KrustyKidd

Cool. So, do they get to read up on how screwed up their government is? Betcha they don't.

I agree with your rationale. However, he has already been found warenting the death penalty so it seems it is up to emotion to play the final part in the trial.

I thought about robbing a Brinks truck once. Didn't do it. Should I get thrown in jail? And bet you think the Patriot act is severe. Holy smokes, now you want to have thought crime? Face it Gerry, if this had legs it would walk.

He's merely making an open observation that your posts are so blatently anti Iraqi forces and US that one cannot make any other obsevation. You range from mindless Bush bashing and name calling to US forces are illers without conscience and then, suddenly feel compassion for the killers and need to bring them home. Meanwhile, the Iraqi people you ignore by saying they have less casualties than the US soldiers whom you denegrate somehow figuring they will be in nirvannah if the US leaves. So, How come Saddam got twelve years and people like you called for more time and now, the Iraqi people only get three when they are voting, electing and carrying out politics for the first time Gerry?

Gee Gerry, those guys deserve punishment then. Better leave them there to get shot at and killed rather than go home and live their lives in freedom and have this ten year old girl killed in sectarian vilolence.

No but definitely with the only authority being chaos the six hundred civillians killed per month will certainly go up. And, reprisal killings will also skyrocket. Unless you perscribe to the notion above which by historical postings you seem to that you

Not for suicidal nutbars like her there isn't. If somebody who is willing to kil themselves over a democratic appointment is your idea of 'press' I can understand where your philosophies come from and therefore, make sense in a bizzarro kind of way.

Damm media decided to chase any other story rather than one that would place the US (and Bush in particular) in a bad light instead of the story that would be the scoop of the decade. All they had to do was talk to the 'pros.'

Anyhow, how come the anti war people wished to give Saddam more opportunity to continue doing nothing while the Iraqi people, who are doing something only get three years? Gerry's answer Try facts to back your losing arguments up sometime. You may actually reach that lofty pinical called 'a point.' Military and civillian casualties US average deaths per month is 55. Iraqi security forces average is 200 a month. Iraqi civillians is average 500 to six hundred.

Everything but adhering to the UN resolutions which was the justification for the invasion. Ever get a disconnection notice? I'm sure the power company is doing everything they can to make sure you don't get disconnected. You only have to pay the bill and it doesn't happen.

That woman's derranged.

No. Time of day was importent. To late and you are dealing with a full plane. Too early and you are on the flight by yourself with four other Middle Eastern guys. The first flight of the day starts checking in around five am. Too early for most seasoned travellers to bother with. Time of year very importent for weather considerations. If one of the planes could not go or was delayed only half an hour, it would jeapardize the mission. The Middle East fragmented and aflame is in nobodies interest save those who have nothing to lose but everythng to gain. It would not be in Israel's interest to have the US find out they had engineered or played a part in 911. It would spell the end of all American support and possibly trigger military action.

The whole operation hinged on surprise. Low tech it also had an inherent problem of coordination with a lot of variables such as weather, security, people's reaction and such. The entire operation more than likely took a hundred peole to pull off as it is counting the support personell. Adding bombs would have added another twenty to fifty people to the mix, and, all it would have taken would have been an alert security guard and the whole show they had prepared a year (or years) for would have gone down the tubes. What if the aircraft being used had to be switched at the last moment due to a broken hydraulic line? What if the bomb was discovered? End of plan, end of operation and more than likely, all flights cancelled that day and the arrest of the operatives. It wasn't worth the hassle or risk.

