Not just there heavy earth moving machines but their line of clothing as
well.
--
Redbaiter
Rachel Corrie for the 2003 Nobel Peace prize
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> Why?
I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase Gough &
Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
>
> > Why?
>
> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase Gough &
> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
--
Redbaiter
War Crimes r Us
Redbaiter wrote:
>
> "Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> >
> > > Why?
> >
> > I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> > holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase Gough &
> > Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
>
> um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
FFS. So I suppose that you also refuse to fly in Boeing aircraft?
Wotta wanker.
--
Typ
"Typhoid" <neinschpam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:MPG.1963dcbffdaeb3729896ad@no-spam
> Redbaiter wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why?
> > >
> > > I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac,
which
> > > holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
Gough &
> > > Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
> >
> > um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
>
> FFS. So I suppose that you also refuse to fly in Boeing aircraft?
>
> Wotta wanker.
>
> --
> Typ
Caterpillar don't have to supply them to murderers.
--
Redbaiter
I'm so smart much that it sometimes be hurts
"peebs" <pbh@no-spam> wrote in message
news:1fx4ujy.1o37g4ivn6bnkN@no-spam
> Redbaiter <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Rachel Corrie for the 2003 Nobel Peace prize
>
> Ha! More likely to receive the 2003 Darwin Award.
My thoughts exaclty.
>
> --
> peeby
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efcfb14$1@no-spam
>
> "Rob" <hoop70@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:P4ycnflxcbQPB2GjXTWJgQ@no-spam
> >
> > "peebs" <pbh@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:1fx4ujy.1o37g4ivn6bnkN@no-spam
> > > Redbaiter <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rachel Corrie for the 2003 Nobel Peace prize
> > >
> > > Ha! More likely to receive the 2003 Darwin Award.
> >
> > My thoughts exaclty.
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > peeby
> >
>
> Gee that's pretty insensitive. Have you got kids?
No, thats realistic. If you stand in front of a moving tractor, on purpose,
you are an idiot.
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> One World. One Love
>
>
>
"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efd31e0@no-spam
>
> "Rob" <hoop70@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:0UWdnTX25qHbtmCjU-KYvQ@no-spam
> >
> > "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3efcfb14$1@no-spam
> > >
> > > "Rob" <hoop70@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > news:P4ycnflxcbQPB2GjXTWJgQ@no-spam
> > > >
> > > > "peebs" <pbh@no-spam> wrote in message
> > > >
news:1fx4ujy.1o37g4ivn6bnkN@no-spam
> > > > > Redbaiter <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Rachel Corrie for the 2003 Nobel Peace prize
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha! More likely to receive the 2003 Darwin Award.
> > > >
> > > > My thoughts exaclty.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > peeby
> > > >
> > >
> > > Gee that's pretty insensitive. Have you got kids?
> >
> > No, thats realistic. If you stand in front of a moving tractor, on
> purpose,
> > you are an idiot.
> >
> >
>
> What about the chinese guy in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square?
What about him?
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> Eradicate Goyim
>
>
>
>
Redbaiter <don't@no-spam> wrote:
> > >
> > > Gee that's pretty insensitive. Have you got kids?
> >
> > No, thats realistic. If you stand in front of a moving tractor, on
> purpose,
> > you are an idiot.
> >
> >
>
> What about the chinese guy in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square?
>
> --
> Redbaiter
> Eradicate Goyim
and you talk about being insensitive!
--
madiba
In our modern world, discomforting truths are usually discarded in favour of
fictions. One such fiction is the idea that terrorists are disenfranchised
dissidents who independently generate the wealth and resources necessary for
their heinous acts. Such is the contention of Professor Mark Juergensmeyer.
In his article, "Understanding the New Terrorism", he says that modern
terrorism "appears pointless since it does not lead directly to any
strategic goal" (p. 158).
Juergensmeyer arrives at this conclusion because he restricts his
examination to the visible perpetrators, whose motives may be, in fact,
irrational. However, he does not examine the patrons of terrorism. Given the
exceptional subtlety and discretion of terrorism's shadowy sponsors,
Professor Juergensmeyer may just be oblivious to their existence. On the
other hand, he could simply be parroting his fellow academicians in order to
maintain the status quo.
Whatever the case may be, this contention seems to be the overall view held
by the orthodoxy of academia. With such a view vigorously promulgated by the
arbiters of the dominant national paradigm, few can recognise those shady
individuals who stand to profit from terrorist acts.
To understand terrorism, one must discard the view that arbitrarily
characterises it as "a resort to violence or a threat of violence on the
part of a group seeking to accomplish a purpose against the opposition of
constituted authority" (Adler, Mueller & Laufer, p. 309). Such an impotent
notion is predicated upon the hopelessly flawed accidentalist perspective of
history. It relegates terrorism, which is the product of conscious effort
and design, to the realm of circumstantial spontaneity. In other words, a
contrived act suddenly becomes an inexplicable social phenomenon.
