top
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: Anti-War
Left Denial on 9/11
by August West
Friday Mar 1st, 2002 9:12 PM
Analysis on why many on the Left refuse to even discuss questions being raised about the official 9/11 story.
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE> WHY THEY BELIEVE THE GOVERNMENT-

LEFT DENIAL ON 9/11</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<P>A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine presented to the Infoshop site an article he had posted on several indymedia sites regarding the real story behind 9/11. He’s posted before at Infoshop, in fact was highlighted. He was surprised to get back a response from site “master” ChuckO, saying “I have a low tolerance for any kind of conspiracy theory. As far as I’m concerned, a bunch of Osama’s buddies conducted these attacks. I’m not going to post anything that says otherwise.” He got a similar, if less straight-forward response, from Anarchy Magazine’s Jason McQuinn, who said circumstantial evidence is not enough for him to print such a story (though it’s good enough for deciding Osama did it?).</P>

<P>One can argue that such attitudes violate basic anarchist principles of openness and refusal to censor unpopular views. But beyond that, ChuckO’s response is a good example of what is a very common response on the part of the Left to questions about the official story, let alone alternative explanations: a lack of interest, often expressed in dismissive terms. I prefer to not discuss the critiques of the official story, and refer people to where these are thoroughly analyzed. Instead, i will focus on why the Left seems so eager for once to accept official reality, and accept it from the administration of the Thief in Chief (he stole the election, remember?), who couldn’t even tell the truth about his drunken driving arrest, whose father headed the CIA and was involved in Iran-Contragate, and whose grandfather Prescott was a banker for the Nazis. It’s important to answer “why”, because this shows the barriers we’re up against in raising such questions, well beyond any matter of getting the facts out.</P>

<P>Denial lies at the heart of this unusual Left reaction. Many activists have looked at the questions, thought about the answers for a bit, and retreated in horror in the face of implications. If the government had foreknowledge and let the attacks happen, or worse, actually took part in facilitating them, then the American state is far more vicious than they could have imagined. And if so, what would happen to them should they vocalize this? Needless to say, this would greatly raise the stakes of political action well beyond the relatively superficial level that even many leftists operate at. It would be impossible to go on living as before, being essentially a spectator whose life is work/shopping/entertainment , with the occasional political rally, lecture or movie to spice things up and make one feel involved. People like that, or even ones more involved with some regular effort at political reform, could no longer feel that the political situation could be changed for the better through small, incremental steps, a 100 year or even 500 year plan. This prospect is thoroughly unsettling, and is easier to deal with if simply dismissed outright.</P>

<P>The events of that day in September were no doubt very traumatic, especially for those who happen to live in New York or Washington, or who have friends or family there. There used to be a saying in the ‘60s that a conservative was a liberal who just got mugged. While this is rather incomplete, there is an element of truth in it: Being subject personally to a crime means one’s survival instincts go into action, and people who would never get violent otherwise may do unimaginable things. This is quite necessary in the cause of immediate self-defense, but it can have repercussions well past the actual situation. In the same way, those who were in close proximity to the 9/11 attacks were traumatized. I know a radical performance artist who was in New York then and told me that the day after, had he been given a rifle and told to shoot certain people, he would have done so. He now dismisses any talk of a different explanation of 9/11. Like him, many leftists feel like they were personally attacked and demand revenge. In a more extreme version, this has led people like Christopher Hitchens to assert that the attacks represented an unprecedented level of evil, cannot be compared to anything that came beforehand, and a forceful response by the American state is therefore totally just and stands above criticism.</P>

<P>Beyond specific individual reactions we run into the social character of an individual who lives in this society. This is the individual psychic structure which transforms feelings and sensory inputs into social behavior. This structure generates the behavior pattern one needs to fit into this society, to do things such as hold down a job while suppressing your utter disgust at the daily humiliation, exploitation and degradation this entails, shop for overpriced necessities in often-overcrowded neon-lit metal and concrete structures, and compete with others for space and timely progress in ever longer commutes. In all this activity, we are surrounded by an increasingly advertising-saturated environment, populated with people who look like ads or tv “soaps” characters, whose conversations and general ways of being reflect self-absorption,short attention spans, and a cynical withdrawal from politics coupled with conformist materialist strivings.</P>

<P>The social character of the current era is programmed to go along with the flow. Under such circumstances, even leftists are under pressure to adapt or go insane (or broke). Most of their time is spent as “good citizens” (obedient workers/shoppers/commuters), regardless of what they say and think when acting in consciously political ways. They therefore manifest authoritarian ways towards others, e.g.,censoring “their” website, and in general act so as to reproduce the basic patterns of behavior of this society. If everyone around us talks about nothing but sports or movies or music shows, we feel pressure to fit in if we don’t want to be left out. And if the dominant message that everyone picks up from the organs of propaganda and replicates in their conversations is that “we” are under an external terrorist threat, the unconscious drive is to accept this and adapt; better that than getting even more isolated than we already are, and risk ostracism from even long-time friends or associates, an even more impoverished social life (who wants to date someone who’s always creating waves? No fun), and ridicule.</P>

<P>Beneath unconscious motivations also lie some conscious agendas. Those on the Left who have embraced “critical support” for a “limited response” war will no doubt not wish to have their political bankruptcy exposed. But even most of those who oppose the War have nevertheless accepted the notion that the U.S. was attacked by a vicious enemy. For some, this represents an opportunity to promote their moralistic approach: let us respond in an appropriate, moral and non-military manner. Others, such as Chomsky, Michael Albert, Howard Zinn and Alex Cockburn, simply trot out the “blowback” explanation: this horrible attack happened because America has done bad things, has not listened to “us” (wag, wag the finger), and better start changing its policies (as if an empire can be run in a nice way!). Yet others who disagree with war boosters like Katrina van den Heuvel of The Nation nevertheless buy their thesis that the war promotes increasing state powers (e.g., making airport baggage inspectors federal employees), and this amounts to a move towards “socialism”. If the events of 9/11 were not what they seemed to be, this takes away the chance to promote these political programs, perhaps to even advance certain careers. </P>

<P>Others on the Left have such an intense hatred of Islamic Fundamentalism (which is indeed a reactionary force, though hardly one contending for global supremacy) that they want to see it crushed, and so what if this promotes the interests of the American-led global empire of capital? A group of former situationists, including Tom Ward who used to write for the Village Voice, have even articulated the notion that there is a struggle for world domination between Western Capitalism and Islamic Fundamentalism, and that “we” should choose the West as the lesser of two evils, the side whose victory is more likely to promote the long-term interests of general social transformation.</P>

<P>Peter Hudis, writing in News and Letters, articulated a viewpoint which, while not quite as extreme as this, nevertheless asserts that the attacks happened because Fundamentalism hates freedom: sounds a lot like an echo of Bush. In addition, there are those on the Left who believe European “civilization” is a beacon of human development in an otherwise savage world, have an outright racist hatred of the people of Central Asia and the Middle East (“goatfuckers” is what one “marxist” i know keeps calling them), and don’t mind seeing the West bring some “civilization” to those savages. Were the commonly-accepted notions of what happened on 9/11 to be contradicted, all these political stances would be exposed for the foolishness and perversity they embody.</P>

<P>Certain organizations such as ZMag have the perspective that a discussion of possible U.S. government foreknowledge and/or complicity is at odds with critical theory. An analysis of institutions is what’s necessary, they say, and talking about government involvement is a form of conspiracy theory, whose focus is corrupt individuals rather than the overall structure of the system, and whose promoters often espouse simplistic if not all-out right wing politics. True enough, all events happen in the context of global capitalism and its dyamics, especially the accumulation imperative. But within these constraints, corporate and state managers act to facilitate their ends. And pretending that they don’t act deliberately and in secret to promote their goals flies in the face of history, such as the events of Pearl Harbor, or the Gulf of Tonkin pseudo-attack which led to dramatically-escalated U.S. involvement in Indochina. A determination to not deal with what the elites actually do to enforce their policies is a good way to disarm yourself and let them have their way.</P>

<P>And to top it all, there is the popularity factor. Bush’s war seems to be more popular than Jesus right now. Many on the Left simply don’t want to oppose what appear to be widely accepted views and alienate new readers/listeners/viewers of their media projects or potential recruits to their organizations. So even opposition to the war has to be couched in terms of “but we are also patriots”, or at least “we are responsible critics”. As if people who accept the premises behind this expansion of the Orwellian military/police state would nevertheless be open to a critique of capitalism. This is opportunism of the worst sort.</P>

<P>Whatever the reasons, a refusal to look honestly and fully at the reality we face and discuss all the questions raised about the official 9/11 story can only mean living life as a lie, living on a false basis in a fantasy world. The refusal of much of the Left to permit open discussion of this topic undermines the credibility and security of those who do see the need to examine the situation and raise questions. It undermines the solidarity of opposition to capital and the state. In many cases, denial may simply be a dishonest attempt to protect one’s self and let others take the heat; “Don’t murder me” . I see striking parallels between the Left’s reaction in the present situation and its reaction in 1914, as the supposedly socialist Second International turned its back on numerous pledges to never allow a war, and its constituent parties joined the various national war efforts. This amounted to sending many of their own (particulary working class) members to be slaughtered on behalf of a struggle for markets and the “national (capital) interest”.</P>

<P>This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around. We are up against a global capital which is facing mounting barriers to its very survival, and it’s reacting predictably like a cornered animal.Those who believe that the U.S. government due to some uniqueness would not kill so many of its own people to promote the objectives of its masters, and would not engage in such perverse behavior, are setting themselves up to be lambs ready for the slaughter. Now more than ever is the time to assert the truth in the face of overwhelming official lies, to face the tsunami wave without fear. Public opinion, especially as presented by the mass media, is no more than a reflection of the sum of official lies, and cannot be used as a gauge for what is the correct course of action. </P>
</BODY></HTML>
by e goldmperson
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 12:02 AM
I realize this information will be upsetting. But, it must be looked at.

