9/24/05 protest photos - and an offer. . .

Thanks for the 31st installment of photos of our street theater stroll on September 24. Would you please go to POLK & CALIFORNIA today, Sunday, Oct. 9, 2005, from 2 to 4:30 p.m. and photograph the Navy's Blue Death flying illegally low over land, so low that we can read with the naked eye the words "United States Navy" on the planes and see all of their colors, namely yellow, white and blue. If I had a little sharper vision, I could have seen their Blue Death logo. Please also send a crew to any and all hill tops such as Nob Hill, and open spaces such as
Webster and Geary;
California and Hyde;
Van Ness and Sutter;
to take pictures of the Blue Death FLYING OVER LAND, all of which flights are illegal. Please also take pictures of these nerve-shattering death machines flying over hospitals and homes. Please then post them on this website.

The capitalist press is only showing the Blue Death glorifying war, wasting tax dollars and oil over water. This is a deliberate lie. They are flying over land so low that we can hear them both outside and inside our homes, which is illegal and deadly as one wrong move and the pilots are dead and we on the ground are all dead.

PLEASE, ALL PHOTOGRAPHERS, AND VIDEOGRAPHERS, GO TO THE STREETS, OPEN SPACES AND HILLS OF SAN FRANCISCO TODAY, OCTOBER 10, AND PHOTOGRAPH THE NAVY'S BLUE DEATH FLYING OVER LAND. Post these photos on this website, the website that is of, by and for the people.

We hope that next year's fall peace march is a picketline at the warships docked at Fisherman's Wharf during Columbus Genocide weekend, where we can hand out our peace and 9/11 Truth Movement literature. Just our presence will end this whole money-making racket and chase Fleet Week and the Blue Death from San Francisco forever. We have the support of the overwhelming majority of voters of San Francisco. Let's get those photos of the Blue Death flying over land on this website today!

THANK YOU ONE AND ALL!

I am concerned that my post was removed. I thought indymedia was about indepedent thinking and freedom of ones ideas. I read indy media all the time, and I enjoy it, though I do not agree with 99% of the comments made here. I like to see what others are thinking. So I am at a lost to understand why my post was removed. I simply praised the Blue Angels and said I was proud to be an American and would love to see any pictures of the planes flying low over San Francisco as was being asked for by the previous post. So what was so offensive or disturbing that it should be removed. If you want to freedom and free expression you shouldn't remove comments simply because you don't agree with them. This is very troubling and I am sure it does not reflect the view of most of the people on indymedia. Because if it did it would suggest that those on here are nothing but hypocrites who can not tolerate opposing view points. And that is the same mind set that thrived under Hitler and Stalin and that shouldn't be anyones goal.

Let us know when you get the courage to come around for more than a shallow hit and run baiting where all you do is regurgitate sound bites from Fox news. Let us know when you gain the intestinal fortitude to engage in a real dialogue and debate. Bush lovers are a sad lot.
Since you are so "proud" (albeit blindly so) of "our military"--and probably this failed administration--why don't you list the reasons??

First--if you consider Fox "liberal media" you are truly naive.'
Second, how can you respect an aministration that clearly misrepresented the facts reality?
See:
http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm
More documentation of lies:
http://traprockpeace.org/ios030711.html
This one is good:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0128liesiraqwar.htm
there are numerous documentations available:
http://www.teach-online.de/dateien/hpp/Peter-Gloede/bush/lies.htm

And if you believe that this was about the much touted right-wing-nut radio phrase "islamo-fascism"
then you might want to check this out for evidence that the neo-conservatives (Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Cheney, Zalmay Khalilzad, ect.) were itching for Iraq way before 9-11, check this out:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
(and check out the names at the bottom, as well as the dates--also feel free to surf around the site for clear insight into the desired policies of these nuts)
Also, if you notice, 9-11 was exploited (wrapped in the american flag and jingoism) to enact this agenda, which wouldn't have been swallowed otherwise by most critically thinking folks, that is.
Also, you say, "Second, he is a straight shooter, tells it like he sees it and doesn't back down or change course based on opinion polls"---Well-here's a (not comprehensive) list of Bush's flip-flops:
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/pp.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=118263
And if you're really as open minded as you claim to be, check out this book for an alternative view of the U.S.'s history of militarism that you won't see in the mainstream media:
http://www.addictedtowar.com/
And the last comment, " Remember in alot of countries we would be shot in the head for even having this discussion."
The reason that there is still some sembelence of democratic freedom in this republic, is because people like me have the courage to criticize power, and not succumb to blind loyalty/nationalism and accept what are sleazy politician's (whichever corporate party they claim to be) explanations as truth.