In November 1989, Father Ignacio Martín-Baró, a social psychologist,
delivered a speech in California on "The Psychological Consequences of
Political Terror". In his speech, Martín-Baró gave a much more precise
definition of terrorism, one that is ignored only at great peril. Noam
Chomsky provides a synopsis of this speech (p. 386):
He [Martín-Baró] stressed several relevant points. First, the most
significant form of terrorism, by a large measure, is state terrorism--that
is, "terrorizing the whole population through systematic actions carried out
by the forces of the state". Second, such terrorism is an essential part of
a "government-imposed sociopolitical project" designed for the needs of the
privileged.
Disturbing though it may be, Martín-Baró's definition is one validated by
history. The majority of terrorism throughout history has found its sponsors
in the hallowed halls of officialdom, in the entity known as government.
Terrorism is surrogate warfare, a manufactured crisis designed to induce
social change. Its combatants consciously or unconsciously wage the war on
behalf of higher powers with higher agendas. Whether its adherents are aware
of it or not, terrorism always serves the ambitions of another.
In his article, "Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship", Michael Rivero
states that "It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times:
creating the enemies you need" (p. 1). The strategy is quite simple:
individuals create a crisis so that they can then introduce their desired
solution.
Are there recent, modern examples of state-sponsored terrorism?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question seems to be "Yes".
Operation Northwoods
The first example is in 1962. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
Lyman L. Lemnitzer, and his fellow JCS members wanted to remove Castro from
Cuba. Exactly what interests Lemnitzer and his fellow warhawks represented
are unclear. However, one thing is apparent: these military men considered
Castro an impediment to be expunged by means of overt war.
According to James Bamford, former Washington investigative producer for
ABC, the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to engineer several terrorist acts to
instigate war (p. 82):
According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets,
the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the
most corrupt plan ever created by the US government. In the name of
anticommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism
against their own country in order to trick the American public into
supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Codenamed Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of
the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for
innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees
fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to
be launched in Washington, DC, Miami and elsewhere.
People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be
hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus
giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and
international backing, they needed to launch their war.
Northwoods even called for the military to turn on itself (p. 84):
Among the actions recommended was "a series of well-coordinated incidents to
take place in and around" the US Navy Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. This
included dressing "friendly" Cubans in Cuban military uniforms and then have
them "start riots near the main gate of the base. Others would pretend to be
saboteurs inside the base. Ammunition would be blown up, fires started,
aircraft sabotaged, mortars fired at the base with damage to installations".
Operation Northwoods would draw upon history as well, using the 1898
explosion aboard the battleship Maine in Havana harbour as inspiration (p.
84):
"We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," they
proposed; "casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of
national indignation."
The attempt to create a Cuban terrorist threat makes it clear that the US
government has no reservations about using state-sponsored terrorism to
achieve its ends.
American Imperialism and the Terrorist Threat
However, it is in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 that one sees the
tangible enactment of modern-day state-sponsored terrorism. Many Americans
have been taught that loners Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, fuelled by
militia-inspired conspiracy theories and white supremacist propaganda,
perpetrated one of the worst terrorist acts in American history all by
themselves.
What came out of the Oklahoma City bombing? Former Czechoslovakian Communist
Party Secretariat member Jan Kozak's "pressure from above" went to work and
passed oppressive legislation: the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. This Act made no one safer and threw the Fourth Amendment to
the Constitution into the wastebasket. The pincers clamped down a little bit
harder on the American people.
Presently, America finds itself in the midst of a tumultuous conflict
because of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center. This begs the obvious question: was this attack
state-sponsored? Remember the earlier contention that the majority of
terrorism is state-sponsored. Terrorists just do not have the resources, the
money or the expertise without the aid of a government or factions within a
government. It is still too early to know all of the facts and details
surrounding the events of September 11. However, there is evidence
suggesting that the attack was no exception to the rule. The investigation
of government complicity begins with an examination of the evidence for
government foreknowledge. Warnings were received at the highest levels of
government.
These and other eye-opening revelations have many people asking why the US
government did not move to stop bin Laden and al-Qa'ida. This question can
be answered with a question: why move against bin Laden and al-Qa'ida if
they are your assets?
The story of the dreaded al-Qa'ida terrorist network begins with Zbigniew
Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Advisor. In his 1997 book,
The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Geostrategic Objectives,
Brzezinski provides readers with the motivation for the creation of a
terrorist threat. He begins (p. xii):
The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in
world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not
only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's
paramount. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in
the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as
the sole and, indeed, the first truly global powerÉ
Brzezinski celebrates the fact that America is being transformed into a
world empire. However, he identifies a distinct threat to America's
ascendancy to the position of sole global power: "The attitude of the
American public toward the external projection of American power has been
much more ambivalent" (p. 24). Apparently, the citizenry's aversion towards
imperialistic policies, which Brzezinski euphemistically interprets as
ambivalence, is an obstacle to the empire's expansion. After all, there are
still plenty of patriots who understand that Brzezinski's expansionistic
"geostrategy" is irreconcilable with the tenets of Americanism.