WHY DID MAINSTREAM MEDIA "VOW TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE INSIDER TRADING
THAT PROFITED OFF THE 9-11 HORROR," AND THEN SUDDENLY . . . DROPPED THE
STORY?

The DISTURBING FACTS:

- The Bush Administration forced the FBI to back off of the Bin Laden
investigation months before 9-11. [BBC transcript BUSH – BIN LADEN HIDDEN
AGENDA!!!]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm

“I Don’t Buy It” “ I was one of the first tenants in the World Trade
Center (WTC) back in 1979. Back then----over 20 years ago----it was known
to all the tenants of the WTC that the WTC was a “no fly” zone. If you came
within 12 miles of the WTC, flying outside of a pattern where you were
supposed to be, you were warned to back off. If you came within five miles,
they would threaten to shoot you down. If you came within three miles, they
could shoot you down. . . . “I had a friend who was flying a small plane
who got warned away and they almost blew him out of the sky 20 years ago
because he was showing somebody a close view of the towers. “I can see
the first tower getting hit by surprise, but 15 minutes later the second
tower also gets hit? I don’t buy it.”
Walter Burien, Radio Free America, Nov 11, 2001 [See FAA and DOD standard
procedures for off course flight intercepts and shoot downs (all violated on
9-11)].

- The CIA station chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden 7 weeks before
9-11, and at a time when Bin Laden was supposedly "wanted" by the CIA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html·
(German Trans.) http://www.orf.at/orfon/011031-44569/index.html
(US Wash Times Artcl: http://www.washtimes.com Report: bin Laden treated at US
hospital
Elizabeth Bryant UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL Published 10/31/2001

An interview with Michael Springman exposes the CIA's links
with the terrorist attacks on September 11
Straight Goods reader Ken MacAllister of Vancouver, BC writes:
Michael Springmann worked for the US government for 20 years with the
foreign service and consulate. He just went public with the story of his
involvement in a large scale CIA operation that brought hundreds of people
from the middle east to the US, issued them passports and trained them to be
terrorists. Springmann says that the CIA is working closely with Bin Laden
and his operatives in Jeddah and has been since 1987. The most haunting
implication from this interview is that all of the terrorist acts of late
were planned and paid for by the CIA with US taxpayers money so that the US
could legitimately bomb the hell out of Afghanistan
The interview is riveting, and I urge you to give it a listen.
Hear the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) interview here.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote.cfm?REF=1267


WHY WERE FAA & DOD “INTERCEPT” PROCEDURES NOT FOLLOWED
ON 9-11?
>It is a FACT that DOZENS of Air Force and Air National Guard bases
are located within TEN to THIRTY minutes intercept time of BOTH 9.11
target locations.
>
>It is a FACT that most of these installations have at the ready
fighter jets such as F-16s to be scrambled on a MOMENT's NOTICE, for
>intercepting troubled or problem aircraft.
>
>It is a FACT that air defense units DID receive alerts from Air
Traffic Controllers and non-corrupt FAA officials on a number of
aircraft across the East Coast which had broken communications and
deviated radically from established flight paths on the morning of
September 11.
>
There are now 12 Congressional Committees planning to investigate 9-11, and
how it was allowed to occur. Bush & Cheney have taken the unprecedented
step of urging the Senate to "limit" inquiries into 9-11. Read the below
reports and you may understand "why" Bush and Cheney don't want this in the
light of day.


What do we know of 9-11 that should be investigated?

Pre 9-11 Intelligence Breakdowns:
- Reportedly the Bush Administration forced the FBI to "back off" on their
investigations of terrorism in the Middle East. FBI Deputy Director O'Neill
(killed in WTC on 9-11) reportedly resigned not long before 9-11 over this
investigative obstruction, claiming that the main obstruction was the
interests of American Oil Companies. (Source: Recently released French Book,
"Bin Laden,
La Verite Interdite" (Bin Laden, the Forbidden Truth)

- US Oil interests were well represented within the negotiating team, that
apparently was the source of the threat to "bury Afghanistan in a carpet of
bombs" unless they played ball in creating a major oil pipeline through
Afghanistan. This threat was reportedly made several months before 9-11.
(Bush's family has a strong oil background. So do some of his top aides.
- ENRON DID THE FEASABILITY STUDY FOR THIS MULTIBILLION DOLLAR PROJECT

-U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney was until the end of last
year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for the oil
industry;

-National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager
for Chevron;

-Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley
Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.
[ BBC interview on the above issue: - The Bush Administration forced the FBI
to back off of the Bin Laden investigation months before 9-11. Source: BBC
transcript BUSH ? BIN LADEN HIDDEN AGENDA!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/16455
27.stm]

- CIA Station Chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden only 7 weeks before 9-11
took place, yet they did not try to apprehend him, only met with him. - The
CIA station chief in Dubai met with Bin Laden 7 weeks before 9-11, and at a
time when Bin Laden was supposedly "wanted" by the CIA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html·
(English)
(German Trans.) http://www.orf.at/orfon/011031-44569/index.html

- US government agent claims the CIA has been dealing with Bin Laden since
1987, and he suggests in his interview that the terrorist acts of late may
well have been planned and paid for by the CIA with US taxpayers money to
enable the Bush Administration to "legitimately" bomb Afghanistan into
submission.

An interview with Michael Springman exposes the CIA's links
with the terrorist attacks on September 11 [Michael Springman worked for the
US government for 20 years with the foreign service and consulate. He just
went public with the story of his involvement in a large scale CIA operation
that brought hundreds of people from
the middle east to the US, issued them passports and trained them to be
terrorists. Hear the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) interview here.
http://www.straightgoods.ca/ViewNote.cfm?REF=1267]

-Insider Trading profits off the 9-11 terror don't lead to
Osama Bin Laden, but to AB Brown Trust, until recently chaired by the 3rd
highest man in the CIA.

-[Someone with considerable financial resources, and
foreknowledge of the terrorist event, put stock options "against" the
airlines that were to explode that week of 9-11.
- INSIDER TRADING PROFITS from 9-11 were reported by the US media when they
thought it was Arab terrorists . . . but then the story mysteriously died.
Then the UK Independent revealed that it leads to a firm chaired by the 3rd
highest man in the CIA (and stranger still is that $2.5 million of the
"winnings" are still unclaimed (see below for URL to entire story).
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/RUP110A.html .
Info confirmed by Independent Newspaper in UK:
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=99402]

[Standard FAA and DOD "intercept and shoot down procedures" were violated on
9-11 (see FAA and DOD procedures on "intercepts").]
Ø It is a FACT that standard intercept procedures for dealing with
these kinds of situations ARE TOTALLY ESTABLISHED, IN FORCE and ON-
LINE in these United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours
a day.
Ø
Ø Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E
>'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date:
December 7, 2000 (Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter
14-1-2.
>Full text posted at:
>http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA
>
Ø Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC)
>Procedures,' (Includes Change 3 Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4
>"Interception Signals" Full text posted at:
>http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

Ø FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations"
>Full text posted at:
>http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

Ø FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3
Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations"
>Full text posted at:
>http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1

Ø FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date:
>November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000;
Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense
Liaison
>Officers (ADLO's)"
>Full text posted at:
>http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

Ø FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date:
>November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000;
Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of
Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service"
>Full text posted at:
>http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

Ø Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1
June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict
Airborne Objects," 4. Policy (page 1)
>PDF available at:
>http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
>Backup at:
>http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/3610_01a.pdf
>
For a clear and detailed description of flight plans, fixes, and
Air Traffic Control, see: 'Direct-To Requirements' by Gregory Dennis and
>Emina Torlak at: http://sdg.lcs.mit.edu/atc/D2Requirements.htm
>
Absolutely NO executive-level input of ANY KIND is required for
standard intercepts to be scrambled.


WHY DID BUSH’S STAFF NOT FOLLOW NORMAL PROCEDURES IN THE CASE OF A NATIONAL
EMERGENCY ON 9-11? DID HE KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN?

The UK Independent Newspaper has questioned how Bush, who claimed in two
public appearances to have seen the first plane hit the first tower on
television the morning of 9-11, before the 2nd tower got hit? The
significance of this is that no one in the world saw that first tower get
hit, at that time, on television. They also question why Bush continued to
sit with elementary school students after the 2nd tower was hit and he was
informed, "America is under attack." Standard procedure for such a situation
is to whisk the President away, if not for his safety, for the safety of the
students. Unless he knew something more than we did that morning. The
Independent asks, "what television station was HE watching?"


