"Cut And Run"

That's reasonable. But the sampling that the Lancet study did is also within reasonable bounds as usual polls and studies are performed. Your premise may in fact be closer to the truth, if we are ever allowed to truly know the extent of what has happened in Iraq.

Respectfully,
Pat

 

Well unlike yourself gardener, I have long ago written Wacko off as nothing more than a shill for the bandwagoneers who take what they see on tv or read in corporate press as the end all and be all of any matter. His constant apologetics for what has been repeatedly exposed as a concerted, pre-planned agenda of empire extension into the prime oil and gas producing central asian crescent show how little he truly understands about the history of US military aggressions against those who have not attacked us, the psy ops used to convince the gullible masses (of shich he is clearly a member) of the justifications thereof in each case, and more so about the long term agendas of the key figures (political and military) behind the clockwork cycle of military aggression by Washington (and its Israeli cohorts) every decade.

He asks what lies were told to Justify the invasion of Afghanistan, thereby demonstrating (like his similarly inattentive, or dare say willingly ignorant, counterparts on this site of years past) a profoundly short attention span.

Chief amongst the lies told was the oft repated assertion that the Taliban was directly connected to the events of 911. This was an evolutionary lie which began as a claim that the Taliban refused to surrender Bin Laden and steadily transitioned into conflations of vague soundbites mentioning both Al Qaeda and Taliban in the same breath. It was (and remains) a stock in trade ploy amongst leaders seeking to establish the "widespread enemy" myth in the popular mindset by linking disparate concepts together.

He also again shows the same gullible surface appreciation for the dynamics of the TAP, as did his precursor PB (if he himself is not our long lost dupe in new guise) by accepting post facto Unocal claims of disassociation with the project as evidence that it (along with several other leading US oil giants) played no part in the push to invasion in the first place. This is the sort of compartmentalised surface thinking for which Wacko and his ilk have long been characterized.

Fact is that from 1991-1997 these players spent huge sums bribing government officials in Kazakhstan for equity rights to the reserves in the region (which would require a new pipeline to transport to friendly ports unless they were willing to pay exhorbitant rates for use of existing Russian pipleines. They were not). Sources: "The Price of Oil" by Seymour Hersh, The New Yorker, July 9, 2001 - The Asia Times, "The Roving Eye Part I" Jan. 26, 2002.]

Throw the backroom connivances between Cheney (and his ideological cohorts) and Enron into the mix and the true catalysts for the Afghan invasion become even murkier...

http://www.alternet.org/story/12525/

The fact is that the TAP agreement WAS signed with Turkmenistan (another strategic central Asian target of the neocons as outlined in Brzezinski's book The Grand Chessboard) as far back as December 2002 and is testified to by Karzai himself in his SotU of April 2003:

Considering the nature of such multinational undertakings and the nature of the increasingly globally consolidated energy and banking sectors involved, it only further accentuates the willful bubble denial in which Wacko lives that he should mock the ongoing aspirations for control over the production and flow of such key gas reserves by Washington. For Wacko though, sadly, the ability to grasp the long term agenda (and the willingness of those involved behind the scenes to bide their time until more favourable conditions are achieved) is non-existant.

Going back to the Taliban-(mythical) Al Qaeda conflation, it should also be noted that a major lie was the OMISSION of the fact that the Taliban publically agreed to hand over Bin Laden IF proof was provided of his direct involvement in the planning and/or execution of 911. No evidence was ever brought forward.

In the end, Wacko (like so many before him on these and other boards) remains entrenched in a propagandised, santised and decontextualised view of US foreign policy realities provided to the public with the patented "government officials have said..." tagline as its sole claim to legitimacy. Anyone who bothers to take the time necessary to read and study US policy in the region over more than a few brief years of time will come to see the interconnectedness of events and players comprising the truth of the matter.

I wouldnt hold my breath for dear Wacko though, he's too comfortable on the bandwagon to recognise reality.

