Saturday, July 01, 2006

1.: Bloglines - Analysis: Israel's attack against Gaza pre-planned

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:48 pm (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you.

CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS
<http://www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/>
CRIMES AND CORRUPTIONS OF THE NEW WORLD ORDER NEWS -
LiveJournal.com Analysis: Israel's attack
against Gaza pre-planned
<http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9839357.html>
Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Amid sonic booms that shattered windows,
<http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/28/news/mideast.php>
Israeli planes hit the three bridges and Apache helicopters
targeted all six of the transformers at the power plant - an
attack Israeli officials said was necessary to make any transfer
of Gilad more difficult.

"Nobody understands the logic," Rafik Maliha, the plant's
manager, said as firefighters worked to keep down smoke that
still rose hours after the attacks. "They want to keep people in
the dark so kidnappers don't move? What's the relationship?"

He added: "If there is no electricity, THERE IS NO WATER. It is
more than collective punishment."

Both Palestinian and Israeli officials said the plant, built by
Norway and run by oil subsidized by the European Union, provided
42 percent of the power to Gaza's 1.3 million residents, and now
Gaza is completely dependent on Israel for its power.

Maliha said it would take as long as a year to replace the
transformers, at a cost of more than $1 million each.If Israel's
reasoning sounds illogical, it's because it's just an excuse - a
pretext to implement a pre-planned effort to decimate whatever's
left of Gaza and leave Palestinians entirely dependent on
Israelis.

"I don't believe at this point we'll be able to save Gilad
Shalit, <http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0629/p01s04-wome.html>
but we have to go in anyway," says Eliraz - conscripted troops
can only give their first names.

Yvgeny, from the elite Givati Brigade, nods. "They'll know next
time that they can't just go and kidnap our soldiers and expect
to get away with it."

Israel's goal in Gaza is to make Palestinians uncomfort- able
enough to think twice about committing more kidnappings, or in
the language floating around the camp here, to teach them a
lesson.
The real question is what lesson will the world learn from this
fiasco?

posted by qrswave @ Wednesday, June 28, 2006
<http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/06/israels-attack\
-against-gaza-pre.html> 15 comments
<http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18676566&postID=11515447\
6521320104&isPopup=true>
<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=18676566&postID=11515\
4476521320104>

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/06/israels-attack-\
against-gaza-pre.html
<http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/06/israels-attack\
-against-gaza-pre.html>

Comments <http://mparent7777.livejournal.com/9839357.html>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

2.: Bloglines - Alan Dershowitz: Yet Another Example of the Double

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:49 pm (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you.

The Huffington Post | Raw Feed
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/>
The Huffington Post Raw Feed Alan
Dershowitz: Yet Another Example of the Double Standard Against
Israel
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/yet-another-exampl\
e-of-th_b_24067.html> By Alan Dershowitz on Iraq

Today's New York Times carries the following headline:"Putin
orders death for killers of Russians in Iraq."

The story tells of Putin's decision to have Russian military
intelligence target the terrorists who killed four of its embassy
employees in Iraq. This is the same Putin and the same Russia
that has repeatedly criticized Israel for its targeted killing of
terrorists even "ticking bomb" terrorists who are planning
imminent attacks.

The Russian Foreign Minister condemns Israel's killing of Abdel
Aziz al-Rantissi, who was the head of the terrorist organization
Hamas and who had pulled the trigger on numerous terrorist
attacks. In fact, Putin invited Hamas official to Moscow as his
state guests.

According to the BBC article Rantissi Killing: World Reaction,
"Russia has repeatedly stressed the unacceptability of
extrajudicial settling of scores and 'targeted killings'."

Except, it seems, when its own citizens are murdered by
terrorists--then it is fine to do what it condemns Israel for
doing.

The rest of the world is no different: condemning Israel for what
they themselves do with impunity.

The time has common to end this double standard.

(I know this posting will stimulate the usual anti-Israel,
anti-Semitic, and anti-Dershowitz fulminations, along with some
thoughtful responses. The knee-jerk reaction to anything I write
about Israel simply confirms my point about the double standard.)

<http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~a/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?a=HIz\
A3N>

<http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/~f/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?a=DBo\
kDNFC>
Link
<http://feeds.huffingtonpost.com/huffingtonpost/raw_feed?m=7162>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

3a.: Re: The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:50 pm (PST)

Sean,

If John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the "best minds", why
aren't they raising issues about 9/11?

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
>
> The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie
>
> These days it's impossible to differentiate Gerard Holmgren's and
Rosalee Grable's posts on many topics -- they seem to have merged into
a single personality, with the effect of reducing Grable's
intelligence and truthfulness. Address a post to one and you are
likely to receive a response from the other, speaking for the
two-headed creature as a whole.
>
> I googled Holmgren on Israel, and discovered that he is in fact
much preoccupied with the topic, while knowing absolutely nothing
about American politics, Israeli politics, Mideast politics or the
role of the Israel lobby in American politics.
>
> Compare Holmgren's essay on the subject here:
>
> http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
>
> with that of Stephen Sniegoski here:
>
> http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
>
> or that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt here:
>
> http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
>
> One moves from a high school essay, to a graduate school essay, to
an essay from the best minds at two of the best universities in the world.
>
> So: we've got a guy who is focused on turning all the energies of
the 9/11 truth movement into attacking itself and self-destructing,
and who is also, like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast, quite upset with
mentioning Israel and the Israel lobby in relation the politics of
9/11 and its aftermath.
>
> Again, the first word that pops to mind is COINTELPRO.
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3b.: Re: The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:07 pm (PST)

Bill,

I wouldn't presume to read Mearsheimer's and Walt's minds on 9/11, or to demand that they make this or that statement on the subject.

The higher one rises in the academic world, and in the world in general, the more careful one has to be about how many and which fights one picks. The more influential you are, the greater the retaliation you are likely to suffer if you step on the wrong toes.

By taking on the Israel lobby as they have, M&W have already demonstrated far more courage than 99% of their colleagues. One should congratulate them for their efforts to open up that subject.