This sense of awareness has been a major obstacle to the foreign policy
elites that Brzezinski represents. Thus far, enough patriots know that none
of the "Freedom Documents" (i.e., the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc.)
makes concessions for the arbitrary extension of America's authority through
brutish military expeditions. As a sovereign nation itself, America is
supposed to honour the autonomy of other countries and is not to initiate
militaristic campaigns unless she is threatened. Yet, Brzezinski believes
that adherence to such principles could provoke worldwide social upheaval
(p. 30):
America's withdrawal from the world, or because of the sudden emergence of a
successful rival, would produce massive international instability. It would
promote global anarchy.
Brzezinski continues further on in hyperbolic fashion (p. 194):
Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces
of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene.
In other words, the promotion and practice of representative government
amongst other nations would lead to doomsday itself. In such statements, the
former National Security Advisor reveals the authoritarian features of his
bizarre eschatology. According to Brzezinski's Weltanschauung, those who
cherish individual liberties and the sovereignty of their respective nations
constitute the "forces of global disorder"; these forces must be defeated or
they will invariably cause the apocalypse--so public opinion must be
altered. (Brzezinski fails to mention that such a doomsday will only mean
the end for him and his elitist comrades.) Brzezinski cites a very
interesting historical example (p. 25):
The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of
the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Ah, an option presents itself! Mass consensus could be facilitated through
mass trauma. In fact, the engineering of widespread compliance is an
essential constituent in the implementation of Brzezinski's foreign policy.
In an exemplary moment of self-incrimination so endemic to elitist tracts,
Brzezinski pens a damning confession (p. 211):
Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may
find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threat.
A readily exploitable menace, whether genuine or promulgated, is the
solution.
Brzezinski began the construction of his "direct external threat" years
before he wrote The Grand Chessboard. In an interview with the French
magazine Le Nouvel Observateur, the former national security adviser made a
stunning confession that will change the history books forever (Blum, p. 1):
Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From
the Shadows] that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen
in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you
were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played
a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to
the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet Army
invaded Afghanistan, December 24, 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded
until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979, that
President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents
of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the
President in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going
to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But
perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to
provoke it?
B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Re-education and the Creation of the Taliban
Having encouraged the Soviets to invade Afghanistan, Brzezinski now had a
pretext for radicalising and arming a population that would be used at a
future date as a "direct external threat" to the United States.
Part of the radicalisation process included the brainwashing of children
under the guise of education. The Washington Post's Joe Stephens and David
B. Ottaway report (pp. 1-2):
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars
to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images
and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance
to the Soviet occupation.
The "Primers", which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of
guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan
school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced
books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with
its strict fundamentalist code.
Stephens and Ottaway identify the governmental and educational organisations
involved in development of the textbooks (p. 4):
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks
were developed in the early 1980s under an AID [Agency for International
Development] grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for
Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's
education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.
Under this project, the images and talk of violence were craftily
intermingled with legitimate education (p. 4):
Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and
land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it
also suited US interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.
An examination of a textbook produced shocking results (p. 5):
An aid-worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted
43 pages containing violent images or passages.
The writers of the Washington Post story go on to provide a specific example
of the material that is nothing less than appalling (pp. 5-6):
One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a
bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is
missing.
Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to
the mujaheddin [sic], who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will
sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the
government, the text says.
This social engineering project successfully transformed Muslim children
into conscienceless killing machines. Many would go on to join al-Qa'ida,
the terrorist network headed up by Osama bin Laden.
An heir to a Saudi construction fortune, bin Laden went to Afghanistan in
1979 to fight the Soviets. Bin Laden eventually came to head the Maktab
al-Khidamar, also known as the MAK. It was through this front organisation
that money, arms and fighters were supplied to the Afghan war. However,
according to MSNBC's Michael Moran, there is more to the story (p. 2):
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at
least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan's state security services,
the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA's primary conduit
for conducting the covert war against Moscow's occupation.
Even after the war, bin Laden was on good terms with the CIA (p. 3):
Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA's reckless
strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still
viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante--a rich Saudi boy gone to
war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a
hero.
Bin Laden would later receive three necessary provisions from factions of
government. These essentials would allow him and al- Qa'ida to conduct one
of the worst terrorist attacks ever conceived. These constituents were: (1)
protection courtesy of highly influential, well-placed shepherds in
government; (2) government funding; and (3) government training. Without a
beat, individuals in positions of authority delivered.
Both Democrat and Republican administrations protected bin Laden. Undaunted
by Osama's attack on the USS Cole and bombings of the embassies, this
non-partisan aegis consistently insulated the terrorist and his network.
President William Jefferson Clinton, a Democrat, shielded bin Laden and
company from the hand of justice in Sudan. Mansoor Ijaz revealed this fact
in the December 5, 2001, Los Angeles Times (Ijaz, p. 1):
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates,
including one as late as last yearÉ
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the
Clinton Administration. I met with officials in both countries, including
Clinton, US National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's
President and intelligence chief.