Is it Outrageous to Consider that Elements of a Nations' Government Could
Committ Terror on It's Own People for Political Reasons?

- ABC News.com's May/2001 story resurfaces about how the US Joint Chiefs of
Staff have in the past ACTUALLY DESIGNED a plan to committ domestic terror
on Americans to whip them into a war hysteria, to support war efforts by the
govt. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

[The National Security Archive has a PDF version of the Operation Northwoods
plan, which author James Bamford says "may be the most corrupt plan ever
created by the U.S. government." It can be found at the following URL:]
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/

After 9-11 Oddities:

Anthrax sent to top Democrat Daschle and to the U.S. media (NBC & The
National Inquirer) had the effect of "uniting the nation behind the Bush
Administration's war effort," and literally shutting down Congress in many
ways.

Oddities exist when the anthrax issue is looked at closely:
- New Science Journal says Anthrax sent to Daschle is NOT Russian or Iraqi,
but likely US military strain.

- San Francisco Chronicle reports, the anthrax strain produced in US
University is destroyed on ok of FBI (they had studied this for years, some
at university question the timing of the destruction of those anthrax spores
. . . right now of all times (?))






http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/chronicle/archive/2001/11/09/MN153227.DTL

Terror Anthrax Linked to Type Made by U.S.
The powder used in the anthrax attacks is virtually
indistinguishable from that produced by the United States
military, according to federal scientists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/national/03POWD.html?todaysheadlines


After 9-11 Administration Damage Control Efforts:

Fire Engineering Magazine assails the incredible speed that the evidence in
the WTC collapse is being destroyed. Never in the history of fire
investigations has evidence been destroyed this fast before exhaustive
investigations can be completed. ["We must try to find out why the twin
towers fell" By James Quintiere,Baltimore Sun 1/3/01
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-
op.towers03jan03.story
-WTC "INVESTIGATION"?: A CALL TO ACTION from Fire Engineering Magazine]
-
- Bush Admin. declares they will "seal the records of presidents beginning
with Father Bush/Reagans (an act never before done in US presidential
history)."

- "It is not a stretch to wonder if this White House is up to something that
it doesn't want known 12 years from now or anytimethereafter. [A direct
quote from the piece carried by Scripps Howard News Service, 11/5/2001. Re:
Bush's sealing of presidential records for the first time in U.S. history]


- Bush & Cheney urge Senate Leader to "limit" inquiries into 9-11: Senate
perplexed by this. Don't go there: Bush Asks Daschle to Limit Sept. 11
Probes Date: Wednesday, January 30 @ 10:09:24 EST
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader
Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events
of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN.

The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday
morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation. He asked that only
the House and Senate intelligence committees look into the potential
breakdowns among federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist
attacks to occur, rather than a broader inquiry that some lawmakers have
proposed, the sources said.

Tuesday's discussion followed a rare call to Daschle from Vice President
Dick Cheney last Friday to make the same request.

"The vice president expressed the concern that a review of what happened on
September 11 would take resources and personnel away from the effort in the
war on terrorism," Daschle told reporters.

But, Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation. "I
acknowledged that concern, and it is for that reason that the Intelligence
Committee is going to begin this effort, trying to limit the scope and the
overall review of what happened," said Daschle, D-South Dakota. "But
clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and
why," he said.

Foreign Officials have powerful concerns over 9-11:

FORMER GERMAN CABINET MINISTER ATTACKS OFFICIAL BRAINWASHING ON SEPTEMBER 11
ISSUE
[Source: Tagesspiegel, Berlin, Jan. 13] PARTIAL TRANSLATION

In a full-page interview with the Sunday edition (Jan. 13) of the Berlin
Tagesspiegel daily, former German Minister of Technology, Andreas von
Buelow, said he does not buy any of the official theories that have been
presented to date, on the events of September 11.

Q: You seem so angry, really upset.

Von Buelow: I can explain what's bothering me: I see that after the
horrifying attacks of Sept. 11, all political public opinion is being forced
into a direction that I consider wrong.

Q: What do you mean by that?

Von Buelow: I wonder why many questions are not asked. Normally, with such a
terrible thing, various leads and tracks appear that are then commented on,
by the investigators, the media, the government: Is there something here or
not? Are the explanations plausible? This time, this is not the case at all.
It already began just hours after the attacks in New York and Washington
and--

Q: In those hours, there was horror, and grief.

Von Buelow: Right, but actually it was astounding: There are 26 intelligence
services in the U.S.A. with a budget of $30 billion--

Q: ...more than the German defense budget...

Von Buelow: --which were not able to prevent the attacks. In fact, they
didn't even have an inkling they would happen. For 60 decisive minutes, the
military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the
ground, 48 hours later, however, the FBI presented a list of suicide
attackers. Within ten days, it emerged that seven of them were still alive.

Q: What, please?

Von Buelow: Yes, yes. And why did the FBI chief take no position regarding
contradictions? Where the list came from, why it was false? If I were the
chief investigator (state attorney) in such a case, I would regularly go to
the public, and give information on which lead are valid and which not.

Q: That sounds like--

Von Buelow: --like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks
behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with
credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors
with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in
Arabic for jumbo
jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell
letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in
the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left like behind like in a
child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed!

There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to this,
the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from
outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they
could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting
[automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in
this case. That's a theory....

Q: Which sounds really adventurous, and was never considered.

Von Buelow: You see! I do not accept this theory, but I find it worth
considering. And what about the obscure stock transactions? In the week
prior to the attacks, the amount of transactions in stocks in American
Airlines, United Airlines, and insurance companies, increased 1,200%. It was
for a value of $15 billion. Some people must have known something. Who?

Q: Why don't you speculate on who it might have been.

Von Buelow: With the help of the horrifying attacks, the Western mass
democracies were subjected to brainwashing. The enemy image of
anti-communism doesn't work any more; it is to be replaced by peoples of
Islamic belief. They are accused of having given birth to suicidal
terrorism.

Q: Brainwashing? That's a tough term.

Von Buelow: Yes? But the idea of the enemy image doesn't come from me. It
comes from Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samuel Huntington, two policy-makers of
American intelligence and foreign policy. Already in the middle of the
1990s, Huntingon believed, people in Europe and the U.S. needed someone they
could hate-- this would strengthen their
identification with their own society. And Brzezinski, the mad dog, as
adviser to President Jimmy Carter, campaigned for the exclusive right of the
U.S. to seize all the raw materials of the world, especially oil and gas.

Q: You mean, the events of Sept. 11--

Von Buelow: --fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the
intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex. This
is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the former Soviet
Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline routes and--

Q: Erich Follach described that at length in Spiegel: ``It's a matter of
military bases, drugs, oil and gas reserves.''

Von Buelow: I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and
organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within
a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with
complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long
support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.

Q: You are a conspiracy theorist!

Von Buelow: Yeah, yeah. That's the ridicule heaped [on those raising these
questions] by those who would prefer to follow the official, politically
correct line. Even investigative journalists are fed propaganda and
disinformation. Anyone who doubts that, doesn't have all his marbles! That
is your accusation.

Q: Your career actually speaks against the idea that you are not in your
right mind. You were already in the 1970s, state secretary in the Defense
Ministry; in 1993 you were the SPD [Social Democratic Party] speaker in the
Schalk-Golodkowski investigation committee--

Von Buelow: And it all began there! Until that time, I did not have any
great knowledge of the work of intelligence agencies. And now we had to take
note of a great discrepancy: We shed light on the dealings of the Stasi and
other East bloc intelligence agencies in the field of economic criminality,
but as soon as we wanted to know something about the activities of the BND
[German intelligence
agency] or the CIA, it was mercilessly blocked. No information, no
cooperation, nothing! That's when I was first taken aback.


The Legacy:
"On the surface, selling arms to a country that sponsors terrorism, of
course, clearly, you'd have to argue it's wrong, but it's the exception
sometimes that proves the rule."

- George Bush on Good Morning America. 01/28/87


"You f**king son of a bitch, I saw what you wrote. We're not going to forget
this.",

- George W. Bush shouted at writer & editor Al Hunt,
& his 6 yr old son in a restaurant - 1988 ....

by do
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 4:25 AM
To read different on the 9-11, you can go here : http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do/ag/383.htm

Bye,
do
http://mai68.org or : http://www.cs3i.fr/abonnes/do
by Socialist
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 6:24 AM
Socialists are the left by definition, and we do question the government's story and most of us believe that this was Operation Northwood realized. That Operation, as all readers of the above information know, was the CIA's attempt to frame Cuba with a contrived incident to make it appear that tiny little Cuba attacked the mighty USA. Someone came to their senses and put that plan on hold. Most of us understand that this was another Reichstag Fire, another Nero burning Rome. It is obvious from the above information and all the rest we have been reading and hearing that this was a CIA and US Air Force operation to create an excuse for a blood for oil war abroad and promoting fascism at home, at a time when the capitalist economy is in serious trouble. We know from all our reading that the Bin Ladens and the Bushes are business partners in the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor promoter, that Osama Bin Laden is a long-time CIA agent, having been active in opposing the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, working with the CIA, and that oil is a primary concern of the Bushes and the capitalist class they represent and are a part of.