Many high level people in the government strongly suspect, or know for a certainty, that 9/11 was an inside job and false flag terrorist op. They are waiting to speak up for when it is less dangerous to do so. Those few government and former government officials who have spoken up already deserve a great deal of credit, whether they subscribe to the no-planes theory or not.

The lower one is on the food chain, the easier it is to pick lots of fights and make many controversial statements. The bad guys don't pay much attention to the small fry.

I regard it is a major step forward when any American citizen questions any aspect of the official story on 9/11 in whatever terms they feel comfortable with. I don't apply a litmus test for believing in any particular theory.

Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean,

If John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the "best minds", why
aren't they raising issues about 9/11?

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
>
> The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie
>
> These days it's impossible to differentiate Gerard Holmgren's and
Rosalee Grable's posts on many topics -- they seem to have merged into
a single personality, with the effect of reducing Grable's
intelligence and truthfulness. Address a post to one and you are
likely to receive a response from the other, speaking for the
two-headed creature as a whole.
>
> I googled Holmgren on Israel, and discovered that he is in fact
much preoccupied with the topic, while knowing absolutely nothing
about American politics, Israeli politics, Mideast politics or the
role of the Israel lobby in American politics.
>
> Compare Holmgren's essay on the subject here:
>
> http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
>
> with that of Stephen Sniegoski here:
>
> http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
>
> or that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt here:
>
> http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
>
> One moves from a high school essay, to a graduate school essay, to
an essay from the best minds at two of the best universities in the world.
>
> So: we've got a guy who is focused on turning all the energies of
the 9/11 truth movement into attacking itself and self-destructing,
and who is also, like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast, quite upset with
mentioning Israel and the Israel lobby in relation the politics of
9/11 and its aftermath.
>
> Again, the first word that pops to mind is COINTELPRO.
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3c.: Re: The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:37 pm (PST)

Sean,

Let me grant that you may be correct in general. However, let's look at
some words published by the pair:

Link Here:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp\
_06_011_walt.pdf

Here's a quote:
According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to
punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including
its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to
highlight this issue.16

Now I ask you, if the pair remotely had a clue that bin Laden is a fake
boogie man, why would they include something that gives credibility to
the 9/11 Commission and bin Laden.

I submit the pair are clueless to what happened on 9/11. I believe
that you may find there scholarly work worthy, but I suggest that they
have missed the most obvious physical manifestation of the environment
created by the Lobby (or just supported to some extent by the Lobby
depending on one's theories).

I support your irratation with Webfairy / Holmgren, but your alternative
example is just not a fair comparison, and seems empty to me.

Tell me one thing that has changed "on the ground" by M & S articles.
Has they it influenced Congression actions? Will they influence this
Fall's elections? Has they curtailed anything about the Lobby, or the
current American Administration?

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride <smcbride2@...>
wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I wouldn't presume to read Mearsheimer's and Walt's minds on 9/11,
or to demand that they make this or that statement on the subject.
>
> The higher one rises in the academic world, and in the world in
general, the more careful one has to be about how many and which fights
one picks. The more influential you are, the greater the retaliation
you are likely to suffer if you step on the wrong toes.
>
> By taking on the Israel lobby as they have, M&W have already
demonstrated far more courage than 99% of their colleagues. One should
congratulate them for their efforts to open up that subject.
>
> Many high level people in the government strongly suspect, or know
for a certainty, that 9/11 was an inside job and false flag terrorist
op. They are waiting to speak up for when it is less dangerous to do
so. Those few government and former government officials who have
spoken up already deserve a great deal of credit, whether they subscribe
to the no-planes theory or not.
>
> The lower one is on the food chain, the easier it is to pick lots of
fights and make many controversial statements. The bad guys don't pay
much attention to the small fry.
>
> I regard it is a major step forward when any American citizen
questions any aspect of the official story on 9/11 in whatever terms
they feel comfortable with. I don't apply a litmus test for believing
in any particular theory.
>
>
> Bill Giltner bill.giltner@... wrote:
> Sean,
>
> If John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the "best minds", why
> aren't they raising issues about 9/11?
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
> smcbride2@ wrote:
> >
> > The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie
> >
> > These days it's impossible to differentiate Gerard Holmgren's and
> Rosalee Grable's posts on many topics -- they seem to have merged into
> a single personality, with the effect of reducing Grable's
> intelligence and truthfulness. Address a post to one and you are
> likely to receive a response from the other, speaking for the
> two-headed creature as a whole.
> >
> > I googled Holmgren on Israel, and discovered that he is in fact
> much preoccupied with the topic, while knowing absolutely nothing
> about American politics, Israeli politics, Mideast politics or the
> role of the Israel lobby in American politics.
> >
> > Compare Holmgren's essay on the subject here:
> >
> > http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
> >
> > with that of Stephen Sniegoski here:
> >
> > http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
> >
> > or that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt here:
> >
> > http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
> >
> > One moves from a high school essay, to a graduate school essay, to
> an essay from the best minds at two of the best universities in the
world.
> >
> > So: we've got a guy who is focused on turning all the energies of
> the 9/11 truth movement into attacking itself and self-destructing,
> and who is also, like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast, quite upset with
> mentioning Israel and the Israel lobby in relation the politics of
> 9/11 and its aftermath.
> >
> > Again, the first word that pops to mind is COINTELPRO.
> >
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)
3d.: Re: The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:01 pm (PST)

As far as I know, not a single member of many thousands of faculty members at universities like Harvard, MIT, Yale, Stanford, U Penn, U Chicago and Cornell have made any public statements challenging the official story on 9/11 -- why single out Mearsheimer and Walt for this failing? There are many motives for this situation, one of them being that speaking out would be a real career killer at this stage of the general understanding of 9/11. Despite this situation, most of these people are doing interesting work in fields other than 9/11. Should we reject that work simply because they won't stick their necks out on 9/11? I wouldn't.