President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against
Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and detailed
intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic
Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas. Among those in the
networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the
World Trade Center. The silence of the Clinton Administration in responding
to these offers was deafening.
Sudan offered Bill Clinton the ideal opportunity to apprehend bin Laden and
prevent future terrorist attacks. Instead, the US pressured Sudan to make
bin Laden leave, "despite their [the Sudanese] feeling that he could be
monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere" (pp. 1-2). It was off to
Afghanistan for bin Laden and his merry, marauding band of cut-throats and
murderers (p. 2):
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him: Ayman Zawahiri, considered
by the US to be the chief planner of the September 11 attacks; Mamdouh
Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic
equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, bin Laden's personal secretary and
roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the US for his role in the
1998 US Embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed
and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks. Some of
these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
In Afghanistan, the Taliban protected bin Laden and his al- Qa'ida network.
There is an odd symmetry revealed through this relationship. Both bin Laden
and the Taliban were little more than a creation of the CIA. Selig Harrison,
a South Asian expert from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, made this known at a conference in London. The Times of India
records Harrison's revelations (p. 1):
LONDON -- The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with
Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban,
a leading US expert on South Asia said here.
"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the
Woodrow Wilson International Centre [sic] for Scholars said at the
conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the
Challenges in Asia".
To the average American, the Taliban might have been a rogue gallery of
maniacs that comprised a fanatical outlaw government and nothing more.
However, Harrison makes it clear that the Taliban was a well-coordinated
intelligence project (p. 2):
The Taliban are not just recruits from "madrassas" (Muslim theological
schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence, the
intelligence wing of the Pakistani government).
A Covert Government Agenda
The government had all the means necessary to detect and prevent the
September 11 attacks. Researcher Russ Kick makes a significant statement
concerning this point (p. 1):
The US has the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence
Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Secret Service, and a host
of other intelligence and security agencies. These agencies employ Echelon,
which monitors the majority of electronic communication in the world;
Carnivore, which intercepts email; Tempest, a technology that can read a
computer monitor's display from over a block away; Keyhole satellites that
have a resolution of four inches; and other spy technologies, probably most
of which we don't know about.
In 2001, the US spent $30 billion on intelligence gathering and an
additional $12 billion on counterterrorism. With all these resources, and
more, we're supposed to believe that the government didn't have the
slightest inkling that terrorists were planning to attack the United States,
much less hijack planes and send them careening into major landmarks.
After reviewing the facts, one must consider a more sinister possibility:
that certain factions in the United States government created the bin Laden
menace and actually desired the attacks. Whether Moran realises it or not,
his article, "Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost", reveals evidence that the
Agency may have been equipping bin Laden's network for purposes other than
fighting the Soviets (p. 4):
The CIA, ever mindful of the need to justify its "mission", had conclusive
evidence by the mid-1980s of the deepening crisis of infrastructure within
the Soviet Union. The CIA, as its deputy director Robert Gates acknowledged
under congressional questioning in 1992, had decided to keep that evidence
from President Reagan and his top advisors and instead continued to grossly
exaggerate Soviet military and technological capabilities in its annual
"Soviet Military Power" report right up to 1990.
Now, a troubling question arises. Given the impending collapse of the Soviet
Union and the inexorable demise of communism, bin Laden's involvement in the
crusade against the Soviets seems inconsequential. More succinctly, it is
irrelevant. Yet, despite his axiomatic obsolescence in the anti-communist
campaign, bin Laden continued to receive funds. Since such financing did not
represent an investment in the ongoing war with the Soviets, there must have
been ulterior motives for maintaining bin Laden's network.
What was the true agenda that motivated the CIA to support what would later
become an international Frankenstein's monster? Former CIA Associate Deputy
Director of Operations Theodore Shackley may have already answered this
question in his book, The Third Option (p. 17):
Senior intelligence officers like myself, who had experience in paramilitary
operations, have always insisted that the United States should also consider
the third option: the use of guerrilla warfare, counterinsurgency techniques
and covert action to achieve policy goalsÉ Political warfare is very often
the stitch in time that eliminates bloodier and more costly alternatives.
It is possible that the September 11 attack represents a tangible enactment
of Shackley's third option. Bin Laden's ties to the intelligence community
certainly reinforce such a contention. Were al-Qa'ida and bin Laden
considered part of a third option to facilitate political and social change
in the United States?
Consider a conversation that took place between former DEA agent Michael
Levine and a CIA agent. It suggests that the CIA is ready and willing to use
the third option in America. This discourse is recorded in The Triangle of
Death (Levine, p. 353):
"How can you be so good at what you do and have so little understanding of
what really pulls your strings? Don't you realize that there are factions in
your government that want this to happen--an emergency situation too hot for
a constitutional government to handle."
"To what end?" I asked.
