hot enough

See what I mean. You point fingers at folks when you have a less than zero moral base yourself.

You're a groupie of a whole host of known war criminals/terrorists from numerous countries, US, Israel, UK, ... . You shouldn't point fingers because you would likely misspell everything.

We now sit in the position where all the science says, unequivocally, that it was totally impossible for Arab hijackers to have caused the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. The presence of nanothermite in WTC dust, impossible for any hijackers; the molten/vaporized metals, impossible for any hijackers; WTC7 free fall, impossible for any hijackers; WTCs 1 & 2, impossible for any hijackers; molten steel pouring out of WTC2, impossible for any hijackers; the total pulverization of WTCs 1 & 2, impossible for any hijackers; all the bombs/reports of explosions, impossible for any hijackers; all the other impossibilities in the USGOCT which makes it impossible for any hijackers to have been involved.

We really are going to have to establish some base that holds a measure of reality from which these discussions can flow. The USA DOES NOT create democracies. The US establishes brutal, right wing dictatorships which are then instructed to murder those who want to see democracy put in place, people who want to see the colonial thieves' systems dismantled. In Vietnam, as an example, Eisenhower knew as did all his war criminal henchmen and all the elected representatives that the people of Vietnam wanted Ho Chi Minh as their leader because he was totally dedicated to giving his people their independence. So the US scuttled planned UN elections. Killing people at will and/or locking them up is what the USA does, mostly the former. The tens of millions slaughtered by the US stand as testament to the fact that the US doesn't do democracy.

I don't believe you missed any of the canards/old wives tales that are trotted out to try to smear people, Rue. Do you have minders who feed you this crap or do you just keep your own little booklet?

We now sit in the position where all the science says, unequivocally, that it was totally impossible for Arab hijackers to have caused the collapses of WTCs 1, 2 and 7. The presence of nanothermite in WTC dust, impossible for any hijackers; the molten/vaporized metals, impossible for any hijackers; WTC7 free fall, impossible for any hijackers; WTCs 1 & 2, impossible for any hijackers; molten steel pouring out of WTC2, impossible for any hijackers; the total pulverization of WTCs 1 & 2, impossible for any hijackers; all the bombs/reports of explosions, impossible for any hijackers; all the other impossibilities in the USGOCT which makes it impossible for any hijackers to have been involved.

I know that you did what all far right winger conservatives and even many "moderates" do, you totally ignored all the fact contained in the article that demolish your delusional right winger world view. You folks are the first to defend the US's retaliation against Iraq and Afghanistan, even when you know that these were illegal invasions brought about by voluminous US/UK vicious lies. But none of you will ever consider that all these myriad countries the US has illegally invaded since WWII might have a "right" to retaliate against the USA. Why the stunning hypocrisy, drummindiver? Can you explain it? It's very puzzling.

I know who supports terrorists more, just for the sake of this singular argument you have raised. It is drummindiver by many hundreds of country miles! Surely you know the US has had a terrorist training camp IN THE USA since right after WWII. You know that the US set up the terrorist Operation Gladio program in European countries right after WWII. You know that the sum total of terrorist actions by the USA vastly outnumbers all other world wide terrorist actions COMBINED.

Do you consider slaughtering one million Iraqi children in a US planned, with full knowledge of the consequences, "moderate" or "extreme", Goddess?

I've been saying this for a long time, Besty. Why are none of you speaking out? The US/UK have slaughtered millions just in the last few years, possibly up to one million Iraqi children under age five just in the 1990s? What's the count today? No one speaks for these people. All you hear is conservatives whining about how their last latte didn't have enough caffeine. Listen for once to someone tell you what the US/UK/other war criminals have done to Iraq, but it's the equal for Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, ... .