Perhaps you should write M&W, point out the best current research on 9/11, and ask their opinions on the subject. Meanwhile their research on the Israel lobby has to stand on its own merits.

Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com> wrote:
Sean,

Let me grant that you may be correct in general. However, let's look at
some words published by the pair:

Link Here:
http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011/$File/rwp\
_06_011_walt.pdf

Here's a quote:
According to the U.S. 9/11 Commission, bin Laden explicitly sought to
punish the United States for its policies in the Middle East, including
its support for Israel, and he even tried to time the attacks to
highlight this issue.16

Now I ask you, if the pair remotely had a clue that bin Laden is a fake
boogie man, why would they include something that gives credibility to
the 9/11 Commission and bin Laden.

I submit the pair are clueless to what happened on 9/11. I believe
that you may find there scholarly work worthy, but I suggest that they
have missed the most obvious physical manifestation of the environment
created by the Lobby (or just supported to some extent by the Lobby
depending on one's theories).

I support your irratation with Webfairy / Holmgren, but your alternative
example is just not a fair comparison, and seems empty to me.

Tell me one thing that has changed "on the ground" by M & S articles.
Has they it influenced Congression actions? Will they influence this
Fall's elections? Has they curtailed anything about the Lobby, or the
current American Administration?

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride <smcbride2@...>
wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> I wouldn't presume to read Mearsheimer's and Walt's minds on 9/11,
or to demand that they make this or that statement on the subject.
>
> The higher one rises in the academic world, and in the world in
general, the more careful one has to be about how many and which fights
one picks. The more influential you are, the greater the retaliation
you are likely to suffer if you step on the wrong toes.
>
> By taking on the Israel lobby as they have, M&W have already
demonstrated far more courage than 99% of their colleagues. One should
congratulate them for their efforts to open up that subject.
>
> Many high level people in the government strongly suspect, or know
for a certainty, that 9/11 was an inside job and false flag terrorist
op. They are waiting to speak up for when it is less dangerous to do
so. Those few government and former government officials who have
spoken up already deserve a great deal of credit, whether they subscribe
to the no-planes theory or not.
>
> The lower one is on the food chain, the easier it is to pick lots of
fights and make many controversial statements. The bad guys don't pay
much attention to the small fry.
>
> I regard it is a major step forward when any American citizen
questions any aspect of the official story on 9/11 in whatever terms
they feel comfortable with. I don't apply a litmus test for believing
in any particular theory.
>
>
> Bill Giltner bill.giltner@... wrote:
> Sean,
>
> If John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the "best minds", why
> aren't they raising issues about 9/11?
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
> smcbride2@ wrote:
> >
> > The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie
> >
> > These days it's impossible to differentiate Gerard Holmgren's and
> Rosalee Grable's posts on many topics -- they seem to have merged into
> a single personality, with the effect of reducing Grable's
> intelligence and truthfulness. Address a post to one and you are
> likely to receive a response from the other, speaking for the
> two-headed creature as a whole.
> >
> > I googled Holmgren on Israel, and discovered that he is in fact
> much preoccupied with the topic, while knowing absolutely nothing
> about American politics, Israeli politics, Mideast politics or the
> role of the Israel lobby in American politics.
> >
> > Compare Holmgren's essay on the subject here:
> >
> > http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
> >
> > with that of Stephen Sniegoski here:
> >
> > http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
> >
> > or that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt here:
> >
> > http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
> >
> > One moves from a high school essay, to a graduate school essay, to
> an essay from the best minds at two of the best universities in the
world.
> >
> > So: we've got a guy who is focused on turning all the energies of
> the 9/11 truth movement into attacking itself and self-destructing,
> and who is also, like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast, quite upset with
> mentioning Israel and the Israel lobby in relation the politics of
> 9/11 and its aftermath.
> >
> > Again, the first word that pops to mind is COINTELPRO.
> >
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (5)

4.: Re: Lone Star Iconoclast Article [Reply to NBC]

Posted by: "better_off_said" better_off_said@yahoo.com better_off_said

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:47 pm (PST)

Oh brother, stop me if you've heard this one before...

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Captain May
<captainmay@...> wrote:
>
> Shane Allen <sallen@...> wrote:
> Captain May,
> We are interested in talking to you about the comments you
made in an article written for the Lone Star Iconoclast in Texas.
I work for the NBC station in Southeast Texas and would like to talk
to you about the statements concerning the Gulf Coast being a
possible terror target this summer.
>
> Please call me or write me so we can set up a time to talk. I
look forward to hearing from you.
>
> Respectfully,
> Shane W. Allen
> Assignments Manager
> NBC | KBTV-4 News
> Phone : 409.840.4444 | Fax : 409.899.4639
> Cell : 409.454.5023 | Web : www.kbtv4.tv
>
>
>
>
> [CPTMAY REPLIES TO NBC]
>
> Dear Shane,
>
> I grant that my opinions in the Lone Star Iconoclast article at
http://www.lonestaricon.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=248&z=37 are
quite contrarian (to say the least!), but they are in keeping with
my training as a former Army intelligence officer. I spent five
years with Houston's 75th Division (USAR) as an Opposing Forces
Controller, meaning that I learned better than most -- even most
experts -- how to run contrarian scenarios.
>
> If you would like to read the original article, from which the
Texas Terror column in the Lone Star Iconoclast was extracted,
kindly refer to http://www.spiritone.com/~pazuu/pow-
mia/GTCMTexasTerror.htm
>
> I am the former editorial writer for KPRC (NBC, Post-Newsweek)
in Houston, and once had cordial relations with both former GM Steve
Wasserman and current news director Nancy Shafran. Those relations
were strained to the breaking point when I detected and published
the Battle of Baghdad Cover Up (BOBCUP) back in 2003.
>
> I've done gigs as a guest writer for the Wall Street Journal and
Houston Chroincle, and in fact published five "War Essays"
(geostrategic predictions) with the Chronk, which are becoming more
and more widely read as they are borne out by events. Here's the
link to the essays. I recommend that you check them out, as four of
the five have been proven (though all were considered contrarian
when I wrote them). The fifth, incidentally, is a prediction of a
Houston petrochemical complex attack by Al-Qaeda, back in the days
when I believed that the terror would be conducted by Al-Qaeda
(which I no longer do, as you have read). Here's the link:
http://www.geocities.com/onlythecaptain/pub.htm. The one about a
terror strike is third down, Don't laugh at duct tape; it saves
lives.
>
> I have worked on the particular case of your area's Exxon Mobil,
about which I became aware of terror threats in mid-May, and wrote
an article (as a letter to my friend, Ambassador Chase Untermeyer,
who was a three-year officer in my cyber-intelligence unit, Ghost
Troop (as you'll see from the article):
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben/toben_may5.htm.
Popular interest in Australia (where the original article ran)
prompted a follow-up:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Toben/toben_may6.htm.
Finally, I have had issues with FBI Agent Shauna Dunlap over her
attempt to cover up the Exxon Mobil matter:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?
messageid=236958&mpage=1&showdate=5/17/06. As you'll see if you
examine the remarks from the internet research community, the idea
that there's a set-up for Texas is pretty widespread.
>
> I'm going to be doing interviews on the matter this evening. My
most recent one is at the top of the Cloak and Dagger international
radio site: http://www.cloakanddagger.de/. Would it be possible to
discuss things with you (or a reporter) tomorrow? If so, please
give me a good time and I'll call. Hopefully, you'll have a chance
to become familiar with the matters in the three articles in the
paragraph above, as they represent the core of our argument.
>
> Best regards, CPTMAY
>
> PS: Please feel free to contact any of the individuals and
agencies mentioned. We're not hiding any thing, although we know
that everyone else in this email is doing so.
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