We also know that this is the same ruling class that murdered Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and their own John and Robert Kennedy.

Having said all that, now what? We certainly cannot go to the servile Congress, which is bought and paid for by the same capitalist class. What we can do is oppose all imperalist wars and oppose fascism at home. Newspapers cannot engage in speculation or rumor-mongering. In addition, the socialist press is small and already has a plethora of issues to cover with always insufficient funds. The reason we have this crisis in the first place is because labor is weak. What we need above all else is labor organizing.

All who are covering the Reichstag Fire aspect of this crisis should continue doing so. The Internet is read by millions of people, and all of the above articles and others are much appreciated, well-read, and downloaded for preservation on paper. Keep up the good work.
by Socialist
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 6:33 AM
The World Socialist Website has been covering the Reichstag Fire aspect of this crisis. We could argue that they should do more, but they do concentrate on other issues. In any event, the March 2, 2002 online edition has an article, with links to previous articles, at:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/abc-m02.shtml
by me
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 9:32 AM
First of all, I agree that Chuck O runs his site in a condescending autocratic fashion...
I am one of those anarchists who have also been weary of passing around the story that the gov. orchestrated the attack. There are a few reasons for this none of which is that I don't think they "would never do duch a thing." The gov. and esp. the bush family and cronies will stop at nothing. So I am not naive. But here's my question: how far deep into the planning do you think they were? It is possible that they could have received the desired effect (WTC attack) by lapsing in secuirty or looking the other way as real threats were made--assuming that Al Qaeda did do it for a minute. It is also possible that this was a somewhat inside job... hired people to help Al Qaeda.
(Second plane theory etc.)

Here's my concern: I worry that by emphasizing US involvement you risk two things politically that are maybe not worth risking considering eternally inconclusive evidence: 1) You risk implying that the US has not made real enemies out there who are furious and want retaliation (this plays down the brutal legacy of US presence in the Middle East.) So you obscure an understanding of the effects of US military presence. 2) Also, it is difficult enough to get people to look at scandals like Enron in a way which leads them to radical conclusions...And you want anarchists to organize on the basis of the arguments you offer? I know this sounds instrumentalist, and I hate sounding that way, but even if I were to be convinced that somehow the US was involved enough ina direct fashion to warrant the use of the term "insider job" at teh same time I am very weary about how to use this kind of info politically. Most of the US is happily asleep and shopping as the stock market supposedly begins to recover and there are reported rises in the consumption of luxury goods... most of the liberal/left is caught up in their paid activist jobs...so how do you envision challenging the different sectors with this info? I am truly curious and would like your reflections bc/ this is where I am getting stuck.
by Fred
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 10:27 AM
yak, yak, yak............you guys cite nothing but circumstantial evidence and then smear anyone who doesn't draw the same conclusions you do. A massive conspiracy by the US on 9/11? No way that many people could keep the secret..............and you have to be seriously brain damaged to think something like that could be pulled off. Al-Quada did it; handle it, you bozos.
by Jesse
Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 1:05 PM
Then the democrats has some confessing to do as well.
by Chuck0
(chuck [at] tao.ca) Saturday Mar 2nd, 2002 11:17 PM
Thanks, Nessie, for the words of support. I don't think that many people realize that I keep that website running everyday without any kind of full time salary or compensation.

I have to address the "autocratic" criticism, which I think is totally unfounded. This is like saying that every magazine editor is "autocratic." An editor is always having to make editorial decisions, which means the frequent rejection of content. There are some editorial policies that I use for Infoshop News, with the main one being a daily limit on the number of stories. I do not run an open newswire.

At the same time, many people have been able to post comments about news stories. Contrary to some hostile rumors, I actually exercise a very light moderator's hands on the comments. Of the more than 3300 comments that have been posted since May of last year, I've probably deleted around 30-40, with most of those being dupes and posts of long articles. I do occasionally delete comments which I feel are inappropriate in a hostile sense. I'm not interested in providing a forum for poisonous personal attacks. I've also deleted posts that attempted to spread false rumors about myself. I think it is perfectly reasonable for me as the host of the website to not participate in my own character assasination.

As for Nessie's comments about it being my website and not a cooperative one, that is only partially true. Infoshop had been engaged in a process of becoming a more collective project, but this has been slowed for technical reasons. I consider several of the regular contributors to Infoshop News to be collaborators. And the new interactive American Gulag news site has two editors: myself and Ernesto from ABC Network. I'm looking for more editors and coolective members, but this takes time.
by me
Sunday Mar 3rd, 2002 11:13 AM
I do apologize for the use of the word autocratic. It was too harsh. I guess I don't understand some of your decisions, and there are a few--like cancelling the anarchy after leftism debate and this stuff on the 9/11 conspiracy--which I don't agree with at all. (Partly bc/ these discussions reveal some real weaknesses in certain anarchist tendencies as they play out before our eyes--I think it's educational.) But again, you probably see a lot of crap and have a low tolerance for it. I do apologize. It was not even the purpose of my post to address your editing style.
by Big Brother
Sunday Mar 3rd, 2002 12:54 PM
I know where all of you live...I'm coming for you...watch out. Losers. Who's that standing behind you? Made you look.
by stay on topic assholes
Tuesday Mar 5th, 2002 5:08 PM
ChuckO is more interested in defending his reputation than he is in addressing the more fundamental issue:
Why there has been very little "democratic" discussion about the curious events of 9-11 either on Anarchist or liberal-left sites.

LIke most of these White middle class bullshit artist...er...progressives, ChuckO is more interested in building his own inconsequential movement, organization or whatever--rather than addressing the political issues he/they are supposedly concerned about.

More astute people realize this for what it is: Political Opportunism and parasiticism of the worst kind.
by Elephant Memory
Tuesday Mar 5th, 2002 7:02 PM
The US wouldn't show us the evidence for who did the WTC. But conspiracy theorists have even less proof, and qualify for Urban Legends Hall of Fame.

What the 2 sides have in common is the incredible stink of racism and condescension towards people in countries that are totally justified in hating their oppressors.

The US uses bombs to try to enforce neo-colonialism.
Conspiracy Theorists constantly refer to the inability of people from 3rd world countries, to implement a sophisticated plan.

If one were to put aside all the white-men's burden, and studied the craftmanship, the obvious strategic weakness of the remaining superpower, would be more than obvious.


Here's an interesting article on ZNet the inherent racism of conspiracy theories.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/conspiracy.htm
by Mirror on the Mountain
Tuesday Mar 5th, 2002 9:44 PM
"The US wouldn't show us the evidence for who did the WTC. But conspiracy theorists have even less proof, and qualify for Urban Legends Hall of Fame."

I believe you meant evidence, not proof. Anyway...
Less evidence, eh? So tell me, since you know the governments evidence well enough to support it's "conspiracy theory" against any one else's, why don't you explain it for us? Unless of course, you don't even know what the hell your talking about.

"What the 2 sides have in common is the incredible stink of racism and condescension towards people in countries that are totally justified in hating their oppressors."

Really? So you have this in depth knowledge of the other "conspiracy theories" that allows you to conclude that they are racist. Wonderful! Then perhaps you'd like to explain those theories as well. Surely you've investigated the evidence enough to debunk it and give examples of it's racism. Then again, maybe your just parroting what someone else told you.

"The US uses bombs to try to enforce neo-colonialism.
Conspiracy Theorists constantly refer to the inability of people from 3rd world countries, to implement a sophisticated plan."

Or, perhaps we're just questioning how a nation that spends %40 of the worlds military budget and routinely conducts illegal spying and wire tapping of foreigners, especially muslim foreigners, could possibly let terrorists train at it's own CIA flight schools
(fact reported widely in mainstream press), and not be remotely suspicious. But you know more than I, so please enlighten me.

"If one were to put aside all the white-men's burden, and studied the craftsmanship, the obvious strategic weakness of the remaining superpower, would be more than obvious."

Oh, I've put mine aside, so I'd love to hear you explain this craftsmanship that was involved.

"Here's an interesting article on ZNet the inherent racism of conspiracy theories.
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/conspiracy.htm"

Yes, very interesting. I especially enjoyed the way the author stretches his personal conjecture into a massive masterpiece of over-intellectualization, without a single reference to any specific "conspiracy theory", or evidence there in, to back up his claims. I'm sure you, and all the other readers who already agreed with him were very impressed.

"A rational Anarchist is the only true Anarchist" - Me

by He Suck0s
Tuesday Apr 2nd, 2002 11:54 AM
I don't like the man. Maybe if he stopped spending so much damn time micromanaging his damn site he wouldn't be so damn unemployed - or, for that matter, so damn fat.
by Carol Brouillet
(cbrouillet [at] igc.org) Friday Jun 21st, 2002 5:15 PM
August made some excellent points. We actually marched last january on our Legislators demanding a congressional inquiry of 9-11. What surprised me the most later was the attacks from the Left!!!! I was so disappointed that the established Left gatekeepers were either "in denial" or stupid or "co-opted" to go along with the "official government story."

