kuzadd

FYI: false flag can in no way be construed as the new "buzzword" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag it is an old term: False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension." ( italy's "strategy of tension" began, just after WW2) In which right wing terrorist groups, backed by certain elements within the Italian gov, along with the CIA and Nato conspired to terrorize the Italian people, through terrorist bombings, committed by rightist elements, but framing the left. I am reading the Most interesting book about this historical period in italy right now, called- Puppetmasters. " Buzzword: A word or phrase that takes on added significance through repetition or special usage. Like the "war on terror"."War on terror" means nothing by itself, but takes on added signifigance through repetition, particularily valid, for fear mongering/propaganda. Unlike false flag , which is solidly based in history and fact.

I can assure you, personally speaking, excessively xenophobic, and it's too bad you wish to promote irrational fears, amongst the populace.

If it makes you feel any better....Canada wasn't too welcoming of Irish, Poles, Ukranians and Italians in their time either..... ....times change Times haven't changed. Canada's citizens still aren't to welcoming of immigrants. xenophobic.

Oh, yeah and this isn't about iran, okay? Nope it isn't Iran torturing, or denying human rights, it's the US, along with it cohorts in crime, all western democracies, allegedly. http://www.huliq.com/24179/report-details-...isons-in-europe The report is the most detailed description of a secret program initiated by the US government, with the collaboration of Europe. In addition to Poland and Romania, many European and other powers have taken part in the program, including Germany, Italy, Britain and Canada.The report was prepared by Dick Marty, a rapporteur for the council, which is tasked with monitoring human rights in Europe. It was issued the same day as a trial began in Italy against CIA agents suspected of involvement in capturing one of the prison network’s victims Known within the US government as the “High-Value Detainee Program,” the system of secret detention was established shortly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. A presidential directive signed at that time substantially increased the powers of the CIA, exploiting the “war on terror” to establish a network of prisons that could be used as part of future wars planned by the US. I bolded that sentence, because I find it so interesting, the system of secret detentions was established " future wars planned by the US? Like how many future pre-emptive wars are/were being planned?? I thought it was all about defence, this sounds like offence ? in other words, there willingness to be paid off. Of those who had knowledge of the program, the report singles out several high-ranking officials, including former Polish President Aleksander Kwansniewski and former Romanian President Ion Iliescu. Agreements were reached with these countries in order to allow the CIA to operate outside any legal constraints of the host country. “I consider that the stated US policy has, in fact, on the pretext of guaranteeing security, intentionally created a framework enabling it to evade all accountability,” the report stated. The CIA sought deliberately to remove itself from “conventional democratic controls in the foreign countries.” While those originally transferred to Poland were alleged top officials in Al Qaeda, including Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, the types of prisoners broadened as the program expanded. The report states that among those imprisoned in Romania were “leaders of branches of suspected ‘support networks’ for the insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan” and “suspected leaders of terrorist factions in the Middle East,” in addition to leaders of the Taliban. anyone at all! As evidence of its assertion that secret CIA prison camps were operated in Poland and Romania between 2002 and 2005, the report cites the testimony of intelligence officials and the fact that flight recordings for CIA planes tend to correspond with the capture of significant prisoners by the US. In addition, the team that prepared the report analyzed “hundreds of pages” of aeronautical data, which demonstrates that “in the majority of cases these CIA flights were deliberately disguised so that their actual movements would not be tracked or recorded....” Dummy flight plans were filed in order to disguise the destination of CIA-operated planes, an example of which can be found here. The report also devotes a significant amount of space to depicting the conditions faced by prisoners caught up in the program. It describes truly horrendous conditions of isolation, psychological abuse and torture. The conditions were designed deliberately to dehumanize prisoners and destroy their will. According to the report, prisoners were taken to their cell by “strong people who wore black outfits, masks that covered their whole faces, and dark visors over their eyes.” They were stripped and kept naked for weeks. A common feature at the beginning of the prison time was a four-month isolation regime. “During this period of over 120 days, absolutely no human contact was granted with anyone but masked, silent guards.” Physical torture was also used. Prisoners were subjected to extreme temperatures, regulated by airflow from a single hole at the top of a prisoner’s cell. “There was a shackling ring in the wall of the cell, about half a metre up off the floor,” the report states. “Detainees’ hands and feet were clamped in handcuffs and leg irons. Bodies were regularly forced into contorted shapes and chained to this ring for long, painful periods.” In addition, prisoners were subjected to sensory deprivation and overload. They were at times bombarded with loud music or other sounds, including “distorted verses from the Koran, or irritating noises—thunder, planes taking off, crackling laughter, the screams of women and children.” Marty condemns in particular the role of European governments in facilitating the CIA program and attempting to obstruct the council’s investigations. “Many governments have done everything to disguise the true nature and extent of their activities and are persistent in their uncooperative attitude,” the report states. “Some European governments have obstructed the search for the truth and are continuing to do so by invoking the concept of ‘state secrets.’ ” Within the later category, the report singles out in particular Germany and Italy. Many countries, as well as NATO, did not respond to questionnaires distributed by the investigation. A further section of the report details the case studies of captured individuals that highlight the complicity of different governments, including Khaled El-Masri (Germany), Abu Omar (Italy) and Maher Arar (Canada). and on and on.... the full report which was commissioned by Council Of Europe Parliamentary Assembly is available in pdf here:........ http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/pol...df?hpid=topnews