Looking forward to his response on this one..

The one who posted "looking forward to hearing from you" is a short bus rider. When confronted with facts, it'll dig out a confusing list that has nothing to do with a particular topic, such as Cindy Sheehan taking a dump on hurricane victims. The poster instead wants to deflect criticism of it's cherished totem and change the subject by trying to get you to focus on the failures of the current administration, granted, of which there are many.

He can't stay focused, or admit he's wrong, so don't waste your time. (Pay attention, and you'll see his carbon copy response soon enough on other threads).

Let us know when you get the courage to come around for more than a shallow hit and run baiting where all you do is regurgitate sound bites from Fox news. Let us know when you gain the intestinal fortitude to engage in a real dialogue and debate. Bush lovers are a sad lot.

That moron tried that with me, but won't dare go to another site that won't censor your posts. I guess the poster is under the age of 15.

Your quote: "I was working today, contributing to Society"
Yes, as most of us do. Your point?
Your quotes: "It is no consequence that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others talked about the threats of Iraq before 9/11....." Whether Saddam was linked to Osama is of no consequence."
So, in other words, lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, (and I am not a Democrap, and didn't support Clinton's policies, although he is worlds better than the idiot we have in there now)---but it's OK to lie/misinform/distort/insinuate falsehoods to execute an agenda? There was no "threat"--Iraq was devastated by 12 years of brutal sanctions and was possibly the easiest country in the region to topple...
Your quote: "The president declared war on Terrorism and all those who support it"
This is selective, for numerous reasons. 1. As many have agreed, "One man's terrorist is anothe rman's freedom fighter." 2. The neoconservatives that I referred to were frothing at the mouth for Iraq long before 9-11. 3. The most important hypocrisy in this statement is that you blindly accept Bush's words, without question, failing to question his inaction on multiple other countries that could be called "terrorist supporters" i.e. Saudi Arabia (where the majority of hijackers were from)????? Oh, that's right, it's not really about 'terror' at all--it's about political/economic control and gaining US business friendly powers in a strategic region...
Your quote: "Furthermore, he failed to show any willingness to negotiate or work with the Security Council."
Once again, selective--what about Israel ignoring Security Council resolutions. (that's a another can of worms, but notice your selectivity)
Also, let me be ultra-clear that I think Saddam is a sleazebag-human rights violator (*albeit, a human rights-violator aided by the Reagan administration and Rumsfiled: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Toronto/Eric_Margolis/2004/12/19/790077.html
this one is good: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0818-02.htm )
And I am not 'pro-Saddam' in any way--I simply recognize this administration (and the US govt, historically, and its' glaring hypocrisy) The US govt has had no problem propping up and supporting a long list of gross human rights violators if it suits US business/corporate interests--
Once again--hypocrisy.
Lastly, your quote: "Furthermore, by bringing the fight to Iraq, we have made that the center of the war on terrorism, this has forced the terrorists to react and fight at a time and place of our choosing. This is good for the US, I would much rather have highly trained US troops, with the best gear fighting terrorists from the middle east, rather then having women and children having to deal with these monsters at malls or schools in the USA."

Oh, man. This sounds like a propaganda line cut and pasted off of the Bush admin. official website. It sounds like you are almost word for word repeating his speeches (definitely close paraphrasing) Do you believe everything they say?

Anyway, you're certainly right about 'making Iraq the center'--because invading and occupying it has created the best recruitment tool Al Queda could ever have. Did you know suicide bombings were virtually unheard of in Iraq before the US invasion? Also, did you say our troops have the best gear? I guess you didn't read the memo--they have been shorted on an array of gear.
I would suggest more critical thinking, and not succumbing so easily to fear and blind 'my country right or wrong' patriotism.
http://www.lacarte.org/politics/patriotism/

I will leave you with an especially relevant quote:
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

I agree alot of people were eager to invade Iraq and topple Saddam prior to 9/11. People felt that way the day the ground war stopped the during the first gulf war. Nothing to dispute here.

If you saw Iraq as a menace and a threat before 9/11 then the attacks on 9/11 did not invalidate those concerns it only amplified it. It showed what people that don't like this country or democracy are capable of doing.

We can agree or disagree on the level of threat Iraq posed, reasonable people can come to different conclusions, ultimately it boils down to one person making that decision, the person the people elected to be President, George W.

