"Man made disasters" or War? Who Is Right

[kyzr]

1. Not only was 9/11 invited, it was self induced.
2. Oh yes, it was deserved...
3. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were the government of the US through the CIA and Mossad.
4. Remove all of the US army bases in other countries, bring back all the troops and...yes, there'd be little beef with you Yanks.
5. Not only cut ties with Israel but, stop the investment and throw out all those Yank Jews who have infiltrated every aspect of US finance, especially those dual Nationality Jews who really do have power in DC.

1. Induced how?
2. Deserved why? What did those 3,000 innocents do, especially the 3 & 4 year olds on the planes.
3. Got any proof that OBL is Mossad? Many of the ones killed on 9/11 were Jews. Also, tell me you think that Tenet a Clinton appointee would sign-off on an operation like that. CIA agents are generally ex-military super patriots, not countryless automatons.
4. I totally agree, the next time the EU gets into a jam like with Milosevich, let the EU deal with it. We need our dollars for SS & Medicare.
5. Totally agree. I only want 100% Americans working in DC.

 

[Sherry]

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has called the war against terrorism "man made disasters in an interview with Der Spiegel.

Obama just recently said we are at war with Al Qaida.

Who is right? Will Napolitano abide by the new memo? How will this shape liberals?

Will they wake up and smell the coffee, or will they contine to bury their head in the sand? Isn't it dangerous to have such a blubbering idiot as homeland security secretary, when she doesn't realize the gravity of what's going on?

Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces 'Terrorism' With the Term 'Man-Caused Disaster' | NewsBusters.org

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Obama is in his speech:

"We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them"

What a load of patronizing bullshit. Yeah, we just can't think straight through our fear if the government uses scary words. Calm the masses with your psych 101 babble.

Fear is important.

Americans need to know that there is a real threat out there from Al Qaida and not forget.

You don't have to live in a state of fear and panic to know that terrorists are a threat. My point is that they thought by changing the language everybody would just calm down and world peace would reign. Then Obama appeared to have momentarily pulled his head out of his ass by talking to us like grown ups who can comprehend the gravity of the situation.

 

[Annie]

I was just reading the speech, and I wasn't that impressed. There was one important sentence, but it's not enough. I will highlight it in red.

"Over the past two weeks, we've been reminded again of the challenge we face in protecting our country against a foe that is bent on our destruction. And while passions and politics can often obscure the hard work before us, let's be clear about what this moment demands. We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them.

And we've made progress. Al Qaeda's leadership is hunkered down. We have worked closely with partners, including Yemen, to inflict major blows against al Qaeda leaders. And we have disrupted plots at home and abroad, and saved American lives.

And we know that the vast majority of Muslims reject al Qaeda. But it is clear that al Qaeda increasingly seeks to recruit individuals without known terrorist affiliations not just in the Middle East, but in Africa and other places, to do their bidding. That's why I've directed my national security team to develop a strategy that addresses the unique challenges posed by lone recruits. And that's why we must communicate clearly to Muslims around the world that al Qaeda offers nothing except a bankrupt vision of misery and death –- including the murder of fellow Muslims –- while the United States stands with those who seek justice and progress.

To advance that progress, we've sought new beginnings with Muslim communities around the world, one in which we engage on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect, and work together to fulfill the aspirations that all people share -- to get an education, to work with dignity, to live in peace and security. That's what America believes in. That's the vision that is far more powerful than the hatred of these violent extremists"


Yes, it's nice he finally realized that we are at war. However, based on the speech the war is almost entirely defensive.

It's mainly how we will screen out for terrorists and such. How the US will go on a PR campaign.

What war was ever won fighting defensively.

What needs to be done is that the fight needs to be taken where the terrorists are hiding, and that includes anying in the globe. That is what is missing.

Terrorists and their state sponsors need to know that they are not safe anywhere.

I agree with Pres. Bush when he said:

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

While technically correct, there's evidence a hell of a lot of them wish no good on US or any non-Muslims:

Chart of Confidence in Osama bin Laden in 2009 - Pew Global Attitudes Project Key Indicators Database

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay....cough...back on topic.