You sure the NED didn't buy the love in for Bushie? With the help of Rendon? So he could look popular, somewhere?

I thought a terrorist was every individual LABELLED as "looney lefty," "anti-american" ,"Bush Hating", "anti-semetic","terrorist-loving" by someone who identifies themselves as being politically "right"?

Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't.No surprise there. This exchange of sophomoric nonesence is what drives people away from bulletin board posting. You've got that right, it ads nothing to the debate, but no surprise there. The problem with putting people on ignore is that you often get to read their replies when other people quote them. No matter, it speeds up the process of scrolling by and allows you to read if you so choose. Yes scribbs , why did you start it? Then continue to perpetuate it? So how exactly is it , you are now TRYING to take the high road?

Gee, and I thought you said you had put me on ignore? I was so hopeful, yet clearly you didn't. No surprise there.

A swealian squirm par excellence... hey scottsa, what would it matter what figleaf said, or I said? As long as it is NOT what you or other's of your ilk want it to be, (scriblett, whitedoors) it won't serve your purpose, and you will then spout endless nonsense, name callings, smear, big lie, etc., so really what is your , (or other's like you) point? I mean it doesn't matter, cause none of you are looking for discussion, your looking for "confirmation" of your own suppositions.

White Doors, dear, oh dear , sigh................. Were you asking these questions in this thread, or did you drag your nonsense over here wrt the other posts? You don't get, I am mostly ignoring you, for the reasons I have stated more then once in the other thread Which apparently you cannot read?

figleaf: Either way why do you need my condemnation? Oh, oh there, You've gone and done it Figleaf! Ask a simple question of whitedoors, and it becomes construed as "proof" of something? it's a game whitedoor likes to play. Childish really? One would have to wonder, why whitedoors feels he/she needs to "prove" something, or works so hard to "prove" something? perhaps an inadequacy elsewhere? I don't know, but I found it odd, to say the least. tata dahling!

what? now how did you make that jump into the irrational and illogical? oh, no never mind!

Nice. You won't even honestly state your position here. I wonder why. All you do is squirm away and avoid it. Interesting for all to see... "Interesting for all to see..." Yes, I imagine so many posters are , oh so concerned? Likely some will think you are wrong and some will think I am, so what? You make yourself clear and my assessment accurate 'what they are IMO is nonsensical, your like a drive by shooter , come post a few off topic-'challenging' questions ( not difficult, but baiting) then pat yourself on the back cause you think you have 'proven' something? what I don't know? but 'something'. your self-adoration is obvious. You are so good! You think you have scored points and "proven' something? That will demonstrate "something" but what it is, who knows? will anyone find it interesting? will some find it annoying, amusing, shocking , appalling. But, you think nonetheless you have proven "something" for all to see.