Not luck, just great planning. So, the planes had to be the longest possible distance without requiring leaving the US as to negate passports. The time of year was taken into account for the storms and weather and such, if they had done this during summer, there would havebeen too many passengers, in winter, bad weather in any of the airports would have increased the chance of one or all of the flights to be delayed. It was key to the plan to have them hijacked within minutes of each other so as not to tip their hand. The number of passengers was taken into great consideration. To few and they would stand out and increase the likelyhood of more stringent security checks. Too many and they would not be able to control. The time of day was importent as they wished to maximize the damage at the targets. Too early and nobody there. TOo late and they would be faced with too many passengers. Not bad at all Lonius. However, a couple of problems; Israeli involvement in order to get the US to attack a Muslim country. Sounds good on paper but, is the Muslim world aflame in Israel's uinterest? Also, in order to help their country they also have to do risk asessment. What if their plot were discovered, expecially after the event? It would mean the US would turn direction on their war on terror and at least cut ties with Israel if not actually attack them. Hardly worth the risk. Second, if to maximize damage was the key, why control the explosion? I mean, if that were the case you would be better off having the towers fall straight over and kill even more people? Third. Read some stuff detailing the planning and execution of the attack in Afganistan. It was pretty much a start from scratch affair and, nobody.... I mean nobody would ever by choice pick that place to begin a campaign to work on the Muslim world. There is probably no more inaccesable area on the planet than Afganistan and to support troops there is a nightmare. Lacking quality air targets you have to use frindly forces and, those forces had not been in contact with their CIA handlers since the Soviet years. So, if this could be true, then Rumsfeld did not prepare for the aftermath whatsoever and that, is not classic Rummy. The man is a fanatic on planning and to leave out the aftermath of this 'plot' is impossible for him.

How did they get there? How long were they in place? How many guys did it take to rig that? Comon, back osme of this up so we can throw some numbers of how many people may be involved in the four events of that day.

Enough of this crap. Here is Op Northwoods Ok, so the government can think of things like that. Now, read what ON says and tell me how high tech that is. Shooting people, sinking rafts, hijacking a plane etc. Now, tell me how a plane disappears, how people on film disappear. How enough explosives are put into buildings to do what was done all without one person seeing anything. Then tell me how, how in Gods name with so many senior people having second thoughts on Iraq and such that nobody, not one person has said they planted one single explosive device, saw one, heard a person talk about it etc. I mean, it must have taken thousands of people to carry out those simultanious operations yet not one peep. Furthermore, this must have all been done on toilet paper to boot as no secretaries have come forward with mysterious memos and such. Now, while you are comming up with all this, (which needent be factual) explain how those importent people were able to get time away from the press, their staff, family and such so they could become part of this conspiracy. I mean, did whoever was in charge put an ad in the 'Secret Times' or did they canvas door to door? Hust come up with something other than the mysterious things which were not explained so that you can show how this DID happen. You people always go on with conjecture and such yet never go to the rationale and reasoning which is anybody who did this is setting themselves up for the death penalty. So, how many people would it take to pull this off? All of them would get injection, the Republican party would be dead, there would be a revolution in the USA. Like think about it, we were all terribly shook up the day that happened so how shook up would you be if you actually caused it? The lady who checked one of the hijackers in commited suicide afterwards so now you tell me how you screen the thousands of guys (in secret to boot) who would be needed to carry this out. All of them wouldn't be able to lead normal lives without looking over their shoulders and, the leaders would be sweating bullets that one, one of a thousands of people might blow it by saying how he saw a guy carting in det cord one night in the WTC. Iraq was invaded under resolution 687, not 911. 911 provided the popularity for it is all. America didn't have any other reason to invade Iraq other than to put the drill to Saudi Arabia without actually invading them and, they succeeded in that, even with the problems they're having. Looked because weakened structures don't stay straight and fall over, they collapse. After you address the planning, preparation and execution phase, I will allow you to show me demolition experts who all say it could not come down like that. Not one guy but people who have a reputation to defend and know what they speak of. Let them say it was an obvious demolition and that a plane could not have caused that. I mean, they are leaders in their feilds right? Speaking of planes, The plane at the Pentagon can be seen in photos with parts of turbines and stuff indicative to the type used all over the place. Are you going to now speculate this was brought in by truck unnoticed by anybody and sat there waiting to get crashed into by a cessna, missile, fast corvette or what? Hey, guy I used to know (he's doing time now) found out some guy was doing his wife. So, he arranges to meet him for a drink at his place and has a couple friends present. Idea is to beat the tar out of him with friends there to help if he proved too tough. So, things get a bit out of control and he actually over does it a bit. Thinking he's killed him, he panics, gets his buddies to swear silence and then takes the body to a dam and throws it over. Well, the guy's lungs were filled with water so now he's doing time for murder. Anyhow,the conspiracy lasted about an hour or so before one of them went to the cops. So much for coverups with three. Try it with thousands. Stop with the hard evidence. The stuff was hit at six hundred miles an hour with an ensuing fire. Just for once, one time only, could one conspiracy theorist come up with a plausible scenario on how the planning, execution and subsequent coverup was carried out. Pleazzzzzzzzzzzzze. Just for once, stop with the overload of this and that and that is possible and whatever so it must mean coverup. Be a fiction writer for a few minutes and bring on your best scenario on how that amount of people to carry out four simultanious coverups could get together, plan, prepare execute and then, cover it all up for three stiniing years without one of them cracking. Not one witness, not one conspiracy theorist saw a thing, not one. And, to top it all off, not one Democrat has gone after this. It is a sure route to election yet not one has ridden it. So, what's really up with you guys? You got the skinny or is this just your mental pornography for politics going throught your head?