QUESTION and I really would like a heartfelt and serious answer:

Do any of you honestly believe any or all of the following?

1. The USA invited the 9/11 attack.

2. The USA deserved the 9/11 attack.

3. If our leadership hadn't made the terrorists mad, they wouldn't have attacked.

4. If we are considerate, respectful, and generous to the terrorists, they won't attack.

5. If we break diplomatic ties with Israel, the terrorists will love us for it.

1. Not only was it invited, it was self induced.

2. Oh yes.

3. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were the government of the US through the CIA and Mossad.

4. Remove all of the US army bases in other countries, bring back all the troops and...yes, there'd be little beef with you Yanks.

5. Not only cut ties with Israel but, stop the investment and throw out all those Yank Jews who have infiltrated every aspect of US finance, especially those dual Nationality Jews who really do have power in DC.

Thank you Charlie. There is certainly absolutely no question that you answered the questions, and whether or not I like your answers, you didn't equivocate. That, at least, is refereshing.

Now another question for Charlie and everybody else: Is Charlie for real here?

 

[The T]

Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano has called the war against terrorism "man made disasters in an interview with Der Spiegel.

Obama just recently said we are at war with Al Qaida.

Who is right? Will Napolitano abide by the new memo? How will this shape liberals?

Will they wake up and smell the coffee, or will they contine to bury their head in the sand? Isn't it dangerous to have such a blubbering idiot as homeland security secretary, when she doesn't realize the gravity of what's going on?

Obama-Speak: Homeland Security Secretary Replaces 'Terrorism' With the Term 'Man-Caused Disaster' | NewsBusters.org

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Obama is in his speech:

"We are at war. We are at war against al Qaeda, a far-reaching network of violence and hatred that attacked us on 9/11, that killed nearly 3,000 innocent people, and that is plotting to strike us again. And we will do whatever it takes to defeat them"

Of course with the Recent spate of attacks? THEY will tell you that they're SHOCKED by it all! Their 'Determination'? Really?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZUlrk5Myuc&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BG66rCmPAs&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

 

[CharlieH]

1. Not only was 9/11 invited, it was self induced.
2. Oh yes, it was deserved...
3. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were the government of the US through the CIA and Mossad.
4. Remove all of the US army bases in other countries, bring back all the troops and...yes, there'd be little beef with you Yanks.
5. Not only cut ties with Israel but, stop the investment and throw out all those Yank Jews who have infiltrated every aspect of US finance, especially those dual Nationality Jews who really do have power in DC.

1. Induced how?
2. Deserved why? What did those 3,000 innocents do, especially the 3 & 4 year olds on the planes.
3. Got any proof that OBL is Mossad? Many of the ones killed on 9/11 were Jews. Also, tell me you think that Tenet a Clinton appointee would sign-off on an operation like that. CIA agents are generally ex-military super patriots, not countryless automatons.
4. I totally agree, the next time the EU gets into a jam like with Milosevich, let the EU deal with it. We need our dollars for SS & Medicare.
5. Totally agree. I only want 100% Americans working in DC.

1. 9/11 was an inside job, I thought this was a given now after all these years....but no, it seems there are still deluded folk out there who think 19 ragheads from caves brought down the centre of world finance in one fell swoop....oh dear me.

2. Kids didn't deserve to die, no one did, my point was your gov't have killed its own people before....you even built the Nation on the deaths of over 12 million Natives, so really 3000 is no big deal.

3. OBL's family have been great friends of the US for years, they even do business in your country, so the 'black sheep' of the family decides to distance himself from them and set up the Mujaheddin to try to drive out the Russians from Afghanistan....with US money and backing....and he's not an asset? come on man, pull the other one! Oh and 'many Jews' were killed on 9/11 REALLY?? Do you have some figures?

4. You lost control of Yugoslavia after your stooge Tito died in 1980, so of course you had to get involved to stop any anti-Yank feeling emerging.