As far as our support for goes for Saddam, we did support him during the Iran / Iraq war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At that time he was the lesser of two evils and was a tool to keep Iran in check. Foriegn policy is not simple. And lets face it, the war between Iran and Iraq made both countries weaker and made things safer for Israel and the US.

As far as Israel goes, they are a close ally, probably right up there with England and Canada and there only crime is existing. They have been the victims of arab extremists for their entire existence. And they are the only true democracy in the region. Remember, the USA has to act in the best interest of the USA, and supportnig Israel has been determined by several different administrations to be in our best interest. Last time I checked Israel sent suicide bombers anywhere to kill any innocent children.

The only crime they have committed was to successfully defend themselves, that is what a defense is suppose to do.

As far as repeating Bush statements, that is not true. Nothing was consulted. My beliefs are based on my observations from serving in the Marines for six years, including during the first gulf war, and having 3 brothers still in the Marines that have all served at least once and in some instances more than once over in the second gulf war.

I just see no need to apologize for defending our country. Remember the Federal Government's main purpose is to provide for the common defense of this country. And that is what Bush is doing. Oh, I wouldn't be to quick to use the Nazi card, it was your side on this website that removed my previous posts because they didn't agree with my opinion. I think censorship was a tool used by the Nazi Government if I recall.

Point by point:
your quote "agree alot of people were eager to invade Iraq and topple Saddam prior to 9/11. People felt that way the day the ground war stopped the during the first gulf war. Nothing to dispute here."
So it's OK that they exploited a tradgedy to further an agenda that was about geo-politicl control of a region. They USED 9-11, patriotism and fear to sell this. Take a moment to look at this from outside the unquestioning ex-marine box. I understand that with 6 years in the marines that this goes against what you were taught/trained, but I encourage you to try.

Your quote: "We can agree or disagree on the level of threat Iraq posed, reasonable people can come to different conclusions, ultimately it boils down to one person making that decision, the person the people elected to be President, George W.
Well, we could also say that he wasn't elected in 2000, and I could send you to an abundance of evidence that clearly shows criminality around the 2000 election, not to mention that the court stopped the recount and installed him. That is a detailed discussion in and of itself--=but I'd be glad to provide you with apile of evidence upon request.
Also, most of the experts have agreed that Iraq was not a threat, although some of them didn't speak out until after, and some of them may have actually believed he was before.

Report: White House Ignored CIA’s Iraq Warnings
A newly released CIA study on Iraq has concluded that the White House ignored a pre-war CIA assessment warning of major chaos in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein. The report found that policymakers within the Bush administration worried more about making the case for the war -- particularly the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction -- than planning for the aftermath.

Your quote: "As far as our support for goes for Saddam, we did support him during the Iran / Iraq war. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. At that time he was the lesser of two evils and was a tool to keep Iran in check. Foriegn policy is not simple. And lets face it, the war between Iran and Iraq made both countries weaker and made things safer for Israel and the US.
\But this is more hypocrisy, glossed over by claiming 'foreign policy is not simple'. ???? The US turned a blind eye and in essence, supported Saddam, knowing who he was---but as the WMD's explanation faded, notice that talking about what a bad guy he was became the bush co. mantra. The morphing reasons stated by upper level admin. officials for invading and occupying Iraq demonstrate the fraudulence of the reasons themselves. Do you not see this?
Are you going to apologize for bushco no matter what they do?
" I just see no need to apologize for defending our country"
This was never about defense. It is a disaster now, and will not be going away anytime soon. The invasion of Iraq has acted as a recruiting tool for those who would like to see many 9-11's.

Your quote: "Oh, I wouldn't be to quick to use the Nazi card, it was your side on this website that removed my previous posts because they didn't agree with my opinion. I think censorship was a tool used by the Nazi Government if I recall."
1. Not 'my' site.
2. Most of the nutty right wing sites won't even let unregistered people post and they censor like crazy.
3. That entire response avoids the real point I was making--that was the point that you, and millions of others are being manipulated by tried and true methods of advertisement/campaigning/selling/propagandizing----
I'm out--I get up at 5 am for work every morning and I go to school at nights and on weekends---real tired.
Also, I want to encourage you to read this book:
http://www.addictedtowar.com/

9/11 was not an excuse for invading Iraq. It was an example of why a rogue player like Iraq must be addressed and not ignored. It had the means and the motive to either inflict greater harm than 9/11 or export technology that would allow others to do it, and that is what needed to be responded to.