5.: Re: The Captain May Posts

Posted by: "better_off_said" better_off_said@yahoo.com better_off_said

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:47 pm (PST)

Right now, I'm more threated by the U.S. attempting to intercept a
N. Korean missile. If that really happens, well... I smell disaster
ahead...

Cap'n May strikes me as an MPD Vreeland-type, only with better
writing skills. (I can see why various news outlets at least
responded to his requests), but after reading a sampling of
his "letters" -- one that borders on extortion sticks out in
particular -- he strikes me as the stalker, ex-boyfriend type.

On an unrelated note: I've seen you mention the "alternative (fake
opposition) media" several times now, Sean. Are you implying that
all alternative media is "fake opposition"? Are any of
the "alternative media" legit in your eyes?

Just curious, thanks...

--- In political-research@yahoogroups.com, Sean McBride
<smcbride2@...> wrote:
>
> I've been asked by several people about the credibility of the
Captain May posts.
>
> Answer: I don't know what to make of them or him. I do believe
there is a grave danger of a 9/11 Part II nuclear event, and May is
trying to focus attention on that problem, so for the time being I
am reading and tracking his posts.
>
> Christian Zionist propaganda outlets like WorldNetDaily have
been seeding the soil for such an event for the last year or two,
setting up Osama bin Laden as the culprit once again. Even most of
the alternative (fake opposition) media are not tracking this
exceedingly important topic. The boom could fall at any moment.
Whoever was behind 9/11 is capable of committing much worse
atrocities, and it strikes me as a certainty that they will do so.
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

6.: PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS-The High Price of American Gullibility-Watch Us,

Posted by: "Elvo Him" elvenhobbitdragonelhoim@yahoo.com elvenhobbitdragonelhoim

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:48 pm (PST)

Watch Us, Wiretap Us, Search Us, Jail Us ... The High Price of American Gullibility By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts06292006.html

What explains the gullibility of Americans, a gullibility that has mired the US in disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and which promises war with Iran, North Korea and a variety of other targets if neoconservatives continue to have their way?

Part of the explanation is that millions of conservatives are thrilled at the opportunity to display their patriotism and to show their support for their country. Bush's rhetoric is perfectly designed to appeal to this desire. "You are with us or against us" elicits a blind and unquestioning response from people determined to wear their patriotism on their sleeves. "You are with us or against us" vaccinates Americans against factual reality and guarantees public acceptance of administration propaganda.

Another part of the explanation is that emotional appeals have grown the stronger as the ability of educated people to differentiate fact from rhetoric declines. The Bush administration blamed 9/11 on foreign intelligence failures;

yet, the administration has convinced about half of the public that mass surveillance of American citizens is the solution!

Many Americans have turned a blind eye to the administration's illegal and unconstitutional spying on the grounds that, as they themselves are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear. If this is the case, why did our Founding Fathers bother to write the Constitution? If the executive branch can be trusted not to abuse power, why did Congress pass legislation establishing a panel of federal judges (ignored by the Bush administration) to oversee surveillance? If President Bush can decide that he can ignore statutory law, how does he differ from a dictator? If Bush can determine law, what is the role of Congress and the courts? If "national security" is a justification for elevating the power of the executive, where is his incentive to find peaceful solutions?

Emotional appeals to fear and to patriotism have led close to half of the population to accept unaccountable government in the name of "the war on terrorism." What a contradiction it is that so many Americans have been convinced that safety lies in their sacrifice of their civil liberties and accountable government.

If so many Americans cannot discern that they have acquiesced to conditions from which tyranny can arise, how can they understand that it is statistically impossible for the NSA's mass surveillance of Americans to detect terrorists?

Click to join catapultthepropaganda
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catapultthepropaganda/join

Click to join openmindopencodenews

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindopencodenews/join

Floyd Rudmin, a professor at a Norwegian university, writing in CounterPunch (May 24, 2006) applies the mathematics of conditional probability, known as Bayes' Theorem, to demonstrate that the NSA's surveillance cannot successfully detect terrorists unless both the percentage of terrorists in the population and the accuracy rate of their identification are far higher than they are. He correctly concludes that "NSA's surveillance system is useless for finding terrorists."