5. No Native Americans though...eh?

 

[kyzr]

1. 9/11 was an inside job, I thought this was a given now after all these years....but no, it seems there are still deluded folk out there who think 19 ragheads from caves brought down the centre of world finance in one fell swoop....oh dear me.

Did you see "Flight 93"? If not then you need to see it before commenting. The SNs took flying lessons, and crashed jet liners into the WTC, it wasn't that difficult, really. The key to the attack was that the policy at the time was to do whatever hijackers wanted. If the morons in-charge would have followed EL-AL's lead with secure doors and passenger screening, the attack would have never happened. It was political correctness run amok. Even today the morons are letting thousands of terrorists into the US under "diversity initiatives". (it was not an "inside job" it was simple stupidity)

2. Kids didn't deserve to die, no one did, my point was your gov't have killed its own people before....you even built the Nation on the deaths of over 12 million Natives, so really 3000 is no big deal.

Stop being so nebulous and say who did it. Bush? Cheney? Tenet? I'd love to be in the room if one of them mentioned that "neat idea" to anyone else. Get real, it was a "sucker punch" by SNs who took advantage of moronic idealists.

3. OBL's family have been great friends of the US for years, they even do business in your country, so the 'black sheep' of the family decides to distance himself from them and set up the Mujaheddin to try to drive out the Russians from Afghanistan....with US money and backing....and he's not an asset? come on man, pull the other one! Oh and 'many Jews' were killed on 9/11 REALLY?? Do you have some figures?

The ME has a lot of side switching. That was then this is now. Look at Saddam. Look at the Shah of Iran. Look at OBL.
That doesn't mean that someone in the CIA hatched the 9/11 plot. Apparently OBL felt safe in his cave especially since the tribe beat the russkies. He miscalculated, badly. I hope Obama nails his ass with a CIA drone.

4. You lost control of Yugoslavia after your stooge Tito died in 1980, so of course you had to get involved to stop any anti-Yank feeling emerging.

The US was under zero obligation to stop Milosevich. We're the only ones "dumb enough" to pay for a top notch military instead of paying for nanny states and weenie militarys like the EU countries. WTF do we care if the Yugos have any "anti-American feelings"? It was a charity case that Clinton did for NATO. I particularly liked the target sheet on that one bridge, I give the Yugos "A+" for guts.

5. No Native Americans though...eh?

Why not? You must be reading that in the same warped American History book that says the Brits won the war of 1812??

 

[Hemperor]

US: Pot Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew In '74
by Raymond Cushing, (29 Mar 2001) San Antonio Current United States

( Wednesday, March 28, The United States Supreme Court rules on whether marijuana use for medicinal purposes can be a valid defense on charges of marijuana possession. The following article was listed as one of the top 25 censored stories of the year 2000. We reprint it here and pose the question, why would the government want to keep us from knowing this? )

The term medical marijuana took on dramatic new meaning in February 2000, when researchers in Madrid announced they had destroyed incurable brain tumors in rats by injecting them with THC, the active ingredient in cannabis.

The Madrid study marks only the second time that THC has been administered to tumor-bearing animals. In 1974, researchers at the Medical College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a virus-induced leukemia.

The DEA quickly shut down the Virginia study and all further cannabis/tumor research, according to Jack Herer, who reports on the events in his book, The Emperor Wears No Clothes. In 1976, President Gerald Ford put an end to all public cannabis research and granted exclusive research rights to major pharmaceutical companies, who set out -- unsuccessfully -- to develop synthetic forms of THC that would deliver all the medical benefits without the "high."

The Madrid researchers reported in the March issue of Nature Medicine that they injected the brains of 45 rats with cancer cells, producing tumors whose presence they confirmed through magnetic resonance imaging ( MRI ). On the 12th day they injected 15 of the rats with THC and 15 with Win-55,212-2, a synthetic compound similar to THC. "All the rats left untreated uniformly died 12-18 days after glioma ( brain cancer ) cell inoculation ... Cannabinoid ( THC )-treated rats survived significantly longer than control rats. THC administration was ineffective in three rats, which died by days 16-18. Nine of the THC-treated rats surpassed the time of death of untreated rats, and survived up to 19-35 days. Moreover, the tumor was completely eradicated in three of the treated rats." The rats treated with Win-55,212-2 showed similar results.