 

Perhaps he waits for documented proof. I have followed the PNAC, and I believe they were behind the US move into Iraq, and I watched as our secretary of state followed their orders and stood back and let innocent lives be lost in Lebanon. But some of your theories I question Lickerish.

I for one would love to see real proof that the Bin Ladin wasn't behind 09/11, but I really have a hard time believing that it was pulled off by our government, and no one involved will come forward and expose it. There had to be a lot of folks involved.

While conspiracy theorists stir up dust on this sort of issue, our politicians are passing shit like the SPP, that totally get lost under the radar and dust. I'd rather address issues that can be documented rather than argue about whether or not an airplane hit the pentagon.

 

By way of addendum to the above, the naysayers like Wacko might also like to review their lack of understanding when it is noted that one of the key players remaining in the renewed TAP agreement was/is Chevron. The fact that Chevron was taken over by Unocal on August 10, 2005 only further vindicates those of who have long argued the backroom connivances which lay behind the big picture.

So much for those who deny the behind the scenes involvement by those aspiring to reap the profit from the application of US military force and domination in the region.

 

This is a pre-programmed and irrational claim put forward by the establishment's propagandists, gradener.

Do explain to me why you truly believe that any greater number of key US officials needed to be in the actual planning loop than there would need be of so called "Al Qaeda" planners?

You accept that 19 hijackers with box cutters (despite repeatedly exposed and affidavit-backed testimony from professional flight instructors that none of the alleged pilots could fly so much as a piper cub) could pull off multiple tactical attacks in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, but our own government/intelligence community/military complex could not. How odd that does sound.

The evidence you seek, or, as I have repeatedly asserted, certainly sufficient evidence to discredit the populist lie of the Al Qaeda boogeyman theory oft claimed (but never once concretely proven by Bushco and its corporate media lapdogs to this very day) and pave the way for the long necessitated fully transparent public enquiry into all supposed "evidence" in the possession of FEMA and other agencies.

Fact is, all the means motive and opportunity lay with this presently ruling cabal of rabid ideologues whose own published agenda called for such a "traumatic and catalyzing event" to justify their desire for military expanisionism abroad and the erecting of a surveillance state on the domestic front.

The big picture, as argued by myself and many many others for these past 5 years, leads to no other rational and statisfactory conclusion I'm afraid.

The many documented indications of a systemic insider origin and execution of 911 go far beyond such one off items. It is, once again, only those who dare not allow themselves to acknowledge the glaring holes in the official coverstory and the untrustworthiness of those who concocted it and have turned it into nightly televised taglines who seek to make the whole argument a matter of one single event of that day.

The totality of discrepencies is the real issue and that which demands a truly public, transparent no-holds-barred investigation. The victims of 911 deserve no less.

 

Still say Bush had a hand it it..he didn't seem too surprised when he was informed "the country is under attack" in that class room. He also seems to hinder all investigations and dodges any question on the subject. Nope, wouldn't surprise me at all if he was the master planner.

 

I don't make it one argument only. In fact part of me believes your premise Lick, but I can't prove it, and I fear the other shit that is getting passed while we all focus on something that will probably never come to light.

 

Higherthanhell, I personally do not think Bush himself has the mental capacity for such complex planning. Those with the true ideological basis and the brains (as well as grasping aspirations for empire) would be Cheney, Rumsfeld, Feith, Frum, Kristol and their strategically appointed lackies in NORAD, the CIA and the NSA. Likely involvement of key parties at the head of the Mossad would also not surprise me in the slightest.

 

LickHERish

I think it was his idea..he had his cronies do the mechanical planning, you're right he's too stupid to walk and chew gum.

 

More to the point then, Hth, the planning for 911 goes back at least to the Bush Sr. admin (same folks actually) and likely back to the Reagan era itself. Georgie Boy is just the public front man for those more calculating and capable men placed around junior by daddy to resume the agenda they would have carried to the present extreme in the early 90's had Clinton not been chosen.

The precusors were already evident with the 1993 WTC bombing which began the gradual populist acceptance of the "Al Qaeda" boogeyman threat mythology that was escalated on the back of 911 up to the present.