"A suspension of the Constitution, of course. The legislation is already in
place. All perfectly legal. Check it out yourself. It's called FEMA. Federal
Emergency Management Agency. 'Turn in your guns, you antigovernment
rabble-rousers. And who would be king, Michael?"
"CIA," I said.
Terrorism in the United States is one of the methods employed to generate
the changes desired by Levine's CIA friend. It has provided a pretext for
the introduction of draconian laws and measures previously unthinkable.
Representative Henry Gonzalez recognised this fact when he made the
following comment (Cuddy, p. 164):
The truth of the matter is that you do have those standby provisions, and
the statutory emergency plans are there whereby you could, in the name of
stopping terrorism, apprehend, invoke the military, and arrest Americans and
hold them in detention camps.
Add to the list of "statutory emergency plans" the Patriot Act, passed in
response to the September 11 attacks. According to Washington Post staff
writer Jim McGee (pp 1-2), this law:
Éempowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from
solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition, the Treasury
Department has been charged with building a financial intelligence-gathering
system whose data can be accessed by CIA.
Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to
influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain
evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps.
The Patriot Act is designed to transform America into a surveillance
society. Wiretapping has been expanded to invade the privacy of a larger
portion of the populace. In the name of fighting terrorism, the prying eyes
of the government can now watch those merely deemed "suspicious".
Furthermore, wiretaps are no longer just a tool in criminal investigations.
Under the Act, they become a means of gathering information on the
citizenry. Unfortunately, the surprises do not stop there. The Act also
lifts many of the constraints on the CIA's power. McGee writes (p. 4):
The new law also gives the CIA unprecedented access to the most powerful
investigative weapon in the federal law enforcement's arsenal: the federal
grand jury. The grand juries have nearly unlimited power to gather evidence
in secret, including testimony, wiretap transcripts, phone records, business
records or medical recordsÉ
The new law permits allow the FBI to give grand jury information to the CIA
without a court order, as long as the information concerns foreign
intelligence or international terrorism. The information can also be shared
widely throughout the national security establishmentÉ
All of the above points to a very frightening conclusion: there are some
factions of government that consider terrorism to be a tool of social
engineering. The direction society is being steered by this "tool" is even
more frightening.
Terrorism: A Tool of the Ruling Elite
Terrorism is being used to keep the rabble in line on behalf of an elite
that wishes to maintain and expand its power. In The Power Elite,
sociologist C. Wright Mills introduces these powerful individuals (pp. 3-4):
The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend
the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions
to make decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make
such decisions is less important than the fact that they do occupy such
pivotal positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is
itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they
do make. For they are in command of the major hierarchies and organisations
of modern society. They rule the big corporations. They run the machinery of
the state and claim its prerogatives. They direct the military
establishment. They occupy the strategic command posts of the social
structure, in which are now centered the effective means of the power and
the wealth and the celebrity which they enjoy.
Talk of oligarchs might tend to conjure pictures of mediaeval feudal lords.
However, a Federal Reserve study points out to elitism being alive, well,
and existing in the "Land of the Free", the United States. In his Secrets of
the Temple, former Washington Post editor William Greider quotes the study
(p. 39):
É54 percent of the total net financial assets were held by the 2 percent of
families with the greatest amount of such assets and 86 percent by the top
10 percent; 55 percent of the families in the sample had zero or negative
net worthÉ
This concentration of wealth in so few hands certainly suggests that there
is a ruling class. It is highly naive to believe that this elite does not
wield a great deal of influence over civilisation. In her book, Beyond The
Ruling Class: Strategic Elites In Modern Society, Professor Suzanne Keller
states (p. 3):
The notion of a stratum elevated above the mass of men may prompt approval,
indifference, or despair, but regardless of how men feel about it, the fact
remains that their lives, fortunes, and fate are and have long been
dependent on what a small number of men in high places think and do.
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency William Colby recognised
the existence of a network of bluebloods. When former Nebraska Senator and
Vietnam War hero John W. DeCamp was looking into elites' involvement in
child abuse, drug running, gun running, and satanic ritual-murder, Colby
warned him of the hidden aristocracy and their power (DeCamp, pp. ix-x):
"What you have to understand, John, is that sometimes there are forces and
events too big, too powerful, with so much at stake for other people or
institutions, that you cannot do anything about them, no matter how evil or
wrong they are and no matter how dedicated or sincere you are or how much
evidence you have. That is simply one of the hard facts of life you have to
face. You have done your part. You have tried to expose the evil and
wrongdoing. It has hurt you terribly. But it has not killed you up to this
point. I am telling you, get out of this before it does.
"Sometimes things are just too big for us to deal with, and we have to step
aside and let history take its course."
Probably the greatest source of "insider" information comes from Oxford
professor (and mentor to former President Bill Clinton) the late Carroll
Quigley. After being close to the pro-British, Anglophile faction of the
elite, Quigley wrote (p. 950):
There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international
Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical
Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may
identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the
Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the
operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and
was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and
secret records. I have no aversion to it and to many of its aims and have,
for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.