Nothing you have said, above, makes any sense. None of the things you have said have anything to do with the US being responsible for committing myriad atrocities, far far more in number than the sum total of all other terrorist actions combined since WWII. The US actually invented terrorism, it has been doing it for longer than any others. The US even invents/creates its own terrorists to pretend to be "terrorists" against western nations, all for US propaganda purposes. They did it in Europe after WWII, Operation Gladio, creating phony "left wing" terrorist groups that bombed innocents to make citizens angry and encourage them to support "right wing" monsters. You're right wing, aren't you? You seem to have a great delight in seeing innocents slaughtered by the US/UK/other western terrorist countries. Did you know that the US was trying to create a legal definition for terrorism in the 1970s and everything they came up with, US legals said, "we've done all those things, that definition won't work"?

You're very welcome, jacee. Lest anyone think that these US economic hit men are a new phenomena, think again. The US has been doing this in earnest since its beginnings.

Except it isn't sarcasm, dd, it's you, expressing your utter disregard for the poor of the world that the US murders, terrorizes, destroys lives in so many ways. Here is an article that honestly describes what the US has been since its origins. But it only deals pretty much with post WWII, when we all know, those of us who are sentient anyway, that the world's problems are caused solely by the USA, with some help from lesser western lights. Some will throw up that silly, tired old argument that this is off thread. It is NOT!. It goes straight to the heart of the world's refugee problems, which are ALL caused by US war crimes/terrorism/illegal invasions, slaughtering millions of innocents, WHICH obviously causes others to flee for their lives.

In this he was a kind leader, one who has never seen an equal in the rapacious US leaders. As was Cuba's Castro. Even with all the economic hardships the people of Cuba have had to endure because of the century of US terrorism, the people of Cuba help poor countries around the world with first class medical care/aid, asking nothing in return. The US only does these things to position US business to rape and pillage. The people of Latin America know how deeply evil the US is. The US has invaded every one of those countries to ensure that US business is firmly placed. That isn't free enterprise, that isn't capitalism, that's pure banditry, that's Mafia behavior.

You are making broad brush assumptions and conclusions that have no basis in reality. Personality cults don't work well but China is the same communist/socialist country and it is blowing the doors off free enterprise USA. The USA would not be near the country it is, nor would the UK be, had they not been stealing vast sums of other people's wealth. The USA today, is a similar pattern to the Mao China. The only difference is that the poor of the world are the victims, not US citizens. Vietnam is a booming communist country. These countries stay communist/strictly controlled solely because they know from long history, the underhanded dealings of western colonial powers. And the US has never changed one bit. If the US had done to Canada what the US did to Korea or Vietnam, Canada would have a tightly controlled government. You folks who think the US is something good have never had your women folks' breasts slashed off, you've never been poisoned for generations by Agent Orange, you've never had cluster bombs laying around for your kids to play with, you've never been carpet bombed only for wanting the freedom to choose your country's future, you've never had death squads disappearing your children, friends and relatives.

Canada has always had racists. They pop up like weeds in Spring. It's deja vu all over again.

Another Omni evidence free posting, more Omni prevarication, more Omni fabrications, more Omni lies. A drowning Omni, his last little straw clutched desperately between his fingers.

Two Omni posts, two evidence free posts. Just more Omni prevarication.