 

In other words, there is no reason why you can't prove Lick's point for her.

 

I think the burdon of "proof" is on the liars responsible for the deaths of 3,000 of our troops. You war criminals crack me up with your "prove it" bullshit, that's the line I used as a kid when the coppers busted us bashing mailboxes...warcriminals are a funny bunch. (a sick kind of funny)

 

Yeah really, why should somebody who accuses the US government of planning and executing 9/11 be required to provide any proof.

Why don't you go hit your crackpipe and let the adults talk.

 

Wackyiraqi.........

some questions for you though.... answer yes or no

do you supoport the war on iraq
do you support the war on afghanistan
would you support the coming war on iran/syria etc
do you support the troops
do you think invading iraq was a good idea
do you think america should pull out
do you think america needs to pay iraq compensation for invading it
would you join up to fight in iraq
would you expect other people to fight in iraq if you couldn't
what could have been a better way to spend the money already spent in iraq?
do you love bush or support him in anyway
are you republican



these questions are for my own benefit because of my own ignorance of your views and would help me understand, feel free to add your justification after answering yes or no because it is important to know how someone has reached a particular opinion. no doubt i will have further questions.

 

Actually in other words, Wacko, you remain as intractably fixed in your ignorance as ever, no surprise there.

As for burden of proof, the coverstory of repeatedly exposed liars-which served as impetus for the invasion and decimation of two sovereign nations' infrastructures and countless innocent deaths, indefinite detentions, torture and humiliation at the hands of our forces-is what has long demanded concrete proof.

Instead, mentally slothful sponges like yourself have simply believed the repeated ASSERTIONS and lies for their repetition alone. The truth of the matter is too difficult for you to handle for it would demand you acknowledge the calculated ongoing betrayal of democratic precepts and principles by our own leaders and governing systems spanning generations.

Keep living in your fantasy world of shadowy ubiquitous Arab terrorist boogeymen whilst the real, and quite visible terrorists destroy countless more lives and economies to further enrich themselves and their cronies.

 

Lick thinks she is above having to provide evidence towards any of her allegations.

You know, in the real world you cannot will things to happen. People like you are rare, and whenever I come across them I wonder what it must be like to not be able to see yourself. I know little about you but I am quite sure you have few friends. You may have acqaintances, but I doubt you have any true friends. Can your colleagues even stand you? Do they wisper about you behind your back? Your pompous attitude doesn't mean shit in the real world, or here. You are so full of it, it is amazing.

 

Just answer the questions please..quit evading the issue

 

ROFLMAO, oh wacko your retorts are even more lame than your surface claims to understanding anything about the nature and objectives of US (or any other nation's) foreign policy or your pablum commentaries on the military complex and its role in advancing the former.

"Reality" to you, by your own posts, amounts to nothing more than the decontextualized soundbites you glean from popular press and televised media. And thus you remain as clueless about "facts" as you are about me or my social status.

Since I am a he, not a she, you remain all the more off the mark than you have usually been.

Go read through the multiplicity of posts here on 911 for your "evidence" if your infantile attention span can handle as much reading and follow on personal research as that will require. People like you are about as wanting as they come in the intellectual domain so Ill not hold my breath waiting for you to comprehend nor admit the weight of revealed information widely available in the public domain which already has discredited the assertions made this US administration about 911 and its alleged perpetrators.

Given your gullibility id truly love to sell you a used car. It's only been driven on Sundays by a nice little old lady to and from church. LOL

 

You think you can make a blanket statement and everybody is supposed to buy into it? You are weak. You are clearly to afraid to back up any of your claims with evidence in fear of being called on it. You tell yourself that you are right and are above having to provide proof to your claims, but nobody is buying it Lick. Nobody ever has. Your prescripted debates are not fooling anybody here. You assume that your audience sees the world through Google. I don't need Google to see through your phony facade.

 

Oh yeah. What kind of car are you selling?