The surveillance is, however, useful for monitoring political opposition and stymieing the activities of those who do not believe the government's propaganda.

Another reason for the gullibility of Americans is their lack of alternative information to government propaganda. The independence of print and TV media disappeared in the media consolidations of the 1990s. Today a handful of large corporations own the traditional media. The wealth of these corporations consists of broadcast licenses, which the companies hold at the government's discretion.

Newspapers are run by corporate executives, whose eyes are on advertising revenue and who shun contentious reporting. The result is that the traditional media are essentially echo chambers for government propaganda.
The Internet and the foreign news media accessible through the Internet are the sources of alternative information. Many Americans have not learned to use and to rely on the Internet for information.

Many Americans find the government's message much more reassuring than the actual facts. The government's message is: "America is virtuous. Virtuous America was attacked by evil terrorists. America is protecting itself by going to war and overthrowing regimes that sponsor or give shelter to terrorists, erecting in their place democracies loyal to America."

Sugar-coated propaganda doesn't present Americans with the emotional and mental stress associated with the hard facts.

In National Socialist Germany, by the time propaganda lost its grip, Germans were in the hands of a police state. It was too late to take corrective measures. Not even the military could correct the disastrous policies of the executive. In the end, Germany was destroyed. Does a similar fate await Americans?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

7.: Video-Alex Jones youtube/video.google.

Posted by: "Elvo Him" elvenhobbitdragonelhoim@yahoo.com elvenhobbitdragonelhoim

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:43 pm (PST)

Results for alex jones All prices For sale only Free only All durations Short (< 4 min) Medium (4-20 min) Long (> 20 min) Sort by relevance Sort by date Sort by title 1 - 18 of about 286 (0.018 s)

Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy
(43 ratings) LetsRoll911.com
1 hr 0 min 55 sec

A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than n..

Masters Of Terror - Alex Jones
(7 ratings) http://infowars.com
2 hr 2 min 19 sec

Blows Sept 11th Wide Open with the Latest Revelations!!! ..

Police State 2: The Takeover by Alex Jones
(2 ratings) Alex Jones Productions
1 hr 3 min 23 sec

Alex Jones exposes the Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm be..

Alex Jones - Bush and Kerry members Order of Death
(1 rating) .
41 min 9 sec

Infowars.com Other Search Word: Conspiracy

Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (Alex Jones)
(13 ratings) AEJ Productions
2 hr 35 min 43 sec

Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State was filmed primar..

Alex Jones Police State 2000 Martial Law Posse Comitatus
(1 rating) Alex Jones Productions
2 hr 2 min 8 sec
ALEX JONES EXPOSES THE GROWING MILITARIZATION OF AMERICAN LA..

Alex Jones warns about attacks before 911
(5 ratings) www.infowars.com
2 min 25 sec
This is proof that Alex Jones is talking the truth and that ..

Alex Jones in Waking Life

(1 rating) Richard Linklater
2 min 2 sec
Alex Jones in Waking Life

Bush Link to Kennedy Assassination Alex Jones 911 Conspiracy

(7 ratings) Alex Jones Productions
1 hr 30 min 27 sec
A thorough, documented, criminal indictment of George Herber..

911 The Road To Tyranny - Alex Jones

(5 ratings) Alex Jones Productions
2 hr 22 min 0 sec
The mainstream media is whitewashing and lying about what re..

The Order of Death (Alex Jones)

(2 ratings) AEJ Productions
43 min 7 sec

To commemorate the five year anniversary of his historic inf..

Alex Jones - The Microchip

(3 ratings) Alex Jones
9 min 21 sec
submitted by Sennheiser

Charlie Sheen interview calling "official" 9/11 story a coverup

(3 ratings) Infowars.com
34 min 45 sec

Charlie Sheen is the first celebrity to have the gonads to g..

Alex Jones - Cashless Society
(1 rating) Alex Jones
59 min 59 sec
Alex Jones - Cashless Society

9/11: The Road to Tyranny Special Emergency Release (Alex Jones)

(3 ratings) AEJ Productions
2 hr 5 min 9 sec

From the Bush family business ties to the bin Ladens, to ins..

Police State 2: The Takeover by Alex Jones
(1 rating) Alex Jones Productions
59 min 42 sec

Alex Jones exposes the Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm be..

Martix of Evil (Alex Jones)
(3 ratings) AEJ Productions
2 hr 9 min 25 sec

Some of the best minds in the country, coming from different..

Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports EXPOSED! (Alex Jones)

(1 rating) AEJ Productions
2 hr 4 min 25 sec

A video by Jones in which he interviews Commodity Trading Ad..

Result Page:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=alex+jones

1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Next

Search // alex jones Results 1-20 of 317
Alex Jones Predicts 911
02:08
Alex Jones Predicts 911
Tags:
Alex Jones Predicts 911
Added: 3 months ago in Category: News & Blogs
From: jonjohanson
Views: 13,771
95 ratings

Alex Jones
20:30
Here is a preview clip of one of Alex Jones movies
Tags:
NWO Alex Jones 911
Added: 4 months ago in Category: Science & Technology
From: canes5tk
Views: 3,156
44 ratings

Alex jones interview
06:33
Interview de Alex Jones sous titrée en Français lors de son passage a l'émission ShowBiz Tonight
Tags:
Alex Jones
Added: 1 month ago in Category: People
From: moultipass
Views: 1,164
13 ratings

Alex Jones Bullhorns Bilderberg Group
09:19
Alex Jones travelled to Canada this weekend to document the Conference of the secretive Bilderberg group. He took the opportunity to make himself heard once more.
Tags:
Alex Jones
Added: 2 weeks ago in Category: News & Blogs
From: sonof101
Views: 35,977
103 ratings

More-
http://youtube.com/results?search=alex+jones&search_type=search_videos&search=Search

---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

8.: Bloglines - Israeli missiles pound Gaza into new Dark Age in ...

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:32 am (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you.

