Forget Iran, Texas Gets Nod for Nuke

[Logjam]

Bush said today (Saturday) that he'd not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Iran says that if struck they'll fight back. Said that they have a 1300 mile missile to deliver a nuclear weapon. That's far enough to hit Israel. They also said that their enemy has positioned fighters along their border, and if attacked they'll respond with nukes.

Does this sound familiar? It's exactly what Hitler said about the Pols in 1939.

Watching the threats being made by Iran makes it obvious why our allies and us cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: log Watching the threats being made by Iran makes it obvious why our allies and us cannot allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

I didnt see any threats of pre-emptive strikes.
You missed the point. Iran is talking defense. You want them to just roll over if/when we go after them for no fucking reason? I know you think we can do no wrong, look a little deeper. We are the aggressors, the empire builders, the bad guys.

This thread isnt about a credible threat from "over there". It will come from within, like the last one.

Quote by: Scribbler There are a lot of suspicious things going on...

Like these:
There have been over 200 smoking guns reported in the media:

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Like these: There have been over 200 smoking guns reported in the media:

Which begs the question, in light of all this why has there been nothing done? Seriously, if ANY of the information on that page is true WHY has there been no outcry sufficient to cause a proper investigation? If anything, there is too much damning evidence to think it could be covered up that completely.

It either doesn't have enough substance or there is no way in hell the truth will EVER come out and we might as well get used to the fact this is all a big, prewritten show and rewrites are NOT allowed. If THIS story can be ignored or buried what chance do you really think there is to expose a piddly thing like election fraud.

It's all a bit discouraging, wouldn't you say?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Like these: There have been over 200 smoking guns reported in the media: Which begs the question, in light of all this why has there been nothing done? Seriously, if ANY of the information on that page is true WHY has there been no outcry sufficient to cause a proper investigation? If anything, there is too much damning evidence to think it could be covered up that completely.

Very simple. Subpoena powers. When all three branches are controlled by the same party and that party happens to be corrupt, there is no oversight. Why SHOULD it investigate itself? And if they do investigate, they are in control of who will be on the panel and what questions will be asked, and of whom.

It either doesn't have enough substance or there is no way in hell the truth will EVER come out and we might as well get used to the fact this is all a big, prewritten show and rewrites are NOT allowed. If THIS story can be ignored or buried what chance do you really think there is to expose a piddly thing like election fraud. It's all a bit discouraging, wouldn't you say?

Discouraging, yes. Hopless? No.
Its only a matter of time. There is no such thing as a perfect crime. I would like to think people will stop looking the other way, just because it s business as usual. This is why sometimes, no, it always takes an intervention from an outside force to usurp a despot. At least as far as I know.
Our despot hasnt blossomed into the monster he can become. It can happen over night, with a single assault on the masses. Whats a few more dead peasants? If they can rule the world? They have already raided the treasury. They are greedy, insatiable. They will remove any threat to their rightful empire. Including opposition from their countrymen who have a tooth set for impeachment.

I dont want to expect the worse from anyone. I cant hide my head in the sand, though.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Will our military march in lock step with the regime? THATS the rub.

They have been on a wild goose chase for a couple of years now. On the premise of fighting terrorism. Troops who volunteered to go after the "terrorists" who killed their family members and fellow Americans on 911, actually ending up being terrorists to other hapless victims. Ironic?
Or Agenda? Was Iraq really a "Mistake"? Or just another rung on the ladder to world supremacy. Domination.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Very simple. Subpoena powers. When all three branches are controlled by the same party and that party happens to be corrupt, there is no oversight. Why SHOULD it investigate itself? And if they do investigate, they are in control of who will be on the panel and what questions will be asked, and of whom. Discouraging, yes. Hopless? No.