The Spanish researchers, led by Dr. Manuel Guzman of Complutense University, also irrigated healthy rats' brains with large doses of THC for seven days, to test for harmful biochemical or neurological effects. They found none.

"Careful MRI analysis of all those tumor-free rats showed no sign of damage related to necrosis, edema, infection or trauma ... We also examined other potential side effects of cannabinoid administration. In both tumor-free and tumor-bearing rats, cannabinoid administration induced no substantial change in behavioral parameters such as motor coordination or physical activity. Food and water intake, as well as body weight gain, were unaffected during and after cannabinoid delivery. Likewise, the general hematological profiles of cannabinoid-treated rats were normal. Thus, neither biochemical parameters nor markers of tissue damage changed substantially during the seven-day delivery period or for at least two months after cannabinoid treatment ended."

Guzman's investigation is the only time since the 1974 Virginia study that THC has been administered to live, tumor-bearing animals. ( The Spanish researchers cite a 1998 study in which cannabinoids inhibited breast cancer cell proliferation, but that was a "petri dish" experiment that didn't involve live subjects. )

In an e-mail interview for this story, the Madrid researcher said he had heard of the Virginia study, but had never been able to locate literature on it. Hence, the Nature Medicine article characterizes the new study as the first on tumor-laden animals and doesn't cite the 1974 Virginia investigation.

"I am aware of the existence of that research. In fact I have attempted many times to obtain the journal article on the original investigation by these people, but it has proven impossible," Guzman said.

In 1983, the Reagan/Bush Administration tried to persuade American universities and researchers to destroy all 1966-76 cannabis research work, including compendiums in libraries, reports Jack Herer, who states, "We know that large amounts of information have since disappeared."

Guzman provided the title of the work -- "Antineoplastic activity of cannabinoids," an article in a 1975 Journal of the National Cancer Institute -- and this writer obtained a copy at the University of California medical school library in Davis and faxed it to Madrid.

The summary of the Virginia study begins, "Lewis lung adenocarcinoma growth was retarded by the oral administration of tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) and cannabinol ( CBN )" -- two types of cannabinoids, a family of active components in marijuana. "Mice treated for 20 consecutive days with THC and CBN had reduced primary tumor size."

The 1975 journal article doesn't mention breast cancer tumors, which are featured in the only newspaper story ever to appear about the 1974 study -- in the "Local" section of The Washington Post on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is Studied," it read in part:

"The active chemical agent in marijuana curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered." The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers, breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice, and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."

Guzman, writing from Madrid, was eloquent in his response after this writer faxed him the clipping from The Washington Post of a quarter century ago. In translation, he wrote:

"It is extremely interesting to me, the hope that the project seemed to awaken at that moment, and the sad evolution of events during the years following the discovery, until now we once again draw back the veil, over the anti-tumoral power of THC, 25 years later. Unfortunately, the world bumps along between such moments of hope and long periods of intellectual castration."

News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29, 2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature Medicine article. This writer stumbled on it through a link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain tumors.

MAP posted-by: Richard Lake

 

[Claudette]

1. 9/11 was an inside job, I thought this was a given now after all these years....but no, it seems there are still deluded folk out there who think 19 ragheads from caves brought down the centre of world finance in one fell swoop....oh dear me.

Did you see "Flight 93"? If not then you need to see it before commenting. The SNs took flying lessons, and crashed jet liners into the WTC, it wasn't that difficult, really. The key to the attack was that the policy at the time was to do whatever hijackers wanted. If the morons in-charge would have followed EL-AL's lead with secure doors and passenger screening, the attack would have never happened. It was political correctness run amok. Even today the morons are letting thousands of terrorists into the US under "diversity initiatives". (it was not an "inside job" it was simple stupidity)

2. Kids didn't deserve to die, no one did, my point was your gov't have killed its own people before....you even built the Nation on the deaths of over 12 million Natives, so really 3000 is no big deal.