I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies
(notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European
Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must
remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion
is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is
significant enough to be known.
Quigley also informs us that the ruling class has a very low opinion of the
common people. He voices this elitist sentiment when he refers to the
commoners as "the petty bourgeoisieÉ" (pp. 1243-1244).
So why is the great mass of human civilisation unaware of the oligarchs'
presence among them? In The Architecture of Modern Political Power, Daniel
Pouzzner explains why (p. 16):
The establishment cloaks itself in cultural camouflage, employing tactics
for which it almost seamlessly maintains plausible deniability. Subtle,
ubiquitous, often implicit propaganda fosters a broad public acceptance and
embrace of the authority of the establishment, and of the establishment's
definitions of good and evil, preventing the public from seriously
contemplating the reality that the establishment is itself quite often evil
by its own definition. The establishment reiterates the mantra that the
President of the United States is "the leader of the free world", but a free
world has no leader. The President of the United States is simply the most
obvious spearhead of the authority of the establishment. He gathers strength
at the expense of the world's freedom.
Generally, an errant public attributes the results of the establishment's
meddlesome actions to happenstance, or to motives viewed as essentially
innocuous or virtuous. The design is irrefutably evident only in the pattern
of results, or by actually showing proof of meddling. The public has been
systemically conditioned to ignore such patterns, and to condemn those who
draw attention to them (derisively calling them "conspiracy theorists").
Thus, controlling access to and dissemination of information that
constitutes proof of meddling suffices in large part to protect the
establishment program from exposure. The compartmentalization of the
establishment's covert apparatus assures that those exposures which do
transpire cause only limited damage.
Bush/Bin Laden Family Links
Are there any ties between the power elites and the current terrorist
network? The answer to that question lies with the Bush dynasty. Neither
Bush Senior nor Bush Junior can be described as Presidents in the Lincoln
tradition. They do not come from lower class backgrounds and modest
upbringings. Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin's in-depth investigation of
George Senior led them to propose the following in their excellent book,
George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (p. 9):
One of our basic theses is that George Bush [Senior] is, and considers
himself to be, an oligarch.
In an article for the London Daily Mail, Peter Allen points out a connection
between George W. Bush and Osama's brother, Salem bin Laden (pp. 1-2):
Incredibly, Salem went on to become a business partner of the man who is
leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W. Bush were
founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush's home state of Texas.
As he built his own business empire, Salem bin Laden had an intriguing
relationship with the President-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a
close friend of Mr Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as
his representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Mr Bath
invested $50,000Éin Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed
whether he was investing his own money or somebody else's. There was even
speculation that the money might have been from Salem. In the same year, Mr
Bath bought Houston Gulf Airport on behalf of the Saudi Arabian
multimillionaire.
Three years ago, Mr Bush said the $50,000 investment in Arbusto was the only
financial dealing he had with Mr Bath.
The connection between the bin Ladens and the Bush family does not end with
Arbusto Energy.
On the BBC's Newsnight program, Greg Palast stated (p. 5):
Young George also received fees as director of a subsidiary of Carlyle
Corporation, a little-known private company which has, in just a few years
of its founding, become one of America's biggest defence contractors. His
father, Bush Senior, is also a paid adviser. And what became embarrassing
was the revelation that the bin Ladens held a stake in Carlyle, sold just
after September 11.
These business connections may explain why the Bush Administration
frustrated the FBI's efforts to investigate Abdullah and Omar bin Laden.
Investigations may have demonstrated that Osama was not the "black sheep" of
the family. Instead, they may have shown that terrorism was actually the bin
Laden family business. This would have associated the Bush family with
terrorists, something the current President could not allow to happen.
For neo-conservatives, the portrait of the Bush family as a criminal
syndicate with ties to questionable characters is reprehensible. However,
this contention can be based upon a major precedent.
Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin's investigation into former President
George Herbert Walker Bush's background led to a startling discovery: that
"The President's family fortune was largely a result of the Hitler project"
(p. 28).
The Bush dynasty's connections with the bin Ladens suggest that the family's
collusion with enemies of the United States has never ceased.
A State-sponsored Sociopolitical Project
Re-examining Martín-Baró's previous contention, that terrorism is part and
parcel of a "government-imposed sociopolitical project", one is faced with
some very disturbing questions.
What will be the results of this "government-imposed sociopolitical
project"? Where exactly is all of this state-sponsored terrorism leading?
Quigley provides a fragmentary glimpse of the outcome in Tragedy and Hope.
The Oxford professor reveals that a cognitive elite, arbitrarily dubbed
"experts", "will replace the democratic voter in control of the political
system" (p. 866).
With representation for the masses removed from the picture, what kind of
life can the common man expect to live? Quigley (p. 886) declares that this
will be a system where the individual's:
Éfreedom and choice will be controlled within very narrow alternatives by
the fact that he will be numbered from birth and followed, as a number,
through his educational training, his required military or other public
service, his tax contributions, his health and medical requirements, and his
final retirement and death benefits.