I think if it were very simple the very LEAST the majority of the sheep would be writing and calling their representatives. There ain't enough oil in the world to make ALL of Congress ignore the electorate in favor of whatever the administration has up it's sleeve. And the Bush gang could never have pulled off their evil satanic work without the Democrats at least NOTICING it. We might be sitting here tapping on our keyboards but THEY are where the action is and there is no way they can't see enough to at least alert the people!
Do the right thing and lose your powerful position in the bargain? I don't think so. And they're likely a part of it all anyway.

I dont want to expect the worse from anyone. I cant hide my head in the sand, though.

And I'm not trying to convince you that you SHOULD hide your head in the sand, my friend. I just can't see things like 9/11 being deliberate. Don't get me wrong, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it WAS true, but I just don't think the government has any need to be so extreme to control the hearts and minds of the flock.

It is all orchestrated, IMO, and that includes the arguments we have on forums like this one. I believe the government has a very good reason to deliberately cause this us/them view among otherwise decent people. If you are busy screaming at the other guy you are not looking at the government. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me that although 9/11 was a deliberate terrorist attack by foreign enemies, since it already happened it would be in the government's best interest to ALLOW all these conspiracy theories and maybe even create a few. If you believe the government to be led by Darth Vader you will concentrate on him and allow the others to do their more mundane work slowly, steadily and unnoticed by the masses.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: gr8fuldaniel Will our military march in lock step with the regime? THATS the rub. They have been on a wild goose chase for a couple of years now. On the premise of fighting terrorism. Troops who volunteered to go after the "terrorists" who killed their family members and fellow Americans on 911, actually ending up being terrorists to other hapless victims. Ironic? Or Agenda? Was Iraq really a "Mistake"? Or just another rung on the ladder to world supremacy. Domination.

It's not for the military to EVER question the orders of their commanders. They don't know what's going on enough to make an informed decision on anything and if they had the tendency to question their leaders we would see this country turn into something very much like a S. American country where the military takes over the government every six weeks.

This is what irks me about veterans who come on here acting like their military status enables them to be in on the decision making process at the Pentagon. George Bush does NOT get on the phone to some worn out National Guardsman in Afghanistan to ask if he should invade Iraq. No, the guardsman just goes where he's sent and does what he's told.

No, while I have the highest respect and admiration for those who serve I also know they are tools to be used as warriors by the politicians back home and their role is NOT to be advisors.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: scribbler And the Bush gang could never have pulled off their evil satanic work without the Democrats at least NOTICING it.

The Dems DID notice it, and when they protested they recieved offers they couldnt refuse. In the form of Anthrax. The only ones that got it were those who spoke against the Patriot Act. That act gave them over reaching powers. Like silencing the media in time of war. Which allowed the executive to provide false intel to congress (see Downing Street Memo: Fixing intel around policy.) Dems have since come out and said "If you were given the same intel we were, You would have voted for war too!!"

Quote by: scribbler We might be sitting here tapping on our keyboards but THEY are where the action is and there is no way they can't see enough to at least alert the people!

Perhaps they know now, that everything is not as it seems. We are finally seeing a bit of backbone from the left. Remember it was unPatriotic to question them only a year ago. Or is it stiill. I have spoken out against these warmongers all along.
Maybe the shift came with Cindy Sheehan or Downing Street, or domestic spying or abu ghraib or the fact that they have been fucking us over for 5 years has just dawned on the ummm Not-so-genius among us. The accumulation of shit has been like a clogged toilet that just keeps rising up until one of the brighter bulbs in the house says, "Hey Vern, you smell sumthin?"

Quote by: scribbler .....but I just don't think the government has any need to be so extreme to control the hearts and minds of the flock.

This is how they get us to beg them to protect us. Remember Hitler?

Quote by: adolf h. "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death." -- Adolf Hitler

They are using his playbook. Forget the Alamo!! Remember Reichstag!!

It's not for the military to EVER question the orders of their commanders.

I was talking about when they are asked to march on American soil. Against those who want to cast out an over-reaching dictator.

[gr8fuldaniel]

I wish this werent moved from Politics Sector. This is valid debate.