Rue: " ,since when can a Jewish person not hate Israel let alone have a vicious hatred of Israel?/ Do you think because someone is Jewish, that automatically means when they make anti-semitic or anti-Israel comments, they can't be? " I've seperated your sentence with this as I will address second part later. why do you ASSUME it is a "vicious hatred" ( and I do note your choice of words, for there extremist value) That is all it is, ASSUMPTION. So you can paint this thusly labelled person in a negative light, and you can therefore justify your nonsensical attack. (Talk about propoganda) A more rational discourse, would not use those words, since they are only words of assumption , based on YOUR presuppositions. presupposition:presupposition is an assumption about the world whose truth is taken for granted in discourse. Rue:"Of course Jewish people can viciously hate Israel or other Jews. Any minority can hate their own minority status." You are joining two different concepts that are unrelated. A hatred of ones minority status, whateverYOU mean by that exactly ? But IMO that would construe a resentment more against those who are in the majority status, as opposed to a country, or a religious grouping. Rue: "do you not think there are Muslims who hate parts of their own religion or hate their own governments or do you think simply because they are Muslim they don't? " OK, right here Rue. When you say this wrt Muslims, who dislike parts of there religions, or dislike their government, I notice, you do not paint them as racist, or anti anything. Yet, wrt Jewish people you label them as having a "vicious hatred" of Israel and of being potentially anti-semetic. Then you rant on and on about Jewish people expressing their opinions WRT Israel as being hateful and anti-semetic and this and that. Therein lies your double standard. Since you clearly think that Israel is above criticism, you rail against people who criticize, no matter how legitimate as "viciously hateful" and "anti-semetic" especially Jews.(whose opinion is not shared by you) But you heap NO such language on the Muslim who is critical of their religion or there government, simply because you think that Islam is in need of all the criticism it can have thrown at it. What you have shown clearly is your own bias, wrt those you believe are above reproach ( People who are never critical of Israel and Muslims who are critical of Islam) and those you believe are not.(People who are critical of the state of Israel, wether it be it's actions, it's policies etc.,) You haven't demonstrated a dam thing about the "left". Your arguement is so flawed, I have to add, that, according to you every criticism a Canadian makes of Canada, makes one 'viciously hateful" and anti-canuck, ditto for evey American. that is bullocks, pure and simple! Your whole convoluted arguement consists of a need to label people in the propagandic sense, so you can attack them, and nothing more. To demonize is to dehumanize, and make it easier for attack, that is all you have done.

"Ethiopia restored order on behalf of the legitimate Somali government?" so Ethiopia, (out of the goodness of there hearts of course), a predominantly christian nation backed by the US, restored order to an Islamic nation, whom they have fought against previously??? that's quite a stretch, really hard to believe. did they? you appear to be questioning your ownself? You flatter yourself, if you think your questions are to "difficult" what they are IMO is nonsensical, your like a drive by shooter , come post a few off topic-'challenging' questions ( not difficult, but baiting) then pat yourself on the back cause you think you have 'proven' something? what I don't know? but 'something'. That's why I don't bother, your not interested in discussing, IMO, just proving "something' whatever that is to you. In my book that's not a discussion. You don't read what I posted, nor what the other poster said, you don't check out links, you, simply spout off, that's IMO. if I saw differently I would legitimately discuss with you.

Yeah, the whole crying Kuwaiti princess was quite the scam! Argus/jbq's premise is that Muslim's cause a disproportianate amount of violence, but, the reality doesn't support the premise. wrt Ethiopia/Somalia. Re: of Somalia's 'history' the fact is Ethiopia (backed by the US) invaded/instigated the latest warfare. So let me get this straight, you thought Iraq was justified in invading kuwait and you think the violence in Somalia started when Ethiopia was invited in by the government to stop it? is this about right? BTW: Ethiopia never invited Somalia in. Where would you get such an idea? Did you even know the invader Ethiopia, was fighting on behalf of the US? Did you know that the US was backing warlords in Somalia, to fight, as/and after Ethiopia was invading? "More than a decade after U.S. troops withdrew from Somalia following a disastrous military intervention, officials of Somalia's interim government and some U.S. analysts of Africa policy say the United States has returned to the African country, secretly supporting secular warlords who have been waging fierce battles against Islamic groups for control of the capital, Mogadishu" "" The U.S. government funded the warlords in the recent battle in Mogadishu, there is no doubt about that," government spokesman Abdirahman Dinari told journalists by telephone from Baidoa. "This cooperation . . . only fuels further civil war." U.S. officials have refused repeated requests to provide details about the nature and extent of their support for the coalition of warlords, which calls itself the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism in what some Somalis say is a marketing ploy to get U.S. support." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601625_pf.html Isn't it amazing how "AlQuaeda" always shows up, right when the US is looking for a way to justify military intervention? Afghanistan, Iraq, Ethiopia wrt: Incubator baby/princess In fact, do you even know what the 'incubator baby/crying princess" is about?? or the troops amassed on the Saudi border? do you know what is being discussed? I highly doubt you do, have any inkling.

Yeah, the whole crying Kuwaiti princess was quite the scam! Argus/jbq's premise is that Muslim's cause a disproportianate amount of violence, but, the reality doesn't support the premise. wrt Ethiopia/Somalia. Re: of Somalia's 'history' the fact is Ethiopia (backed by the US) invaded/instigated the latest warfare.