There you have it. George Orwell's 1984, built al-Qa'ida style!
References:
¥ Adler, Freda, Gerhard Mueller, William Laufer, Criminology, McGraw Hill,
New York, 2001.
¥ Allen, Peter, "Bin Laden's family link to Bush", 2001,
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/faÉ
¥ Bamford, James, Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National
Security Agency, Doubleday, 2001.
¥ Blum, Bill (translater), "Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski", January
15-21, 1998, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/konformist/message/2429.
¥ Brzezinski, Zbigniew, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and
Geostrategic Objectives, Basic Books, 1997.
¥ Chomsky, Noam, Deterring Democracy, Hill & Wang, New York, 1992.
¥ Cuddy, Dennis, Secret Records Revealed: The Men, The Money, and The
Methods Behind the New World Order, Hearthstone Publishing, Oklahoma, 1999.
¥ DeCamp, John W., The Franklin Cover-Up: Child Abuse, Satanism, and Murder
in Nebraska, AWT Inc., Nebraska, 1996.
¥ Greider, William, Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserves Runs the
Country, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1987.
¥ Juergensmeyer, Mark, "Understanding the New Terrorism", Current History,
April 2000.
¥ Ijaz, Mansoor, "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize", December
5, 2001,
http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?=1a%2D000096561dec05.
¥ Keller, Suzanne, Beyond The Ruling Class: Strategic Elites In Modern
Society, Random House, New York, 1963.
¥ Kick, Russ, "September 11, 2001: No Surprise", 2002,
http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/September11.htm.
¥ Levine, Michael and Laura Kavanau, The Triangle of Death, Delacorte Press,
New York, 1996.
¥ McGee, Jim, "An Intelligence Giant in the Making", November 4, 2001,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33340-2001Nov3.html?id=6846.
¥ Mills, C. Wright, The Power Elite, Oxford University Press, London/New
York, 1956.
¥ Moran, Michael, "Bin Laden comes home to roost",
http//www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1, 2001.
¥ Palast, Gregory, "Has someone been sitting on the FBI?" 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/events/newsnight/newsid_1645000/1645527.stm
.
¥ Pouzzner, Daniel, The Architecture of Modern Political Power: The New
Feudalism, 2001, http://www.mega.nu:8080.
¥ Quigley, Carroll, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time,
MacMillan Company, New York, 1966.
¥ Rivero, Michael, "Fake Terror: The Road to Dictatorship", 2001,
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/index.html.
¥ Shackley, Theodore, The Third Option: An Expert's Provocative Report on an
American View of Counterinsurgency Operations, Dell Publishing, New York,
1981.
¥ Stephens, Joe and David B. Ottaway, "From the USA, the ABCs of jihad",
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/728439.asp,2002.
¥ Tarpley, Webster Griffin and Anton Chaitkin, George Bush: The Unauthorized
Biography, Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, DC, 1992.
¥ The Times of India, "CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban",
March 7, 2001,
http://www.infowars.com/Saved_Articles/7%20March%202001%20%20CIA%20workedÉ
About the Author:
Paul D. Collins has studied suppressed history and the shadowy undercurrents
of world political dynamics for roughly eleven years. In 1999, he completed
his Associate of Arts and Science degree. He will soon complete his
Bachelor's degree, with a major in Communications and a minor in Political
Science.
Paul's book, The Hidden Face of Terrorism: The Dark Side of Social
Engineering, From Antiquity to September 11, is available online from
www.1stbooks.com/bookview/13401, http://www.barnesandnoble.com, and also
http://www.amazon.com. It can be purchased as an e-book (ISBN 1-4033-6798-1)
or in paperback format (ISBN 1-4033-6799-X).
--
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
" In all of German-occupied Europe, there
resided 2.4 million jews before the war, according to the World Jewish
Encyclopedia. After the war, 3.8 million jewish "Holocaust Survivors"
were receiving pensions from the German government. Tragically, the
remaining 6 million were lost."
"Craig Welch" <craig@no-spam> wrote in message
news:mm1vfv4pbk73l9qfv6gnfs8mn189avvmsv@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:45:09 GMT, "Redbaiter"
> <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> >> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
Gough &
> >> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
> >
> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
>
> Some of the drivers smoke Marlboro cigarettes and drink Budweiser
> beer. Ban those as well?
>
> --
> Craig
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:45:09 GMT, "Redbaiter"
<darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
>> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
>>
>> > Why?
>>
>> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
>> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase Gough &
>> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
>
>um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
Um, no they destroy the homes of terrorists who attack innocent
victims. Why do you support terrorists?
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 19:42:52 +0800, "Craig Taylor"
<cujo@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:3ef95eb5$1@no-spam
>>
>> "Typhoid" <neinschpam@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1963dcbffdaeb3729896ad@no-spam
>> > Redbaiter wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > > news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
>> > > > On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Why?
>> > > >
>> > > > I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac,
>> which
>> > > > holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
>> Gough &
>> > > > Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
>> > >
>> > > um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian
>homes.