[PatrickHenry]

That's the trouble with Volconvo. Every worthwhile political question is dumped in the trash by the administrator.

[Clarence]

I've always thought that if 9/11 skeptics started making mainstream news, the terrorists would act swiftly. With a false story. Something that dispels rumors and makes a large portion of the population dissmiss any validity out of hand. We must be careful. At the same time, it is our duty to make public stories such as this. We must tread carefully and not offend any potential allies. It's hard for many good people to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Understand this. Also, for those of you who don't know, there are plenty of people who suspect. If we are right, do not say I told you so. Well, not too rudely anyhow.

[Scribbler1]

I don't see anything that can come out of 9/11 make "the terorists" move faster or slower than they would otherwise. If they want the ultimate destruction of the US, I'm sure what we think OR know would make no difference in their timing. Keep in mind while we constantly dwell on 9/11 it is a done deal for these people. It's old news. Their next move should have no connection to what happened years ago and nothing we say or do will change anything.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Clarence If we are right, do not say I told you so.

I guess you mean the nuke texas thing.........
God knows, I hope i NEVER have to say "I told you so".

Heres the Interview with Captian Eric May.
Heres how to listen:

Tue., January 24, 2006: Playlists: M3U | RAM (Individual MP3s: Hr1 Hr2 ) Guest: Captian Eric May Establishment journalist, classicist, military man states that the controlled media are waging an 'infowar' on the public; losses in Battle of Baghdad were far higher than reported. www.nationalvanguard.org. http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/pub.htm.

For this and other 2006 Greg Szymanski shows: LINK

I havent listened to it yet.
Seinfelds on!

[Jack]

You are asking us to believe that a sitting president of the United States has conspired to commit an act of genocide inside his own country and that this information has now become common knowledge.

To suggest that massive of a crime, the evidence must be overwhelming, public and indisputable. I don't see that here.

I'm not a bush fan by any means, but I'm not convinced that anything he's ever done could approach that level of inhumanity and stupidity. Very few people here could consider nukeing middle America without appreciating the massiveness of the crime. No sane American could. I can't imagine the military man who would drop the bomb. The number of people who would know the plan would certainly include someone who, horrified by this plan, would spill the beans in every paper across the country. Unless you accuse the "liberal" press of passing on a chance to destroy bush.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Isherwood You are asking us to believe that a sitting president of the United States has conspired to commit an act of genocide inside his own country and that this information has now become common knowledge. To suggest that massive of a crime, the evidence must be overwhelming, public and indisputable. I don't see that here. I'm not a bush fan by any means, but I'm not convinced that anything he's ever done could approach that level of inhumanity and stupidity. ...

The evidence is available to those with the fortitude to face it. Most Americans are too cowardly to do anything but chirp, "It couldn't happen here!" while covering their eyes...

[Scribbler1]

But Isherwood makes a good point. The so-called "liberal" press is constantly being called anti-Bush and anti-American but they pass up such a golden opportunity to bury the man once and for all. The Washington Post took down Nixon with a LOT less "proof" than these web sites are showing so it follows that all they need to do is put together another series of stories on Bush and his plan to detonate a nuclear device in an American city and GWB would be spending the rest of his days in Leavenworth. Even USA Today could take Bush out if it ran a series on this.

And that paper would be elevated to near sainthood by the sheep. It would be credited with saving the US and possibly the world from a deranged and PROVEN dangerous tyrant with dictatorial aspirations.

Considering all that, don't you think the Post, the NYT, Time magazine or ANY major newspaper or TV network would take the shot? Keeping quiet would help Bush but it wouldn't do a thing for the newspapers and Bush is out in 3 so where's the benefit?

And also, how much of the information do we get that helps us form such a negative opinion of Bush comes from the very news sources people say practically work for the White House? For me, I get most of my less-than-supportive info from papers.

[PatrickHenry]

Editorial policy is not consistent with the constitutional policy of protecting the republic.