Nobody turned a blind eye to Saddam, during WWII we allied with the Russians even though Stalin killed as many people if not more than Hitler. But he had to be worked with because he was better to have than Hitler. You have to make choices and when you do, it isn't always easy. In the 1980's Iran was a threat and Iraq wasn't to our National Interests. In the 1990's Iraq was the threat. And because of good US policy we were able to play both enemies off of each other and make them both weaker than they normally would have been had they not fought for 8 years.

The Marine Corps teaches you to kill the enemy, that is what anyone that joins the military (including the National Guard is trained to do). But they also tell you that you must first answer to your God, then your Country. The military is very good about instilling morals and values into its service members. That is why you have nothing but the best of America's sons and daughters serving this country in the Military right now.

Remember it is a volunteer military and it takes someone that wants to serve their fellow man to actually join. Remember, defending ones country is the most honorable profession one can have. And I can think of nothing more noble.

Finally, I would say your comparisons to the US and the Nazi's are not well founded. The fact of the matter is that the US was attacked several times by terrosist elements and IRAQ (shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zone and trying to assasinate the ex President) during the 1990's and early 2000's this all culminated with the 9/11 attack. At that time, Bush Jr. said no more, we will not be a punching bag for islamic extremists that want to enslave the world with their backwards and oppresive form of so called religion nor will we tolerate hostile governments that pose a threat to us. And Bush Jr. systimatically starting taking on these threats.

You focus alot on Iraq but you fail to recognize we have been active in many different countries both militarily and diplomatically. It is the President's choice as to how best to deal with rogue countries. I would not be surpised at some point to see future military action against other countries as the need arises. Remember, this is a war against terrorism, Afghanistan, Iraq, actions in Pakistan, and other places are merely battles in the larger war.

It sucks that we have to be in something so long and protracted, but remember we didn't start this, the savages did, and we will not be safe until they are all removed from the face of the earth and we nuetralize those countries that are willing to aid them.

Your quote, "9/11 was not an excuse for invading Iraq. It was an example of why a rogue player like Iraq must be addressed and not ignored. It had the means and the motive to either inflict greater harm than 9/11 or export technology that would allow others to do it, and that is what needed to be responded to."

9-11 was clearly exploited and if you'd like links where by carefully planned repetition from multiple administration sources, it was insinuated that Iraq and 9-11 were related (so much so, polling of Fox news viewers (approx) 70% believed that Saddam had something to do w/ 9-11! Do you believe/trust everything the govt. (at least if they're republicans) tell you? This is the most secretive administration in history--and we can see the tip of the iceberg now with the corrupt machine starting to crumble. You are toeing the line. Once again, I strongly encourage you to practice thinking outside the box of the rigid/conservative/militaristic thinking and get critical.


Your quote: "That is why you have nothing but the best of America's sons and daughters serving this country in the Military right now Remember it is a volunteer military and it takes someone that wants to serve their fellow man to actually join. Remember, defending ones country is the most honorable profession one can have. And I can think of nothing more noble."

Highly debatable. The main reason folks enter the military is to obtain opportunities. There are many ways to be of service and fighting wars that defend the interests of the wealthy is not the best way to be of service. I consider working in healthcare to be of much higher honor than unquestioningly following orders to kill for geopolitical control of a resource rich region. Or Vietnam, or other interventions of questionable integrity. Here's a list of countries the US has bombed:
http://www.davidbeaumont.btinternet.co.uk/msf/listbombed.html
While you could make a persuasive argument in some of these cases, step back and view the picture from a macro-perspective. This is a murderous nation in it's young age, and if you believe that it was always about self defense, or 'helping to liberate' a people, you are truly naive.

Your quote: "Finally, I would say your comparisons to the US and the Nazi's are not well founded. The fact of the matter is that the US was attacked several times by terrosist elements and IRAQ (shooting at our planes enforcing the no fly zone and trying to assasinate the ex President) during the 1990's and early 2000's this all culminated with the 9/11 attack. At that time, Bush Jr. said no more, we will not be a punching bag for islamic extremists that want to enslave the world with their backwards and oppresive form of so called religion nor will we tolerate hostile governments that pose a threat to us. And Bush Jr. systimatically starting taking on these threats.