We are working on a transformational 9-11 film- which weaves together the stories of personal transformation with what we hope will be cultural transformation- if the "truth" about 9-11 can come out and waken Americans to the harsher reality of the level of corruption/concentration of wealth and power/desparation of the ruling elite to cling to their power regardless of the human and environmental costs in the "only" way that they know- through FEAR and GREED.

Truly, when one recognizes the truth of our situation, one must either strive to change "reality" or change "one's perception of reality" to bear the complicity of one's actions that supports an evil, deadly system.

It is a time for truth and courage- for mass enlightenment, for putting aside petty differences to challenge the most blatantly facsist power grab since the Reichstag Fire.

We need to remember how this works, first they came for the Communists.... we MUST speak up, before we, too are led like lambs to slaughter.
by The Screaming Cock!
Friday Jun 21st, 2002 8:31 PM
Where were you and your marching comrades when the Twin Towers were bombed in 1993, or the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, or the USS Cole in 2000? And where were your crudely painted signs of witless propaganda when the Taliban and the Iraqi governments were “cleansing” ethnic minorities and disposing their remnants in the arid wastes of the Third World?

Let me guess, you were probably organizing a rally against Clinton and his state-sponsored fascist soldiers -- or perhaps it was the oppressive cartel of the SUV manufacturers?

You know, you knuckleheads are engaged in such a self-deluded masturbatory fantasy of jack-booted G-men that you've completely lost your sight! And while you were desperately grasping at fabricated strands of duplicitous logic with hairy palms, I wonder if you and your Chicken Little collective realized that your imaginations are running around like headless cocks?


For just once in your reality-challenged lives, try to see through the bubbling rhetoric of opposition fermenting in your half-corked noggins and take a long look at your so-called "evidence" of a Fourth Reich … and try not to become entangled in the tired conspiracies of supermarket-tabloids. Steady your nerves with a good bracer of facts before blindly staggering forth or else you may just confirm our suspicions that your perverse paranoia is nothing more than a fetish of the sexually frustrated, righteous-Left.

Go ahead and hit me with your best shot -- fire away!
by Lynn Ertell
(lynnertell2 [at] comcast.net) Sunday Jul 14th, 2002 11:36 AM
Of course we need to take a critical view of the official inconsistences and lies about 9/11.
Classic scenarios like the Reichstag Fire, the Lavon Affair, Operation Northwoods, the JFK hit in Dallas ...
show that panicked elites are capable of anything.
And we always need to ask, (as knowledgable Romans did) "Cui bono ?" - who benefits.
However, we also need to place things in historical context.
Were the bloody attacks on the U.S.S. Cole and the emabassies in Kenya and Tanzania also engineered provocations by elements within the Clinton administration ? I doubt it.
They were the natural consequence/blowback of a bitter break-up between former allies:
U.S. intelligence agencies, and the oil-igarchy have a business dispute (in the family) with their former gangster partners: the bin Ladens, the Pakistani ISI, etc.
This is a simple falling out among thieves.
They move against each other the same way Capone moved against the Moran gang: and innoncent bystanders are slaughtered like in a gang drive-by shooting.
So, as in the case of Pearl Harbor, why not engineer a 9/11 so as to "force" an acknowledgement of this "war" upon the sleep-walking American public .... which up until 9/11 didn't know bin Laden existed.
Does an ongoing business dispute between the oil-igarchs and their Arab/Muslim partners lead to massive violence even before 9/11 ? Yes.
Was 9/11 useful to shock and enlist the American public into granting carte blanche to the oil-igarchy to focus their disupte on the Afghan territory needed to build the pipleline ? Of course.
Could not the oil-igarchy have engineered 9/11 thru their intelligence and technology assets ?
Yes. It's certainly plausible pending examination of the evidence.
All of these hypotheses are consistent.

HISTORY IS CONSPIRACY.
by Ronnie Ray-Gun
Monday Jul 15th, 2002 8:22 PM
G.Gordon Liddy claimed that three people can keep a secret if two are dead. I think allowing the plotting 911 by U.S. officials would be political suicide. This whole conspriracy buisness is really yankee arrogance,it's the idea that America is invicable and the only way we could be attacked is that we somehow allowed it to happen.
Admit it,they pulled a fast one on us.I also see alot of circler logic.Bush is republican=republicans are evil=bush is evil=bush coused 911.The radical right used the same logic with the Cliton adminstration.
There is a writer by the name of Tim Callahan,he writes for the Sceptic and has debunked many popular conpiracy theorys as well as bibical prophecy.
by Sheepdog
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 12:41 AM
Sheepdog



Dear Screaming Cock

Please wipe the spittle off the screen so you can see my response. Are you on a wire ball of speed and coke? The facts are out, you are deluding yourself as your hyperbole suggests due to the apparently incoherent torrent of degrading innuendo. Relax, take a few slow, deep breaths.

The sky did fall on 3000 human beings we couldn't pretend didn't matter.

I lay the 9-11 event at the door steps of the CIA.
Whether or not it was inside the house or outside. Without the spooks. snakes and hired killers you and I pay for, we wouldn't have seen this circus in hell and felt the fear as the shadows close in. Hey, what's a little media castigation or pepper spray in the eyes or
even a few Bar-B-Que'ed branch dividians; to see the hard side of the hidden hand just take a trip south where corporations operate without the waning pretense of law.

Please try to forgive my outburst, I hate to have my self-deluded masturbation interrupted.
by Zebulon
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 12:46 AM
"Weeks before the terrorist attacks on 11 September, the United States and the United Nations ignored warnings from a secret Taliban emissary that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil.

The warnings were delivered by an aide of Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, the Taliban Foreign Minister at the time, who was known to be deeply unhappy with the foreign militants in Afghan-istan, including Arabs.

Mr Muttawakil, now in American custody, believed the Taliban's protection of Mr bin Laden and the other al- Qa'ida militants would lead to nothing less than the destruction of Afghanistan by the US military. He told his aide: "The guests are going to destroy the guesthouse."

The minister then ordered him to alert the US and the UN about what was going to happen. But in a massive failure of intelligence, the message was disregarded because of what sources describe as "warning fatigue". At the same time, the FBI and the CIA failed to take seriously warnings that Islamic fundamentalist students had enrolled in flight schools across the US.

Mr Muttawakil's aide, who has stayed on in Kabul and who has to remain anonymous for his security, described in detail to The Independent how he alerted first the Americans and then the United Nations of the coming calamity of 11 September.

The minister learnt in July last year that Mr bin Laden was planning a "huge attack" on targets inside America, the aide said. The attacks were imminent and would be so deadly the United States would react with destructive rage.

Mr bin Laden had been in Afghanistan since May 1996, bringing his three wives, 13 children and Arab fighters. Over time he became a close ally of the obscurantist Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.

Mr Muttawakil learnt of the coming attacks on America not from other members of the Taliban leadership, but from the leader of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Tahir Yildash. The organisation was one of the fundamentalist groups that had found refuge on Afghan soil, lending fighters for the Taliban's war on the Northern Alliance and benefiting from good relations with al- Qa'ida in its fight against the Uzbek government.

According to the emissary, Mr Muttawakil emerged from a one-to-one meeting with Mr Yildash looking shocked and troubled. Until then, the Foreign Minister, who had disapproved of the destruction of the Buddhist statues in Bamian earlier in the year, had no inkling from others in the Taliban leadership of what Mr bin Laden was planning.

"At first Muttawakil wouldn't say why he was so upset," said the aide. "Then it all came out. Yildash had revealed that Osama bin Laden was going to launch an attack on the United States. It would take place on American soil and it was imminent. Yildash said Osama hoped to kill thousands of Americans."

At the time, 19 members of al-Qa'ida were in situ in the US waiting to launch what would be the deadliest foreign attack on the American mainland.

The emissary went first to the Americans, travelling across the border to meet the consul general, David Katz, in the Pakistani border town of Peshawar, in the third week of July 2001. They met in a safehouse belonging to an old mujahedin leader who has confirmed to The Independent that the meeting took place.

Another US official was also present possibly from the intelligence services. Mr Katz, who now works at the American embassy in Eritrea, declined to talk about the meeting. But other US sources said the warning was not passed on.

A diplomatic source said: "We were hearing a lot of that kind of stuff. When people keep saying the sky's going to fall in and it doesn't, a kind of warning fatigue sets in. I actually thought it was all an attempt to rattle us in an attempt to please their funders in the Gulf, to try to get more donations for the cause."

The Afghan aide did not reveal that the warning was from Mr Muttawakil, a factor that might have led the Americans to down-grade it. "As I recall, I thought he was speaking from his own personal perspective," one source said. "It was interesting that he was from the Foreign Affairs Ministry, but he gave no indication this was a message he was carrying."

Interviewed by The Independent in Kabul, the Afghan emissary said: "I told Mr Katz they should launch a new Desert Storm like the campaign to drive Iraq out of Kuwait but this time they should call it Mountain Storm and they should drive the foreigners out of Afghanistan. They also had to stop the Pakistanis supporting the Taliban."

The Taliban emissary said Mr Katz replied that neither action was possible. Nor did Mr Katz pass the warning on to the State Department, according to senior US diplomatic sources.