The evidence for tyranny is staring the major media in the face, yet they handle the White House with kid gloves. They are whores, just making a buck, while robbing the johns and sucking off the pimp.

The reporters may discover a few gems, the whistleblowers sing and are gagged and the game rolls on.

It's out there. But only folks like the few on this forum and others with a suspicious nature are able to focus long enough to bore into the heart of the tyranny.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Editorial policy is not consistent with the constitutional policy of protecting the republic.

I'm no idealist and I'm not arguing from the position of the press as guardian of patriotism. I'm arguing from the much more realistic position that a paper will have the policy of protecting (or advancing) the PAPER. This is Bush's last term and even without all the claims of nuking an American city or blowing up the twin towers most people are less than happy with his performance. That tells me that if a paper wants to hang its hat on the Republicans it is taking a big risk by continuing to do so as it's a crap shoot as to which party wins next time.

The evidence for tyranny is staring the major media in the face, yet they handle the White House with kid gloves. They are whores, just making a buck, while robbing the johns and sucking off the pimp.

And they REPORT that evidence! Maybe not as much as you'd like or even as much as they should but they report a LOT of it. How about the military grabbing the wives of suspected insurgents so they can coerce the men into talking? THAT is another black eye for the administration which I didn't see discussed here as of yesterday but I read the story in the paper Friday. They report this kind of shit all the time and if the idiotic sheep (where your anger should more properly be aimed) would REMEMBER the stories they read in the paper from Monday through Friday, by Saturday they would have a pretty good idea how stupid and corrupt this government IS!

The reporters may discover a few gems, the whistleblowers sing and are gagged and the game rolls on.

They sing and are THEN gagged? You probably read that in the paper. Remember, Eugene Hassenfuss? April Glaspie? How about all the "leaks" about government doings that you base much of your mistrust of the government on? I'll bet you heard about all that through the regular media. And AFTER you read about it, it goes away.

You know why it goes away? Because the fucking morons that make up the bulk of this population aren't INTERESTED, that's why! Newspapers don't keep printing shit the readers don't want to READ. If they did they'd be out of business. It's as simple as that. And NOTHING gets the readers attention like a headline in 20 point type that says "PRESIDENT AUTHORIZES HOUSTON BOMBING", or "IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS TO GO FORWARD".
The media played that tape of Bush talking about past drug use. Remember that? I didn't get that from "Bob's Blog---The ONLY source of truth on the Internet", I got it from TV. If you and I remember that stuff why do you blame the media instead of the ignorant sons of bitches who turn a blind eye and deaf ear to news like that?

[gr8fuldaniel]

Quote by: Scribbler1 Quote by: PatrickHenry Editorial policy is not consistent with the constitutional policy of protecting the republic. I'm no idealist and I'm not arguing from the position of the press as guardian of patriotism. I'm arguing from the much more realistic position that a paper will have the policy of protecting (or advancing) the PAPER.

Dont you agree, the press was granted freedom with the understanding that it would be informative rather than purely entertainment or purely manipulative of the peoples minds? Not slanted by party?

Quote by: Scribbler1 This is Bush's last term.....

Lets hope it isnt a permanent term with no limits, due to war powers that have allowed him to declare war on a tactic that cannot be controlled without killing multitudes of unarmed suspects. The president can call off an election, under the guise of defending the country. Thanx to bullshit, unconstitutional Executive Orders.

Quote by: Scribbler1 and even without all the claims of nuking an American city or blowing up the twin towers most people are less than happy with his performance.