More Omni prevarication. You are as big an evidence free zone as Betsy. ----------------------- Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was every bit as illegal as the invasion of Iraq. Why, then, do so many Americans see it as justifiable? By Marjorie Cohn / AlterNet July 31, 2008, 9:00 PM GMT 7719 Print COMMENT NOW! So far, President Bush's plan to maintain a permanent U.S. military presence in Iraq has been stymied by resistance from the Iraqi government. Barack Obama's timetable for withdrawal of American troops evidently has the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, Bush has mentioned a "time horizon," and John McCain has waffled. Yet Obama favors leaving between 35,000 and 80,000 U.S. occupation troops there indefinitely to train Iraqi security forces and carry out "counterinsurgency operations." That would not end the occupation. We must call for bringing home -- not redeploying -- all U.S. troops and mercenaries, closing all U.S. military bases and relinquishing all efforts to control Iraqi oil. In light of stepped-up violence in Afghanistan, and for political reasons -- following Obama's lead -- Bush will be moving troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Although the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was as illegal as the invasion of Iraq, many Americans see it as a justifiable response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the casualties in that war have been lower than those in Iraq -- so far. Practically no one in the United States is currently questioning the legality or propriety of U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. The cover of Timemagazine calls it "The Right War." The U.N. Charter provides that all member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means, and no nation can use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. After the 9/11 attacks, the council passed two resolutions, neither of which authorized the use of military force in Afghanistan. Resolutions 1368 and 1373 condemned the Sept. 11 attacks and ordered the freezing of assets; the criminalizing of terrorist activity; the prevention of the commission of and support for terrorist attacks; and the taking of necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist activity, including the sharing of information. In addition, it urged ratification and enforcement of the international conventions against terrorism. The invasion of Afghanistan was not legitimate self-defense under article 51 of the charter because the attacks on Sept. 11 were criminal attacks, not "armed attacks" by another country. Afghanistan did not attack the United States. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, there was not an imminent threat of an armed attack on the United States after Sept. 11, or Bush would not have waited three weeks before initiating his October 2001 bombing campaign. The necessity for self-defense must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." This classic principle of self-defense in international law has been affirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunal and the U.N. General Assembly. Bush's justification for attacking Afghanistan was that it was harboring Osama bin Laden and training terrorists. Iranians could have made the same argument to attack the United States after they overthrew the vicious Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and he was given safe haven in the United States. The people in Latin American countries whose dictators were trained in torture techniques at the School of the Americas could likewise have attacked the torture training facility in Fort Benning, Ga., under that specious rationale. Those who conspired to hijack airplanes and kill thousands of people on 9/11 are guilty of crimes against humanity. They must be identified and brought to justice in accordance with the law. But retaliation by invading Afghanistan is not the answer and will only lead to the deaths of more of our troops and Afghans. http://www.alternet.org/story/93473/afghanistan%3A_the_other_illegal_war

Prevaricating yet again, Omni. You have no shame. You fabricate/prevaricate/lie with wild abandon. You are not only prevaricating, you are acting in a totally illogical fashion. I have answered it, numerous times. The established science, which you deny, with zero evidence, with zero scientific qualifications on your part, describes the nanothermite that was found in WTC dust. That means that someone put it there. It was put there for the controlled demolitions of WTCs 1, 2 and 7.

'prevaricate/fabricate both come into frequent use because you are so adept at doing these things. You do it constantly. You are a very dishonest person, as evidenced by your UN tall tale. The following is for you, to help you know what you are, what you do. MacMillan verb prevaricate ▸ to avoid saying or doing something because you want to cause a delay or hide the truth

Well duuuuuhhh. The two situations are not even close, Goddess. You couldn't have read very much on the civil rights movement. I don't see what you are making the big deal over. You folks don't care about what happens in other lands unless it has some propaganda value for you to attack Muslims in western countries. Where were you when the USA was supporting the worst of the worst Taliban in Afghanistan, using the Afghan people for the US's own selfish political ends?

The invasion of Afghanistan was a war crime. It was the illegal invasion of a sovereign nation based on a pack of lies. The US was dealing with the Taliban on rights to oil/gas pipelines right into August of 2001. The US were "wining and dining" the Taliban in the US thru the late 1990s, taking them on tours of US tourist sites. Bush's nonsense about OBL were all US lies. They sure did dupe a lot of the gullible folks. OBL was the main reason and OBL was not even involved in 911. By March of 2002, Bush said he didn't care about OBL, didn't hardly ever think about him. Indicative of just how badly the US lied.

The Queen of England has no real power, Altai, she just puts her seal on all the UK war crimes/terrorist actions. The US is too busy directing coups against poor, defenseless countries, from which their wealth is easy to steal.