When Mr Muttawakil's emissary returned to Kabul, the Foreign Minister told him to see UN officials. He took the warning to the Kabul offices of UNSMA, the political wing of the UN. These officials heard him out, but again did not report the secret Taliban warning to UN headquarters. A UN official familiar with the warnings said: "He appeared to be speaking in total desperation, asking for a Mountain Storm, he wanted a sort of deus ex machina to solve his country's problems. But before 9/11, there was just not much hope that Washington would become that engaged in Afghanistan."

Officials in the State Department and in UN headquarters in New York said they knew nothing about a Taliban warning. But they said they would now be looking into the matter.

Mr Muttawakil is now unavailable for comment he handed himself in to the Afghan authorities in the former Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan last February. He is reported to be in American custody there, one of the few senior members of the Taliban regime the US has managed to arrest.

As America steadily broke the Taliban's military machine last autumn, there were no Taliban defections. Apart from Mr Mutawakil's one vain attempt to warn the world, the Taliban remained absolutely loyal to their leader's vision."

Funny how you could be suffering from "warning fatigue" over an attack to which there was "no warning".

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=331115
by I can't remember
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 12:59 AM
Wasn't it the Left who wanted to [b]dismantle[/b] the CIA???

Right on, Screaming Cock! These morons get their info from the Weekly World News.

And as for Elephant Brain, crying "racism", I'm sure it's idols are the Leftists name of McKinney.
by X2
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 1:05 AM
Nope, actually it seems thats where you guys are getting your news.

This is the kind of thing the Weekly World News says about the War on Terrorism:

"For all the bleeding-hearts out there who don't want us to obliterate Afghanistan, I have a compromise - I say we turn that damn rock pile into our 51st state just like we did with Puerto Rico.

That way we get to make all the rules. And we'll send some of our toughest cops to lay down the law - guys like famed Tennes-see tough-guy Sheriff Buford "Walking Tall" Pusser and his big ole whupping stick.
And if that idea doesn't flip your switch, then I've got another one for you. Let's do to the Taliban what Cuban commie dictator Fidel Castro did to us - and send our bloodthirstiest, kill-craziest prisoners over to Afghanistan."

Sound familiar?
That's the Weekly World News my friend, seems to sound an awful lot like you.

http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/features/anger.cfm?instanceid=18885
by yo momma
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 1:35 AM
batboy.gif
X2, done any critical thinking lately? Or do you still suffer those migraines from it?
by x2
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 1:38 AM
since you can't answer the charges and since you seem to collect the graphics, I'll have to assume I was right and you do get your news from the Weekly World News. Until you can prove otherwise that is. I'll be waiting.
Get well soon!
by history student
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 9:55 AM
Historians agree the fire was started by a Dutch council communist. The fire was definitely used by the Nazis as a reason to clamp down on leftists but the Nazis did not start the fire.
by history student
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 9:56 AM
Historians agree the fire was started by a Dutch council communist. The fire was definitely used by the Nazis as a reason to clamp down on leftists but the Nazis did not start the fire.
by X2
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 10:03 AM
"Historians agree the fire was started by a Dutch council communist. "

That's a massive claim to make with NO evidence. What historians? Where? When? Links? References?

All absent I see.

More gibberish from our trolls, then.
by Sheepdog
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 11:05 AM
Yes, I do have heroes. My father who worked in counter-intelligence after surviving as a combat troop in WW II and Korea, Henry Gonzalas, Cynthia McKinney, Amy Goodman and anybody else who speaks truth to power or is willing to put their life on the line to defend the nation they love.
Oh yes by the way, I raised my right hand once in 1968 and again in 1980, both without being called and have two honorable discharges. I'm no hero, but I know one when I see one.
Courage is not the ability to smash a weaker opponent, but the determination to fight against hopeless odds for the sake of a better world you might not live to enjoy.
I don't need the CIA, FBI, or any other well funded iron fist which operates as a tool for the evil bastards who never feel shame or terror and sit in the protected embrace of their own wealth stolen from others while fools and suck-ups parrot the current official line.

by me
Saturday Sep 7th, 2002 11:01 PM
"I don't need the CIA, FBI, or any other well funded iron fist which operates as a tool for the evil bastards who never feel shame or terror and sit in the protected embrace of their own wealth stolen from others while fools and suck-ups parrot the current official line."

No, you toe the line and suck up to the Democratic party and the Marxists and the racists like Mckinneys and Farakahn and Jackson and Berry and Arafat.

by X2
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 3:54 AM
what sheepdog said.
by X2
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 4:04 AM
stealing people's identities again eh Assclown?
Very weak.
by Sheepdog
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 7:53 AM
Has anyone noticed that the quality of rebuttal in support of the official government mind set are in a state of pathetic, infantile denial?
" I'm not black, but there's a whole lot of times I wish I could say I'm not white" -Frank Zappa

Listen up poor fools, or go back and plug into Rush is Reich. We are all brothers and sisters on this battered mud ball we call Earth and unless you have somewhere else to go play, stop throwing spit balls at the blackboard because you are demonstrating the poverty of your ability to think for yourself.
by X2
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:13 AM
the morally and mentally bankrupt trolls are at it again. Unable to make a point, they resort to trying (pathetically, in their own obvious, incompetent, blundering way) to pose as Nessie. How juvenile. How telling. How much it says about the conservative ideology when this is what it is reduced to.
by aaron
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:18 AM
I'm sure you'll set all the conservatives straight, won't you, nessie?
by .......
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:22 AM
all they have to do is act like adults. Of course this would involve abandoning their ideology, but that's beside the point.
by flabbergasted
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:30 AM
PC ThoughtNazi's are adults?!?
by flabbergasted
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:30 AM
PC ThoughtNazi's are adults?!?
by X2
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:32 AM
using your own make-believe words is hardly a sign of maturity.
Try speaking to us in English or some other recognized language.
Nobody here speaks Conservobabble.
by me
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 8:49 AM
yeah, you're right. I'm full of shit. everything I say is useless crap. It's taken me a while to realize this but I was so brainwashed by the freeper forums it took me a long time.
by a Conservobabbler
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 9:07 AM
"using your own make-believe words is hardly a sign of maturity."

"Conservobabble"? Yeah, lecture me some more about maturity.
by a Conservobabbler
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 9:07 AM
"using your own make-believe words is hardly a sign of maturity."

"Conservobabble"? Yeah, lecture me some more about maturity.
by Sheepdog
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 9:38 AM
Some people, when confronted by information that threatens their fragile belief systems become confused, angry and childish. Throwing tantrums, screaming against the words they hear. I am reminded of poorly parented children throwing fits at the supermarket because they can't have that new product pushed at them by marketing predators.

When your intellectual diet is loaded with mainstream fruit loops, it might be a good idea to claim the twinky defense when called upon to justify the lack creditable analysis while indulging in nothing but peeing into the dialogue.
by twinkies
Sunday Sep 8th, 2002 9:44 AM
I'm impressed, sheepdip. X2 deserves going to bat for, though, don't you agree? I mean, he obviously has the mind of a child. He claims someone lacks maturity for making a word up, and in the next line he does the same thing.

I'd say X2 is the source of yellow clouds. But all liberals are yellow. It's like trying to pick apart chimpanzees. They all look and smell alike.
The US government ships schoolbooks to the Middle East, schoolbooks filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines.

Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal?

Or perhaps I should say, "Have you heard about the Afghan Jihad schoolbook scandal that's waiting to happen?"

Because it has been almost unreported in the Western media that the US government shipped - and continues to ship - millions of Islamist (that's short for Islamic fundamentalist) textbooks into Afghanistan.

Only one English-speaking newspaper we could find has investigated this issue: the Washington Post. The story appeared March 23rd. (A)

According to Washington Post investigators, over the past twenty years the US has spent millions of dollars producing fanatical schoolbooks, which were then distributed in Afghanistan.

"The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then [i.e., since the violent destruction of the Afghan secular government in the early 1990s] as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American- produced books..." -- Washington Post, 23 March 2002 (A)

According to the Post, these violent Islamist schoolbooks, which "served...as the Afghan school system's core curriculum" produced "unintended consequences."

Core curriculum? Unintended consequences?

Yes, reports the Washington Post, according to unnamed officials the schoolbooks "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence."

How could this result be unintended? Did they expect that having fundamentalist schoolbooks in the core curriculum would produce moderate Muslims?

LET'S BE REASONABLE

Nobody with normal intelligence could expect to distribute millions of violent Islamist schoolbooks without influencing school children towards violent Islamism. Therefore one would assume that the unnamed US officials who, we are told, are distressed at these "unintended consequences" must previously have been unaware of the Islamist content of the schoolbooks.

But surely someone was aware. The US government can't write, edit, print and ship millions of violent, Muslim fundamentalist primers into Afghanistan without somebody in high places (in the US government) approving those primers.

So if the books weren't supposed to be Islamist, that is, if their fanatical content contradicted US policy in Afghanistan, shouldn't the mass media and top politicians, such as President George Bush, now be calling for an investigation? Shouldn't they be demanding to know the identity of the official or officials who subverted the *intended* US policy by flooding Afghanistan with jihad primers?