Stop being so nebulous and say who did it. Bush? Cheney? Tenet? I'd love to be in the room if one of them mentioned that "neat idea" to anyone else. Get real, it was a "sucker punch" by SNs who took advantage of moronic idealists.


The ME has a lot of side switching. That was then this is now. Look at Saddam. Look at the Shah of Iran. Look at OBL.
That doesn't mean that someone in the CIA hatched the 9/11 plot. Apparently OBL felt safe in his cave especially since the tribe beat the russkies. He miscalculated, badly. I hope Obama nails his ass with a CIA drone.

4. You lost control of Yugoslavia after your stooge Tito died in 1980, so of course you had to get involved to stop any anti-Yank feeling emerging.

The US was under zero obligation to stop Milosevich. We're the only ones "dumb enough" to pay for a top notch military instead of paying for nanny states and weenie militarys like the EU countries. WTF do we care if the Yugos have any "anti-American feelings"? It was a charity case that Clinton did for NATO. I particularly liked the target sheet on that one bridge, I give the Yugos "A+" for guts.

5. No Native Americans though...eh?

Why not? You must be reading that in the same warped American History book that says the Brits won the war of 1812??

Bravo. Couldnt' agree more.

 

[CMike]

1. Not only was 9/11 invited, it was self induced.
2. Oh yes, it was deserved...
3. The terrorists who attacked on 9/11 were the government of the US through the CIA and Mossad.
4. Remove all of the US army bases in other countries, bring back all the troops and...yes, there'd be little beef with you Yanks.
5. Not only cut ties with Israel but, stop the investment and throw out all those Yank Jews who have infiltrated every aspect of US finance, especially those dual Nationality Jews who really do have power in DC.

1. Induced how?
2. Deserved why? What did those 3,000 innocents do, especially the 3 & 4 year olds on the planes.
3. Got any proof that OBL is Mossad? Many of the ones killed on 9/11 were Jews. Also, tell me you think that Tenet a Clinton appointee would sign-off on an operation like that. CIA agents are generally ex-military super patriots, not countryless automatons.
4. I totally agree, the next time the EU gets into a jam like with Milosevich, let the EU deal with it. We need our dollars for SS & Medicare.
5. Totally agree. I only want 100% Americans working in DC.

1. 9/11 was an inside job, I thought this was a given now after all these years....but no, it seems there are still deluded folk out there who think 19 ragheads from caves brought down the centre of world finance in one fell swoop....oh dear me.

2. Kids didn't deserve to die, no one did, my point was your gov't have killed its own people before....you even built the Nation on the deaths of over 12 million Natives, so really 3000 is no big deal.

3. OBL's family have been great friends of the US for years, they even do business in your country, so the 'black sheep' of the family decides to distance himself from them and set up the Mujaheddin to try to drive out the Russians from Afghanistan....with US money and backing....and he's not an asset? come on man, pull the other one! Oh and 'many Jews' were killed on 9/11 REALLY?? Do you have some figures?

4. You lost control of Yugoslavia after your stooge Tito died in 1980, so of course you had to get involved to stop any anti-Yank feeling emerging.

5. No Native Americans though...eh?

 

[CharlieH]

Oh right CMike, anybody with a different opinion to your Jew media version of events has to be a raving nutjob?

I bet you'll be voting for Sarah or Arnie come 2012, eh?

 

[CMike]

Oh right CMike, anybody with a different opinion to your Jew media version of events has to be a raving nutjob?

I bet you'll be voting for Sarah or Arnie come 2012, eh?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh right CMike, anybody with a different opinion to your Jew media version of events has to be a raving nutjob?

I bet you'll be voting for Sarah or Arnie come 2012, eh?

My sentiments exactly.