>> >
>> > FFS. So I suppose that you also refuse to fly in Boeing aircraft?
>> >
>> > Wotta wanker.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Typ
>>
>> Caterpillar don't have to supply them to murderers.
>
>Then Typ's reply about Boeing is right on the money. Boeing build B52
>Bombers,
F117A Stealth Fighters,
No they do not. Why tell lies?
F-18 Fighters
Again they do not. Why do you tell so many lies? Is it because you
have no other valid comment?
snip
--
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that
is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market
is a nation that is afraid of its people.
-- President John F. Kennedy
"Gordon" <gordon125@no-spam> wrote in message
news:02bvfvgebjdpml7isu184b6qkaeu72ivfh@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:45:09 GMT, "Redbaiter"
> <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> >> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
Gough &
> >> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
> >
> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
> Um, no they destroy the homes of terrorists who attack innocent
> victims. Why do you support terrorists?
That's not true. Why do you support cold blood murderers and child killers?
http://electronicintifada.net/
How many Israelis have died and how many palestinians have died since the
illegal occupation of Palestine began?
--
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that
is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market
is a nation that is afraid of its people.
-- President John F. Kennedy
"Gordon" <gordon125@no-spam> wrote in message
news:02bvfvgebjdpml7isu184b6qkaeu72ivfh@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:45:09 GMT, "Redbaiter"
> <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> >> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
Gough &
> >> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
> >
> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
> Um, no they destroy the homes of terrorists who attack innocent
> victims. Why do you support terrorists?
Do you know what a UN resolution is?
--
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that
is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market
is a nation that is afraid of its people.
-- President John F. Kennedy
"Gordon" <gordon125@no-spam> wrote in message
news:02bvfvgebjdpml7isu184b6qkaeu72ivfh@no-spam
> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 07:45:09 GMT, "Redbaiter"
> <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas 'bacco|007' Baxter" <privacy@no-spam> wrote in message
> >news:10zcry5hc2iys.1cwreih6jtvnn.dlg@no-spam
> >> On Wed, 25 Jun 2003 15:01:35 +0930, John Leister wrote:
> >>
> >> > Why?
> >>
> >> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
> >> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase
Gough &
> >> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
> >
> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
> Um, no they destroy the homes of terrorists who attack innocent
> victims. Why do you support terrorists?
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:56:03 GMT, "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam>
wrote:
<snip more than 800 lines of top-posted newbie style nonsense>
>> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
>>
>> Some of the drivers smoke Marlboro cigarettes and drink Budweiser
>> beer. Ban those as well?
You didn't answer the question.
--
Craig
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:20:13 +1000, Gordon <gordon125@no-spam>
wrote:
>>> I would assume it is because Kerry Stokes's company owns Westrac, which
>>> holds one of CAT's Australian franchises and now wants to purchase Gough &
>>> Gilmore's franchise [with some help from CAT US]
>>um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
>Um, no they destroy the homes of terrorists who attack innocent
>victims. Why do you support terrorists?
Plainly you don't watch enough film from sources that show both
sides of the matter. It's quite clear that houses of civilians have
been bulldozed. Quite clear.
--
Craig
What the fuck are you talking about?
--
--
Redbaiter
In the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts,
foreign ideas, alien philosophies and competitive values. For a nation that
is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market
is a nation that is afraid of its people.
-- President John F. Kennedy
"Craig Welch" <craig@no-spam> wrote in message
news:j4g1gvg9ukev2pv6djn58vd4t7830lifh9@no-spam
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 01:56:03 GMT, "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> <snip more than 800 lines of top-posted newbie style nonsense>
>
> >> >um...no. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian
homes.
> >>
> >> Some of the drivers smoke Marlboro cigarettes and drink Budweiser
> >> beer. Ban those as well?
>
> You didn't answer the question.
>
> --
> Craig
On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:37:00 GMT, "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam>
wrote:
>What the fuck are you talking about?
It's all in my post. Read it.
--
Craig
Sorry Craig i responded to the wrong person - I'm with you :)
--
--
Redbater
In the leftist's lexicon, the slowest of the slow
"Craig Welch" <craig@no-spam> wrote in message
news:gnk4gvsu1ap1cr3jmhjuekgupshceddts4@no-spam
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 01:37:00 GMT, "Redbaiter" <don't@no-spam>
> wrote:
>
> >What the fuck are you talking about?
>
> It's all in my post. Read it.
>
> --
> Craig
Small Pussies can distroy a home ,if they Piss everywhere
Redbaiter <darrensmithusedcars@no-spam> wrote in message
. It's because the idf use heavy CATS to destroy civilian homes.
Dyna Soar wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
> > Some pathetic little gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
> > Dyna Soar <dyna_soar_au@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:bfcp9k$dh5og$1@no-spam
> > just the puerile shit thats always pouring from the back of it.
>
> I love you, Roddles. Will you have my baby?
Heh!
--
Vale Mongo, you bastard cat.