Indeed, considering the disastrous consequences, shouldn't US officials and the media be questioning the very practice of violating the sovereignty of other countries by distributing millions of Islamic fundamentalist schoolbooks?

Yet after a thorough Internet search we could find no evidence that any mainstream Western newspaper, with the exception of the Washington Post, or any TV station or government leader has questioned - let alone denounced - sending fundamentalist schoolbooks to Afghanistan.

Quite the contrary.

For example, here's what the Boston Globe (owned by the NY Times) wrote about the old textbooks:

"Those schoolbooks that still exist are pro-Taliban screeds and deemed unusable."
-- Boston Globe, March 17, 2002 (B)

This is implicitly misleading. How could Elizabeth Neuffer, who wrote this article, and who is the Globe's UN Bureau Chief, not know that these schoolbooks were made in USA? Was the UN also involved in distributing the Islamist books? Perhaps instead of hiding US complicity, she should do some investigative reporting!

Other newspapers went further, lying more elaborately about US involvement. Here is the Daily Telegraph from Sydney, Australia:

[START DAILY TELEGRAPH EXCERPT]

"AFGHAN children ran, skipped and dawdled to their classrooms like pupils everywhere yesterday for the start of a new school year -- with girls and women teachers back in class and subjects like math replacing the Islamic dogma of the Taliban.

"In a symbolic break from a war-scarred past, children opened new textbooks written by Afghan scholars based at universities in the US.

"There are even pictures of people -- images banned by the fundamentalist Taliban."
- The Daily Telegraph (Sydney), March 25, 2002 (C)

[END DAILY TELEGRAPH EXCERPT]

By beginning the article with the irrelevant but cheery image, "Afghan children ran, skipped and dawdled, etc.," the Telegraph prepares us for an upbeat news experience. We are not disappointed. In the new schoolbooks, we are told:

"There are even pictures of people -- images banned by the fundamentalist Taliban."

This creates the impression that the Taliban were responsible for the bad old texts. Good thing we invaded Afghanistan and brought US influence to bear!

Unfortunately, as the Washington Post investigators reported:

"Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002

Other than their objections to the human face, the Taliban were perfectly happy with the US-produced primers.

Next, as if presenting evidence of a sea change, the Telegraph tells us great news: Afghan children now have new schoolbooks "written by Afghan scholars based at universities in the US."

Similarly, an article five weeks earlier in the Omaha World-Herald declares that, "Afghanistan stands at least a chance of hauling a modern, healthy society up out of the ashes of war and oppression," partly because University of Nebraska at Omaha "officials and staffers" will be "cranking up their presses in neighboring Pakistan" to churn out schoolbooks, all funded by "a $ 6.5 million grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development [AID]." (D)

Neither newspaper mentions the fact that the bad *old* schoolbooks "were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska- Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies." -- Washington Post, March 23, 2002)

What about the US government? Have any US congressmen demanded an investigation to find out who in the US government was involved in the production of jihad primers that "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence"?

No they have not.

SPEAKING OF FORKED TONGUES...

What about George Walker Bush?

You may recall that George and Laura Bush have made passionate speeches denouncing Islamic fundamentalism. At first Mr. Bush told us we needed to attack Afghanistan in order to stop Mr. bin Laden. But later on he (and Laura Bush) told us we were fighting to crush the vicious fundamentalists.

Has George Bush said anything about the textbooks?

Yes, Mr. Bush talked about the jihad primers in a March 16th radio broadcast. He held nothing back:

"And before the end of the year, we'll have sent almost 10 million of them [that is, new textbooks] to the children of Afghanistan. These textbooks will teach tolerance and respect for human dignity *instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry*." -- My emphasis - Radio Broadcast, March 16, 2002 (E)

Note the phrase, "instead of indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

So according to Bush, Afghan school children won't have to contend with bad schoolbooks anymore because finally the US has taken charge, replacing those other guys, those evil educators who published textbooks "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry."

The amazing thing is not only that he tells such total lies but that he delivers them with such righteous indignation.

What about the new textbooks? Will they "teach tolerance and respect for human dignity" as Honest George promises?

To be precise (which may be an unwise move in the New World Order) how will the new textbooks that George Bush Junior is shipping into Afghanistan differ from the old ones?

You know, those old books that were also designed at the University of Nebraska at Omaha and also paid for by US AID? You know, those old, un-American books that George Bush Junior attacked for "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry"? You know, those terrible old books that were shipped into Afghanistan by US AID when George Bush Senior was President?

Here's the Washington Post again:

"On Feb. 4, [Chris Brown, head of book revision for AID's Central Asia Task Force] arrived in Peshawar, the Pakistani border town in which the textbooks were to be printed, to oversee hasty revisions to the printing plates. Ten Afghan educators labored night and day, scrambling to replace rough drawings of weapons with sketches of pomegranates and oranges, Brown said."] - My emphasis, Washington Post, March 23, 2002

So it appears that the only change is that some violent pictures have been removed from the printing plates and some fruit has been added. There is no indication that the texts have been changed.

What does a non-fundamentalist Afghan educator think about the new schoolbooks?

"'The pictures [in the old schoolbooks] are horrendous to school students, *but the texts are even much worse,'* said Ahmad Fahim Hakim, an Afghan educator who is a program coordinator for Cooperation for Peace and Unity, a Pakistan-based nonprofit.'"
-- (My emphasis, Washington Post, March 23, 2002)

So the Untied States government is right now shipping into Afghanistan millions of Islamic Fundamentalist schoolbooks whose texts, according to a non- Fundamentalist Afghan educator, are not just "horrendous," they are "much worse."

Is it possible that this is all a terrible mistake? That Mr. Bush and US AID just don't know what's in the new schoolbooks?

Apparently not.

According to the Washington Post, the "White House defends the religious content" of the schoolbooks. And as for US AID, the Agency for International Development, which pays for the books:

'It's not AID's policy to support religious instruction,' Stratos said. 'But we went ahead with this project because the primary purpose . . . is to educate children, which is predominantly a secular activity.'"
(-- Washington Post, March 23, 2002)

So because education is predominantly secular it's OK for the schoolbooks to be fundamentalist. Likewise, since marriage is predominatly monogamous it's OK to cheat on your wife. And since banks are after all mainly places where people deposit money to keep it safe, it's fine to go rob a bank.

Got it?

Mr. Bush describes the texts of the old books as "indoctrinating students with fanaticism and bigotry." But note, having been republished in the new books, these exact same texts have undergone a transformation. They have been reborn as "religious instruction" (says US AID) or "religious content" (says the White House). It's a modern miracle.

Reading these news reports and statements one might feel a certain sympathy for citizens of the US and allied countries, required to hold in their minds at one time a) the conviction that Mr. Bush is sincerely fighting Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan and b) the knowledge that the US is spending millions of dollars to indoctrinate Afghan school children with Islamic fundamentalism.

Not to worry. This problem has been solved by the US and allied mass media, which, with the exception of the Washington Post, have never told their readers and viewers who it was that produced the old books or what it is that's in the new ones.

Even the Washington Post has pulled its punches. For example, consider the headline of the March 23rd article, the only one that deals critically with the jihad primers.

Here's the headline:

"From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad; Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts."

"Violent Soviet-Era textbooks." This phrase doesn't even make it clear that the books were shipped in by theUSA! They could have been hateful *Russian* books.

And the phrase, "Complicate Afghan Education Efforts" sounds like the books are hindering current US attempts at effecting progressive change. Nobody would guess from this headline that US AID has been forcing Islamic fundamentalist texts on Afghan kids for 20 years. And that they're still importing the same fundamentalist texts today.

(This is important because studies show that with any given article, most people only read the headline.)

In the body of the article itself the Post asserts without offering any evidence that steeping "a generation in [Islamist] violence" was an "unintended consequence" of giving these kids violent Islamist schoolbooks.

"Unintended consequence" is fast becoming the US Establishment's favorite excuse for the many disasters of its foreign policy. "We didn't know. We weren't prepared. We used old maps. We didn't see the train. We thought there were tanks in the refugee column. Who could have expected this to happen?" and on and on.

But does the case of the Islamist textbooks seem like "unintended consequences?" Or, quite the contrary, doesn't it show every indication of being "deliberate policy!"

The mass media and top US officials made a very big deal about John Walker Lindh, the American youth seized for working with the Taliban.

Mr. Lindh couldn't have had a very big effect on Afghanistan. But the US officials who approved the production and distribution of millions of fanatical schoolbooks did have a big effect. They "steeped a generation in [Islamist] violence." Could it be that politicians are focusing on Mr. Lindh to create a demagogic smokescreen in order to hide US government involvement, or their own involvement, or perhaps their father's involvement in pushing violent Islamic fundamentalism on the innocent children of Central Asia?

emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/jihad.htm
by Sheepdog
Monday Sep 9th, 2002 12:21 PM
They have spent $13 trillion tax
dollars since the end of WWII on this
military/intelligence complex, and it
cannot protect its own
headquarters?... How were they
allowed to come into the most
restricted air space in the world with
no challenge or defense? That is the
question that answers both when
Bush knew in advance and begs any
rational response.
--John Judge, 5/19/02
by aaron
Monday Sep 9th, 2002 3:15 PM
The above message from 'aaron' to nessie was not from me.