THE WAR IN CONTEXT: <http://warincontext.org>
Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical
perspectives Israeli missiles pound Gaza
into new Dark Age in ...
<http://warincontext.org/2006_06_25_archive.html#1151598465865683\
81> By Paul
Israeli missiles pound Gaza into new Dark Age in 'collective
punishment' By Donald Macintyre, The Independent, June 29, 2006
As a textbook example of hi-tech precision bombardment it could
hardly be improved. Smoke was still rising yesterday from the sc

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

9.: Bloglines - Was There Really An Attack On Israeli Soldiers?

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:32 am (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you.

WhatReallyHappened.com
<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/>
Was There Really An Attack On Israeli Soldiers?
<http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/archives/cat_coverupdeceptions\
.html#048677> In COVER-UP/DECEPTIONS

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

10.: Bloglines - Reading Skimming Hamdan

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:34 am (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you, with the following personal message:
With this quote:

"It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not challenge, and we do
not today address, the Government´s power to detain him
for the duration of active hostilities in order to prevent such
harm."

it appears that there is less cause to celebrate the Hamdan
verdict than I had hoped.

Hot Air <http://hotair.com>
The world´s first, full-service conservative Internet
broadcast network Reading Skimming Hamdan
<http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-\
hamdan/> By Allahpundit on The Blog

Lawyers read. Ex-lawyers skim. Ex-lawyers for whom legal
writing is apt to trigger PTSD flashbacks skim lightly. Even
skimming lightly, though, it´s easy to see that Marty
Lederman
<http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/hamdan_su\
mmary.html> got it right.

Here´s the opinion
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf> ; save
it, open it up, and follow along. (I´ll use the Adobe
page numbers, not the numbers on the pages in the document
itself.) The main holding, that Bush´s congressional
authorization to use military force (AUMF) after 9/11
didn´t include the power to set up military tribunals, is
a detour. Writing for the Court, Stevens says on page 80:

We have assumed, as we must, that the allegations made in the
Government´s charge against Hamdan are true. We have
assumed, moreover, the truth of the message implicit in that
charge-viz., that Hamdan is a dangerous individual whose
beliefs, if acted upon, would causegreat harm and even death to
innocent civilians, and who would act upon those beliefs if given
the opportunity. It bears emphasizing that Hamdan does not
challenge, and we do not today address, the Government´s
power to detain him for the duration of active hostilities in
order to prevent such harm. But in undertaking to try Hamdan and
subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to
comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction.

If Bush dispensed with tribunals altogether and ordered the Gitmo
gang held without trial for the duration of the WoT as prisoners
of war, arguably that would be constitutional. As it is, if he
wants tribunals, he has to go to Congress and get explicit
approval. (Stevens says at the bottom of page 37 that if
Congress wants to make special wartime exceptions to legal
procedures, it has to be specific. The AUMF alone is too vague.
Breyer´s two-paragraph concurrence on page 82 emphasizes
the point.) Think Progress
<http://thinkprogress.org/2006/06/29/gitmo-wiretapping/> notes,
correctly, that the Court´s unwillingness to read implicit
grants of executive power into the AUMF might mean the end of the
NSA warrantless wiretapping program, which Gonzales has said is
based on that very statute. The issue´s likely moot,
though: Arlen Specter told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday that
Bush was already leaning
<http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/25/video-rep-peter-k\
ing-calls-for-prosecution-of-ny-times/> towards submitting the
program to the FISA courts, and now that this has come down, his
hand will probably be forced. I doubt Think Progress´s
point will ever be adjudicated, and if it is, the case is likely
to be decided on constitutional (read: Fourth Amendment) grounds,
not the specificity of the AUMF.

But like I say, this is all pie in the sky. The big news comes
on page 75. It´s not opaque with legalese; you can manage
it if you ignore the citations. The language Stevens talks about
comes from the beginning of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
<http://www.law-ref.org/GENEVA/article3.html> , which reads:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character
occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting
Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a
minimum, the following provisions:

Afghanistan is a High Contracting Party, so the question for the
Court was whether Al Qaeda operatives captured there are subject
to the Article. Answer: yes. "But," you say,
"it says it applies only to conflicts `not of an
international character´ and the war on terror is as
international as they come." Indeed - but the
Court is reading "international" in its literal
sense, i.e., "between nations." Al Qaeda
isn´t a nation. Which means no matter how global the
jihad might be, so long as a jihadi is captured within the
territory of a signatory to the Conventions, he´s entitled
to the protections of Article 3. And what protections are those?

[T]he following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time
and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned
persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all
kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating
and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions
without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized
as indispensable by civilized peoples.

You don´t have to worry anymore about Sullivan treating
fake menstrual blood or droplets of piss landing on the Koran as
torture. Even if it´s not, it´s
"degrading" and therefore, per subsection (c),
illegal. There´s no condition of reciprocity in the
Article, either: unlike a contract, which dissolves for both
sides if one party breaches it, we´re bound no matter how
many heads AQ hacks off and irrespective of the fact that
they´re not a High Contracting Party themselves. Amazing.

It´s obvious that the clause about non-international
conflicts was meant to apply to civil wars within signatory
states. Stevens admits as much. It´s a way of having the
Conventions apply intranationally to nations that have ratified
them. But if you´re dealing with a political entity
that´s explicitly transnational and that´s rejected
the Conventions repeatedly by deed if not in word, why deem them
included? Article 3 leaves you with the absurd paradox of
affording more protection to Al Qaeda members caught inside a
signatory country than to members of a hypothetical group that
scrupulously follows the Conventions operating inside a nation
that´s not a High Contracting Party.

Thomas addresses Stevens´s "international"
argument on page 168. Quote:

"Pursuant to [his] authority as Commander in Chief and
Chief Executive of the United States," the President has
"accept[ed] the legal conclusion of the Department of
Justice ... that common Article 3 of Geneva does not apply to
... al Qaeda ... detainees, because, among other reasons,
the relevant conflicts are international in scope and common
Article 3 applies only to `armed conflict not of an
international character.´"...