Yeah, and they 'took babies out of incubators" too , right? oh, yea, and amassed troops at, was it the border of Saudi Arabia? are these incidents correct? if you think they are,you have little concept of what the 'bald truth' is.

You mentioned Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, and suddenly you're introducing Somalia as if that was part of the original trio of instances. Nice but obviously dishonest. But as to Somalia, that is another Muslim nation wracked by religious and tribal violence for decades now. Real good example of the face of Islam you're using there Kuzadd! "You mentioned Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, and suddenly you're introducing Somalia as if that was part of the original trio of instances. Nice but obviously dishonest." actually I was discussing Somalia and Ethiopia. Did you read it? Ethiopia was the instigator of that proxy war. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....opic=9149&st=30 No dishonesty, clearly you did NOT read what I wrote. I'll show you.... read what is written it's all there....

Argus: "Except that the violence in all three areas originated with the Muslims - something you apparently wish to forget." Remiel: "I could of sworn that this round of violence in Iraq started with Americans in ships, tanks and planes. But you know, maybe that whole deposing of the Hussein regime was just my imagination. Yeah, now I remember, Saddam was involved in 9/11 and had Weapons of Mass Destruction. So, of course the violence started with him. Not." as far as Afghanistan goes, the country and it's citizens, had nothing to do with 9/11. The allegation is OBL a Saudi citizen, was in Afghanistan. yet, it was the country that was invaded and is occupied, by the west. All this time , no OBL, and still the Afghan people are occupied, killed and imprisoned. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- wrt Africa: Ethiopia entered Somalia http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/26/opinion/edlone.php ironically The two neighboring nations have been rivals for years, partly because of their religious differences, with Ethiopia having a strong Christian identity and Somalia almost completely Muslim. http://www.topix.net/world/ethiopia/2007/0...ntial-lobbyists Ethiopia reaps U.S. aid by enlisting in war on terror and hiring influential lobbyists WASHINGTON — One dramatic act sets Ethiopia apart from the array of countries with poor human rights records that have become United States counterterrorism allies since the September 11, 2001, attacks: and overthrew a Taliban-like Islamist movement.The country that Ethiopia invaded is its neighbor to the east in the Horn of Africa, the disintegrated state of Somalia, where the Islamist movement, called the Union of Islamic Courts, had taken over much of the country and was suspected of harboring al Qaeda members. Ethiopia remains militarily embroiled there today. ( Al Quaeda, always there when the US needs an enemy) In its latest human rights report for 2006, the U.S. State Department painted a grim picture of the Ethiopian government's human rights record, one that has changed little over the years. "Although the constitution and law prohibit the use of torture and mistreatment," the report says, "there were numerous credible reports that security officials often beat or mistreated detainees. Opposition political parties reported frequent and systematic abuse of their supporters by police and regional militias." If you get a chance , read up on the' lovely' US backed dictator So Argus,wrong again, it was the US backed 'christian' nation, with the nasty dictator, that INSTIGATED the proxy war on behalf of the US. keep trying, you may yet, get something correct.

Except that the violence in all three areas originated with the Muslims - something you apparently wish to forget. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=9183

Yes, since you know nothing about me, it makes clear how invalid your statment is. That said, have you checked the most recent announcements? If not you should. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showforum=15 suspensions and bannings

Shatila and Sabra were one incident. Also, the Muslims and Christians were in a long term war and many Muslim atrocities went unreported. My point is that the kind of incidents you're referring to are "man bites dog" and not vice versa. No the indicent I referred to was in response to your own question "And show me any recent cases of Jewish or Christain random murder, rapine and pillaging inflicted upon Muslims, outside Serbia." sabra /shatilla along with the other instances cited, demonstrate clearly, the premise originally put forward by yourself and Argus are faulty. The disproportionate amount of violence is perpetuated by the minority, on th majority.

Yes, because they have a culture, religion and/or ideology which, descended from their days as desert raiders, puts "fighters" on a pedestal. That is rich. So how about the US, does it have a culture of miltarism? Oh yes it does. Does it put it's militarism on a pedestal? Yes it does. How about Israel? with it's mandatory military service. That doesn't create a culture of militarism? yes it does. "support the troops" what is that type of sloganism about?

I like your take! I'll bet the Muslim's you encounter are just going about there day? That's the case with the one's I encounter. wrt the religious aspect, since I to do not buy into the " my god is better" routine, I think that precludes us from alot of baloney! Thankfully!