I'm assuming it was some sort of troll deal.

How clever.

by aaron
Monday Sep 9th, 2002 3:19 PM
The above message from 'aaron' to nessie was not from me.

I'm assuming it was some sort of troll deal.

How clever.

by matthew willis
(allpeepsco [at] yahoo.com) Monday Sep 9th, 2002 5:19 PM
hopefully some of you who aren't buying the "official story" will join the all peeps co on september 11th at the oakland federal building to demand an unbiased international investigation into the desturction of the wtcs and the pentagon.

it seems like 90% are voluntarily brainwashed and 9.9999% are too scared to do more than post opinions anonysmously on the internet. let those of us who can muster the courage get together on the 11th. we will help provide strength to those who aren't ready to join us, and we will challange those who choose to believe whatever nonsense keeps their gas cheap and their malls stocked with toys.

for more info, email allpeepsco [at] yahoo.com
by lucifer
Wednesday Dec 25th, 2002 5:36 PM
Basically anyone with any sort of political mind can see that there is more to 9-11 than our leaders are telling us. However I live in London and funnily enough my mum once met Blair before he became prime minister. He is definately a good honest [ as much as a politician can be ] religious man. Obviously like your current and former presidents he has become at the mercy of big busness leaders since he has become prime minister. Why this relates to 9-11 is because even if the right wing republicans such as Cheney and Bush did plann the attack so they could create a new world democracy and basically get control of everything they wanted [ Herion, Oil, Gas and soon cocaine when they take over columbia ] I find it hard to bielieve that a moral man like Blair would go along with Bush straight away [ however he obviously backed off a little and got Bush to go to the U.N over Iraq when he realised the extent of what Bush is planning ] To summ it up although we know that 9-11 was a setup by Bush maybe if the attack didnt happen that year it would have happend in 10 20 30 40 years from now so maybe it was just one of them things that top U.S officials new would have to come one day to carry on American global supremacy over China and create a new world democracy. And if Blair thinks that most of Bushes global ambitions are just than ill will go along with Blair even though I know the whole thing was a setup. [ by the way Bushes close election victory made it so that 9-11 would happen. If a democrat like Al Gore got to power 9-11 would definately not happend any time soon. [ only untill the U.S econemy was at breaking point ]
by how trolls work
Wednesday Dec 25th, 2002 10:45 PM
the funniest thing I've noticed coming from reichwingnut trolls of late is unsibstatiated defence of.......

.....the Nazis!


With no shame whatsoever!

just look at this:

quote:
======================================
Historians agree the fire was started by a Dutch council communist.
======================================


They do?
by council communist
Wednesday Dec 25th, 2002 11:26 PM
I thought he was pretty cool. What have you against him?

CC
by mike
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 2:41 PM
Oh, go fuck yourself, you anti-Semitic piece of shit.

On a lighter note, I love the "Budda" religion too. But what the hell is it? Budda bu, Budda ba, I always say.

Well, the Brady Bunch is on the USA network, so I have to go watch it. But good luck fucking yourself, you right wing dipshit pile of cow shit mixed with napalm. Take yourself out to a remote desert and light a match to yourself, so you can blow your fucking anti-Semitic self into smithereens so we never have to hear of or talk to you again. Good fucking riddance to you, asshole.
by TA
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 5:08 PM
"the Brady Bunch is on the USA network, so I have to go watch it."

Mike, you'll feel a lot better about yourself when you stop polluting your mind with TV - it's full of violence and you're obviously having some trouble keeping a balance in your life about how to take out your anger. While it may feel good to attack leftists on here, it isn't fun for us, and then you invite attacks back.

I find that one of the best ways to cope with anger is to DO SOMETHING about the things that bother you - not just writing things online, but physically doing something (not violent, but goal directed) that offsets the things that bother you. For me, the way I cope with the war sh*t is to get in the streets and march, to make a put up banners, to get voters registered at public events, etc. I'm guessing your causes would be right wing, but it would be better for you to help them out than top be shaving years off your life by bottling up so much anger.

Our bodies are designed to physically cope with the anger, not to just watch TV and try to escape it all the time, gaming, etc. And just doing sports isn't the answer.

by TA
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 5:08 PM
"the Brady Bunch is on the USA network, so I have to go watch it."

Mike, you'll feel a lot better about yourself when you stop polluting your mind with TV - it's full of violence and you're obviously having some trouble keeping a balance in your life about how to take out your anger. While it may feel good to attack leftists on here, it isn't fun for us, and then you invite attacks back.

I find that one of the best ways to cope with anger is to DO SOMETHING about the things that bother you - not just writing things online, but physically doing something (not violent, but goal directed) that offsets the things that bother you. For me, the way I cope with the war sh*t is to get in the streets and march, to make a put up banners, to get voters registered at public events, etc. I'm guessing your causes would be right wing, but it would be better for you to help them out than top be shaving years off your life by bottling up so much anger.

Our bodies are designed to physically cope with the anger, not to just watch TV and try to escape it all the time, gaming, etc. And just doing sports isn't the answer.

by mike
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 5:46 PM
<While it may feel good to attack leftists on here, it isn't fun for us, and then you invite attacks back.>

Uh, are you, like, kidding?-- because I was, in this instance, attacking not a leftist but an anti-Semitic loon alerting us to the dangers of Jewish bankers and so forth.

On other occasions, I do attack "leftists" posing as conspiracy mongers--because they're morons and it's a blast.

<"It isn't fun for us, and then you invite attacks back.">

Again, I hope it's just me who's missing the joke. I'm sorry it's not fun for you, Mr. Wet Blanket, but it's fun for me, and I'm just here to entertain myself until The Collective kicks me off the board.

As for attacks back, that's the best part!!!--better than watching Jerry Springer, as I do every day for hours on end while knocking back bottles of Johnny Walker. By the way, I'll be on Springer next week to confront my nephew, who just informed me he's also my mother. Very confusing......

Regarding other ways to release the bottled rage that stifles the full flowering of my personality, I do so by having tons of sex, and not always with myself, I'll have you know. The other day I met a very nice prostitute (uh, I mean "sex worker") at the Texaco station, and we shared a beautiful, deep conversation over a vegan sandwich and buffalo wings, before repairing to my car for some releasing, as it were. Could anyone ask for a richer, more satisfying life? I dare them to step forward.......
by mike
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 6:49 PM
oh, boy, the spaceship has landed. somebody get the cheez whiz....
by one of the editors
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 6:52 PM
A bunch of anti-Semitic crap by "JESUS/MIKE INTELLIGENCE" was hidden.
by mike
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 6:53 PM
that last post about the spaceship was in response to an anti-Semitic piece, which the editors had the good sense to hide. Thank you!
by HAHAHAHA
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 7:01 PM
HAHAHAHAHA U LOT THINK YOUR SMART ***** ***** *********************8 AAAAHHHHH
by one of the editors
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 7:02 PM
Sorry it took so long to notice. I was offline, running errands, doing housework and watching the Raiders game. I don't know where the rest of the editors are today, probably not at the beach. We're all volunteers, with demands on our time, so please bear with us. We get to this kind of stuff eventually, as soon as we notice it. Patience is a virtue.

If you think we missed one, write and tell us:

imc-sf-editorial [at] indymedia.org
by graduate
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 7:17 PM
We're smart enough to know how to spell "you" and "you're".
by one of the editors
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 7:27 PM
Listen, *sshole, we decide what our site is "supposed to be about," not you. You're our guest here. Behave, or you're out on your ear.

And that's the "trith".
by x
Saturday Dec 28th, 2002 10:50 PM
pussy_licker.jpg
enough said
by TA LIAR
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 9:11 AM
TA I KNOW WHO YOU ARE AND I KNOW WHO YOU WORK FOR. Dont pretend to be with my cause you decietfull government employee
by TA LIAR the Liar
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 10:10 AM
"you decietfull government employee"

I appreciate that you think I work for the government - but it happens to be a moron government, and thus, I don't.

What government do you work for?
by TA
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 11:12 AM
But I'm willing to assume that people make the same assumptions that we all do on here when exposed to the intense stuff that gets put on here. It's a warzone, essentially, so staying intact and never slipping up is actually more telling than making mistakes, which suggests we're human.

I admit I've been extremely rude to trolls lately. I actually felt very badly after treating one person badly who was attacking other people. We have to not become the enemy, and yet, we're also human.

But I don't lie. I work for a non-profit that uses someone else's server. It's good you're on your toes, though.
by mike
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 1:44 PM
<you fat American satonist worshipping CHILD abuSER GO FUCK YOUR DAD>

If I'm a satonist worshipping child abuser, why would I fuck my dad?

by tatata
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 3:17 PM
You spoke about mikes comments as if you agreed about mine but you didnt even mention my article why???????
by one of the editors
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 4:23 PM
A comment by "satonists" was hidden because it was anti-Semitic.
by MIKEMIKE
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 6:15 PM
MIKE YOUR TIMES RUNNING OUT
by Cats: Ha Ha Ha Ha ….
Sunday Dec 29th, 2002 8:26 PM
You have no chance to survive make your time.

You are on the way to destruction.

All your base are belong to us.

Ha Ha Ha Ha ….