Ah, but remember, fascism doesn't have to look exactly like Hitler, and the slope of losing freedoms doesn't have to happen over night.
We know, as evidenced by well documented history, that power, unchecked (whether corporate, foreign, or in the U.S. govt.) will be abused and corrupted. (Like some examples?) And this admin., under the guise of the vague 'war on terror' has rolled back quite a few liberties/protections that were there for good reason.
And, you truly are confused when you relate the attacks on the planes in Iraq to 9-11. Saddam's govt. was secular, not Islamic at all. They had nothing to do with 9-11. In fact, most of the 9-11 folks came from Saudi Arabia. Not Afghanistan. Did you know that one of the guys involved in the PNAC was a UnCal employee and was wining and dining the Taliban in the '90's to put a natural gas pipeline through there? (plans have since changed, for now)

Your quote: "Bush Jr. said no more, we will not be a punching bag for islamic extremists that want to enslave the world with their backwards and oppresive form of so called religion nor will we tolerate hostile governments that pose a threat to us."
Wait! I thought it was about WMD's! Oh that's right, it was about getting rid of Saddam. Oh, then it changed to 'liberating the Iraqui people'.
Your last quote: "It sucks that we have to be in something so long and protracted, but remember we didn't start this, the savages did, and we will not be safe until they are all removed from the face of the earth and we nuetralize those countries that are willing to aid them."

Well, many would argue that we did start this, or gave many reasons for this to happen. The CIA trained folks (Osama) in Afghanistan, then abandoned them and left them to fucked when they weren't of any use. This could breed resentment. Giving Israel billions in aid and weapons may fuel the fires a bit, too. Our actions have consequences. When you prop up a dangerous person (See long list)--and you justify this practice as a strategy in previous quotes--and then fuck them, sometimes that can come back to haunt.

woo hoo. you're right-- i needed "free" Iraqis a lot more than health care. i wouldnt want to be called cold-hearted, after all.

now how about we restore democracy in, say, florida?

simper fi, indeed.

"Last time I checked,"

seems to have been sometime in the mid-60s...

I'm still waiting for a real response, point by point, like I gave you each time. Are you too busy spamming to engage anymore?

Give me your points again, I will respond, sorry if I haven't maybe I missed it.

"rational and logical"

must be the hormones in your all-beef diet, big fella.

Your quote"As far as a link between Iraq and terrorists it did exist. Iraq supported suicide bombers in Israel (cash payments). It tried to assasinate a former US President and it supported efforts to get Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons."

You're avoiding the specifics--Iraq didn't have any connection to 9-11--see my other post for more in depth explanation of the fact that way too many people believed this strongly insinuated (on purpose) falsehood. Your avoiding the details of my points.

Your quote"We serve the US of A and the Nations Interest as determined by Congress and the President"
This is naive--do you really believe that politicians have your best interest at heart?
I'll get back to you on the rest--have to be somewhere---I really encourage you to read the book and check out the link that I've referred to: http://www.addictedtowar.com/
I'll get back to you. Sorry for the short response. I at least appreciate that you are one of the few right wingers that don't run from real debate around here.

I responded in great detail and then they remove my comments, don't know why that is happening. Anyway, no direct link is necessary. Remember, it is a war on terrorism, you need to think of it in terms of Axis vs. Allied, many players on one team. Unfortunately, it isn't the wars of old, where sides announce alliances and then fight, this is more a common foe kind of war. So even though you didn't have an alliance between Osama and Saddam (that we know of), you did have two seperate enemies both trying to cause the USA harm. We addressed the base of the first enemy, Afghanistan and then we turned our attention to the second. lt really is that simple.

Again, if you want to have a debate, we could discuss whether Saddam was a threat to the US or no. I would argue it was, long before 9/11 (the Cheney / Rumsfeld arguement) or you could argue that the best way to confront global islamic based terrorism was to spread democracy in the Middle East, and to do that, Iraq was a country that had a hostile leader to us and was perfect for such a change.

As far as politicians having our best interest at heart, I think you missed my point. The only iterest for a politician is self interest. If the citizens of America wanted change or felt this country was acting illegal or immorally it would demand change, and because politicians want to stay in office they would adjust accordingly or be thrown out and replaced with a bunch of Cindy Sheehan types (didn't happen in 2004 and probably won't in 2006). Anyway, representative government works, remember Congress used to be controlled by Democrats, and then we had that blessed document the Contract with America, and since 1994 the Republicans have ruled the lower house and eventually got the Senate also.

So change is possible, people have to want change for it to take place and unfortunately for you, I don't think they want your kind of change.