The conflict with al Qaeda is international in character in the
sense that it is occurring in various nations around the globe.
Thus, it is also "occurring in the territory of"
more than "one of the High Contracting Parties."
The Court does not dispute the President´s judgments
respecting the nature of our conflict with al Qaeda, nor does it
suggest that the President´s interpretation of Common
Article 3 is implausible or foreclosed by the text of the treaty.
Indeed, the Court concedes that Common Article 3 is principally
concerned with "furnish[ing] minimal protection to rebels
involved in ... a civil war," ante, at 68, precisely
the type of conflict the President´s interpretation
envisions to be subject to Common Article 3. Instead, the Court,
without acknowledging its duty to defer to the President, adopts
its own, admittedly plausible, reading of Common Article 3. But
where, as here, an ambiguous treaty provision ("not of an
international character") is susceptible of two plausible,
and reasonable, interpretations, our precedents require us to
defer to the Executive´s interpretation.

A losing argument, as it turned out, which is why it´s now
open season for the ACLU on "dignitary" offenses to
jihadist killers. Sullivan ascendant.

The Court also held, contra Thomas, that while conspiracy to
commit terrorist acts certainly constitutes a crime, it
doesn´t violate the "laws of war." (See
pages 48-49.) Thomas´s response, from page 155:

We are not engaged in a traditional battle with a nation-state,
but with a worldwide, hydra-headed enemy, who lurks in the
shadows conspiring to reproduce the atrocities of September 11,
2001, and who has boasted of sending suicide bombers into
civilian gatherings, has proudly distributed videotapes of
beheadings of civilian workers, and has tortured and dismembered
captured American soldiers. But according to the plurality, when
our Armed Forces capture those who are plotting terrorist
atrocities like the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the bombing of
the U. S. S. Cole, and the attacks of September 11-even if
their plots are advanced to the very brink of
fulfillment-our military cannot charge those criminals
with any offense against the laws of war. Instead, our troops
must catch the terrorists "redhanded," ante, at 48,
in the midst of the attack itself, in order to bring them to
justice. Not only is this conclusion fundamentally inconsistent
with the cardinal principal of the law of war, namely protecting
non-combatants, but it would sorely hamper the President´s
ability to confront and defeat a new and deadly enemy.

It´s the old debate about approaching terrorism as war or
as law enforcement, played out within the High Court. And the
law-enforcement approach carried a majority.

The only good news here is on page 101, from Kennedy´s
concurrence. Stevens wanted to go whole hog and require that one
of the "indispensable" guarantees of Article 3 was
the right of the detainee to be present at all times during his
hearing. Kennedy wouldn´t go that far and explicitly
refused to join the Court´s opinion on that point, so it
remains to be seen what rights jihadis will have when and if they
are eventually tried. Kennedy also refused to join Stevens in
holding that Article 75 of Protocol I
<http://www.globalissuesgroup.com/geneva/protocol1.html> of the
Conventions - which sets forth "fundamental
guarantees" owed to detainees and which the U.S.
hasn´t even ratified - nonetheless applies to the
crew at Gitmo.

Anyway. On to Congress.
<http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTlkYWE2NmM3ZGIxMGI0ZWE3\
YmFiM2FkYTdiMTJiOGM=>

Update: Goldstein
<http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/20603/>
fleshes out "dignitary" offenses in the context of
jihad:

If this strikes anyone else as the ultimate legal capitulation to
boutique multiculturalism, you´ll get no argument from me.
Because among the "outrages to personal dignity"
cited by members of al Qaeda will likely be such things as being
interrogated by a Jew, or a woman, or a homosexual; being wrapped
in an Israeli flag; being subjected to cartoons of Mohammed, or
being in the same room with a stuffed animal modeled after Piglet
or Babe; or hell-being addressed by members of the Great
Satan at all.

Update: Lyle Denniston
<http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2006/06/analysis_\
what_h.html> doesn´t think Stevens´s opinion
necessarily means Article 3 applies to detainees in toto. I
don´t see how, but then there´s a reason why
I´m a failed lawyer.

Comments
<http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/29/reading-skimming-\
hamdan/#comments>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

11.: Ontological Engineering: with examples from the areas of Knowledge

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:58 am (PST)

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1846283965/>

Ontologies provide a common vocabulary of an area and define, with different levels of formality, the meaning of the terms and the relationships between them. Ontological engineering refers to the set of activities concerning the ontology development process, the ontology life cycle, the methods and methodologies for building ontologies, and the tool suites and languages that support them. During the last decade, increasing attention has been focused on ontologies. Ontologies are now widely used in knowledge engineering, artificial intelligence and computer science; in applications related to areas such as knowledge management, natural language processing, e-commerce, intelligent information integration, bio-informatics, education; and in new emerging fields like the semantic web. The book presents the major issues of ontological engineering and describes the most outstanding ontologies currently available. It covers the practical aspects of selecting and applying methodologies, languages, and tools for building ontologies. Ontological Engineering will be of great value to students and researchers, and to developers who want to integrate ontologies in their information systems.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

12a.: Russian diplomats die in Iraq: murder or execution?

Posted by: "Vigilius Haufniensis" nerdmann@earthlink.net concept_of_irony

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:17 am (PST)

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060630/50725145.html

Russian diplomats die in Iraq: murder or execution?
15:08 | 30/ 06/ 2006

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Boris Kaimakov) - We are talking in different idioms-"we" and "they." We think we are a civilized community.

They think our civilization is a sworn enemy of their ideals and world-views, even of their sheer survival. By "them," I mean everyone who is ready to die for his ideals and take with him to the other world as many innocent lives as he can. They may be Chechen and other mojaheddin, religious extremists or Basque separatists. Skin color, facial features and religion do not matter. What matters are the means they use to get their ends. As they see it, killing defenseless hostages is the shortest cut to their goal. We see it as murder, they as lawful execution.

