security', so is the present situation a cover-up of the crimes of the shadow rulers. the true 'nation' is a relatively tiny cabal of uberpowerful bankers and industrialists, and it is their own personal security that they are worried about.

maybe when bush senior said, 'if the people ever found out what we've done, they would chase us down and lynch us' (not a verbatim quote, but close enough) it was just a 'slip of the tongue'. maybe he didn't know what he was saying, and just made an honest mistake.

what is it that americans are (made to be, through brainwashing techniques, like the pledge of allegiance) most proud of? their military and economic might, and 'american knowhow'. this PROVES that they are better than the rest of the world. american education and media coverage of the outside world(the mysterious land beyond america) is practically nil.
many other countries are leaving america in the dust in every regard except military might, and the only real trump card america has there is enough nukes to nuke every other country in the world a few times over. nice spoils of war that will leave. nice superiourity.

people(the government) seem completely unaware of how important it is to have ALL the bases covered in your own country. this is something not lost on countries like japan, korea, CHINA...

the american ability to cheaply manufacture goods is a thing of the long distant past.
the american desire to be innovative has been transmuted into the american desire to consume.
american 'freedom' and 'justice' are practically non-existant. (yes, 'we the people' can yell nearly as loudly as they like from their jail cells. 'we the people' are still in a prison made of legislated bars and media spoon-fed lies. try and DO something, and you WILL be whipped.)
and, it seems, some of the smartest people in the country spend their effort defending evil, just because it's been around for decades, and it's therefore 'american', or 'just the way it is'. i'm sure saddam's army said the same thing (it's 'iraqi', 'it's just the way it is').

and I'M the hypocrite!? HAHAHA! i at least, do not condone crime.

what's also missing from this formula, is a little statistic.

the rights of every single person in the world(ANYONE could be labelled 'terrorist') vs. the rights of one man (god, ...er, ...bush, the man who is violating everyone else's rights.)

and I'M the hypocrite!? HAHAHA!

since when is murder by terrorism worse than murder by 'normal' crime? why does ANYONE get a trial or a lawyer? who needs judges? trials? proof? evidence? a good rumour, even? seems like a waste of time, effort and money, when all we really have to do is trust the secret police to make all the right decisions.
let's face it. some people are not human, and shouldn't be treated like humans. american humans are 'different' than humans from the middle east. just better and more blessed by god, you know? except for SOME americans, who are no better than those, ....um, ...dark people, gooks and commies and whatnot.

oh, yeah, and another little thing that's been sticking in my craw was the idea that somehow osama would deny his guilt because he was in prison.
that's non-sequitor. he's not in prison. he is a terrorist. terrorists admit guilt freely. they are proud of their crimes. he did not hide that he was happy about it. he just denied that he had anything to do with it, and in fact, said it was the americans.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I must make haste as I have things to do before shoving off.

I was asking for specifics ..names and such. I too was under the impression that there were alot of them by the posts on here. The problem I have with this is that if it were known the press would be shouting this from the rooftops. Posting such a concept and causing such drama among so many of us is not proof.
I have very little confidence in the press in this country however I do know that if they had names they would be shouting this from the rooftops.
This I do believe..definitely.

I do however have concerns about privacy. I have for a number of years now. I also know about the Kennedy buisness to which you refer..I have known about it for almost twenty years now. The fellow who was doing talks on this and other topics was put in jail for five years . This line of Kennedy conspiracy was going on in the early 1970s in small tightly knit circles. Other conspiracy topics too. This man has actually seen the unedited copys of the Zarapuder film from a private collection. I have actually met him and others with these storys to tell. This was before home computers that they were in possession of this knowlege.
I must make haste...thanks for your post.

Orangetom




top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join