Dont forget drowning New Orleans. Why would bush hide at NorthCom? (beware spy chip cookies) I am suspicious of a president who will take a military defense position because a "levee broke because of a storm". Did it really? Why would bush be swept away (under duress of a serious hangover) to a bunker thousands of miles away. Suspect, to say the least. They didnt believe they would get away with it. There were witnesses to the levee explosions, they were pooh-poohed away. The press was too busy reporting on Blacks Looting and Whites "Finding"

Is this the kind of "freedom" the press should be granted? Is that what the framers had in mind? Is that consistant with keeping the paper alive financially? Its a PsyOp. Katrina was a race war. New Orleans has been purged with a few sticks of dynamite, placed in a "timely" as well as technical way. See, they CAN complete a war on the cheap. In fact it was even cheaper because the National Guard was off on a wild goose chase....Oh, wait a minute, They hired mercenaries to grab guns (but not from the rich) and march on Americans. Isnt that a violation of Posse comitatus, even if they are "hired guns"? And they only needed to send one guy (sleeves rolled up, of course) to the area. Now we find out Washington was warned that the levees were likely "blow".

Quote by: Scribbler That tells me that if a paper wants to hang its hat on the Republicans it is taking a big risk by continuing to do so as it's a crap shoot as to which party wins next time.

Its a crap shoot but the dice are loaded. They can mold public opinion. Most/many (?) people are intellectually lazy. They read the paper because they want to sound smart, they want to be told what to say. The media ownership has control of content and Republicans have been buying control of the press since Nixon. If you control public opinion you can avoid a messy impeachment. Control of the judicary and the senate dont hurt either. But its more important to keep the torches and pitchforks off the whitehouse lawn at midnight.

Quote by: Patrick The evidence for tyranny is staring the major media in the face, yet they handle the White House with kid gloves. They are whores, just making a buck, while robbing the johns and sucking off the pimp.

Yep. Its ugly. But, Barbara has warned us not to criticize her boys though, under peril of death!

Quote by: Scribbler And they REPORT that evidence! Maybe not as much as you'd like or even as much as they should but they report a LOT of it. How about the military grabbing the wives of suspected insurgents so they can coerce the men into talking? THAT is another black eye for the administration which I didn't see discussed here as of yesterday but I read the story in the paper Friday.

Just another way of showing us they are above the law. What do you think will be done about it? I too, get cynical. They abuse power with a shotgun pattern. Its all bravado. Because they can. Why is this or anything else worse than raping children in front of their parents at abu Ghraib? What was done about that? Thats Americans that are Raping kids on your dime! In your name!

Quote by: Scribbler They report this kind of shit all the time and if the idiotic sheep (where your anger should more properly be aimed) would REMEMBER the stories they read in the paper from Monday through Friday, by Saturday they would have a pretty good idea how stupid and corrupt this government IS!

People dont want to be miserable, so they disconnect from reality. Sheeple dont realize that inaction is actually a choice for evil.

Quote by: Scribbler And NOTHING gets the readers attention like a headline in 20 point type that says "PRESIDENT AUTHORIZES HOUSTON BOMBING", or "IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS TO GO FORWARD".

Yeah, well they can just postpone it, and paint a tin-foil hat on the reporter. Or, have a plan B, that does go forward, that has the same effect. This admin has used up its freebees. The taliban is back in afghanistan AND heroin. Before it was just the taliban. But as long as "Poppy" bush is happy.......

Quote by: Scribbler The media played that tape of Bush talking about past drug use. Remember that? I didn't get that from "Bob's Blog---The ONLY source of truth on the Internet", I got it from TV.

The TV wont tell us the whole truth, in fact its a almost exclusively a mouthpiece for the white house. They try to appease us with softball questions. I would like to ask bush about Jack Hatfield and that black woman who claimed to have been raped by bush. Both were suicided for talking about bush. Was the black womans fetus tested for paternity? Where is the press on that? Why did CNN switch the exit polls in Nov 2004? 180 degree flip from Kerry to Bush. Suspicious? Where are the reporters WHEN WE NEED THEM? Like releasing the domestic spying story BEFORE the election, when they HAD the story. The showed disgusting partisanship and influenced the outcome of the election, playing political favoritism. Tell me the truth, I will decide for myself.

[Plasma Snake[D]]

What the heck is a spy chip cookie? I had thought about something like this while visiting whitehouse.gov, that maybe they trace your IP address and do more than one would like.