Like it or not, agree or not, the US is at war. So, it is not a percieved war, rather it is an active one. As for executive power, do not the people go through a phase where hypothetical questioning on various issues and possibilities are put forth before they vote?

They say they will, but, have not been asked. Oh, here is something of interest. Proof that I have been right all along. See Gerry, I don't think two dimensionally.

Not even worth discussion Lonious. First, you have to be able to protect the country from anybody that wanted something you had and, with the rest of the world wanting to be here, we would be spending an extraordinary amount of our effeort on protecting ourselves. Crops are seasonal for the most part and, even if you managed to make it work, you would be living in a control based society like nothing you could imagine. It would be survival period.

In 1965 most of the planet didn't even have a radio much less a car. Now, the population doubles every thirty or so years and the area to support the growing poulation grows smaller. Along with this, people are becoming more affluent in number increasing the consumption of the resources so, if anybody tells me that this is a sound strategy with no danger involved for the future, I would strongly disagree with them. I know you are probably sick of this particular example but will put it forth in a differeent light. Easter Island when it first became inhabiter circa 700 ad was covered in forest, much like any other tropical paradise. And then, the depletion of the resources began. As there was no written record, nobody really knew that the island was slowely dying as they had no memory of a land full of trees so, after the resources became depleted after many generations, there would have been no person to cut down the last tree and say "gee, I just cut down the last tree' In any case, the death throes we know as the population split into two segments and vied for control of what was left. In the end, they were controlling herds of chickens of all things. Later, anarchy occured as without a reason or reward, the chiefs had no control and the people had no reason to be controlled. Canabilism, disease, war, famine. A very good example of what happens when resources get consumed without being replaced. It happened in other areas as well, even to the Norse in Greeland. No, in fact, there would have been smaller and smaller trees and saplings and then finally, only grass with no person knowing that once, it was all there. The reason I explain that is that we begin to deal with a problem by shifting things around rather than recognize that it is an inevitability if we continue on a certain course. For esample, things are fine her in Canada so what's the problem? Well, we do trade, we are also part of a shrinking world. If that world begins to collapse upon itself then there would have to be some sort of effect on us in the futurre right? Is a world full of starvation and miliarism where starving people with access to all sorts of weapons and having nothing to lose conductive to our survival? I don't think so . I also don't think that trying to feed a Canadian nation without trade with other countries is an option either, although it may have to be if the rest of the world is in terminal collapse.

He painted the plane? Cool. Did Saddam shoot at it or not? Bet he didn't. Saddam is pretty smart and by then he was beggining to figure it all out.

Sure was a good thing Saddam continued to violate the resolutions, otherwise Bush may actually have done something like that . The way you're carrying on, hate to see what you'd be like if he actually did something like that.

Insugents comprised of former Regime members trying to make a comeback, foreign and domestic Jihadists trying to reinstall the Caliphate, Sunni and Shiite militias all carrying out reprisal killings against each other and anybody that looks like the other sect. And, all against what 65% of the people voted for. Seems more like an insurgency and some choas rather than a nationalist war Gerry. I mean, normally in a civil war, you have stated purposes and followings but here, it just seems like they just, well .... kill and retaliate. Oh, the main groups being tageted are not the US Gerry. Thought I would mention that point as your seem to be under the impression they are all actively unified against America but they are not. If they were, the US would last about thirty seconds. Anyhow, how come the anti war people wished to give Saddam more opportunity to continue doing nothing while the Iraqi people, who are doing something only get three years?

Sounds like; is to you, an apt question.

Well Gerry, is it man made or natural? And, to what degrees? What chemicals are doing the harm and what ones are doing good and in what combinations? And, once we figure that all out, what actions need to be taken? So, man made or natural and what is the breakdown?