We Russians saw our kidnapped diplomats were doomed the instant the criminals-I don't see any other name for them-advanced their demands. Russia's Foreign Ministry was certainly the wrong partner for talks on such terms. Now, who would make the right partner in the situation? The answer lies in the drama of Budyonnovsk, a small town in the steppe of European Russia's south, where Shamil Basayev's terrorist gang seized a maternity hospital several years ago. Boris Yeltsin, then Russian president, was in hospital having therapy, so Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin made chief negotiator in the hostage crisis-and went down in history with, "What do you want, Basayev?"-the words that opened his talks to rescue the patients and doctors.

Now, it took not the Kremlin alone, nor the State Duma, the Foreign Ministry or the Cabinet but the entire nation to rescue the diplomats. Is this remark empty talk? The answer is "yes" and "no" at the same time. No one has moved a finger to save four lives. All looked with idle curiosity at a "talking head" on their television screens as it tried hard to make the impression of knowing something too secret to make public. In fact, he did not know anything at all. He was not even sure whether the diplomats were alive at the time. Now, the four deaths delivered Russia's Foreign Ministry a double blow-its pain comes not only from losing colleagues but from the haunting awareness of its own helplessness in the tragedy.

We all live in glass houses today. The Iraqi bloodshed proves that. From time to time, stones are thrown from the most unexpected sides. We can come down on the United States to our heart's content for headlong action in Iraq, and America can pay back with attacks on Russian policies in the North Caucasus. Russia will never give up those policies as they reflect our concept of our vital interests. Likewise, the U.S. is sure it is working for its own interests in the Middle East.

A conclusion from it all suggests itself. Politicians and professional demagogues may pile as many accusations on each other as they like-but Russian and U.S. secret services have to join hands as we are strategic partners, whether we like it or not.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)
12b.: Re: Russian diplomats die in Iraq: murder or execution?

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:35 am (PST)

Do the Russians know for sure yet that this wasn't another in a long chain of false flag terrorist ops designed to trigger the clash of civilizations and World War IV on behalf of the neocon agenda? They would have to be exceedingly naive not to consider that possibility.

Vigilius Haufniensis <nerdmann@earthlink.net> wrote:
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20060630/50725145.html

Russian diplomats die in Iraq: murder or execution?
15:08 | 30/ 06/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Boris Kaimakov) - We are talking in different idioms-"we" and "they." We think we are a civilized community.
They think our civilization is a sworn enemy of their ideals and world-views, even of their sheer survival. By "them," I mean everyone who is ready to die for his ideals and take with him to the other world as many innocent lives as he can. They may be Chechen and other mojaheddin, religious extremists or Basque separatists. Skin color, facial features and religion do not matter. What matters are the means they use to get their ends. As they see it, killing defenseless hostages is the shortest cut to their goal. We see it as murder, they as lawful execution.
We Russians saw our kidnapped diplomats were doomed the instant the criminals-I don't see any other name for them-advanced their demands. Russia's Foreign Ministry was certainly the wrong partner for talks on such terms. Now, who would make the right partner in the situation? The answer lies in the drama of Budyonnovsk, a small town in the steppe of European Russia's south, where Shamil Basayev's terrorist gang seized a maternity hospital several years ago. Boris Yeltsin, then Russian president, was in hospital having therapy, so Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin made chief negotiator in the hostage crisis-and went down in history with, "What do you want, Basayev?"-the words that opened his talks to rescue the patients and doctors.
Now, it took not the Kremlin alone, nor the State Duma, the Foreign Ministry or the Cabinet but the entire nation to rescue the diplomats. Is this remark empty talk? The answer is "yes" and "no" at the same time. No one has moved a finger to save four lives. All looked with idle curiosity at a "talking head" on their television screens as it tried hard to make the impression of knowing something too secret to make public. In fact, he did not know anything at all. He was not even sure whether the diplomats were alive at the time. Now, the four deaths delivered Russia's Foreign Ministry a double blow-its pain comes not only from losing colleagues but from the haunting awareness of its own helplessness in the tragedy.
We all live in glass houses today. The Iraqi bloodshed proves that. From time to time, stones are thrown from the most unexpected sides. We can come down on the United States to our heart's content for headlong action in Iraq, and America can pay back with attacks on Russian policies in the North Caucasus. Russia will never give up those policies as they reflect our concept of our vital interests. Likewise, the U.S. is sure it is working for its own interests in the Middle East.
A conclusion from it all suggests itself. Politicians and professional demagogues may pile as many accusations on each other as they like-but Russian and U.S. secret services have to join hands as we are strategic partners, whether we like it or not.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (2)

13.: Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:42 am (PST)

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/infowarsnews/message/964>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

14.: 300 Delegates Discuss the Next Generation of the Web at the European

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:46 am (PST)

<http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/6/prweb405215.htm>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

15.: Ben-Gurion, Zionism and American Jewry (Israeli History, Politics an

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 am (PST)

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415372402/ref=nosim/102-5430076-9332158?n=283155>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

16.: Newsgator posts roadmap for the future of RSS

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:48 am (PST)

<http://www.techcrunch.com/2006/06/30/newsgator-posts-roadmap-for-the-future-of-rss/>

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

17.: Bloglines - The Guardian: Seeing isn't believing

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:54 am (PST)

BODY {background-color: white} body, div, p, th, td, li, dd,
code, tt { font-size: 10pt; font-family:
verdana,helvetica; white-space:wrap;} h2 {
font-size: 16px; margin: 0; color: 1393C0; }
.blogtitle { font-size: 16px; } Bloglines
<http://www.bloglines.com> user bill.giltner@gmail.com has sent
this item to you.

Deconstructing a False-Flag Operation
<http://culhavoc.blogsome.com>
The Guardian: "Seeing isn´t believing"
<http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/06/30/the-guardian-seeing-isnt\
-believing/> By culhavoc on News

Tuesday June 27, 2006
The Guardian

A year on from 7/7, wild rumours are circulating about who
planted the bombs and why. Some people even claim this picture of
the four bombers was faked. Mark Honigsbaum, who accidentally
triggered at least one of the conspiracy theories, investigates.

On July 10 last year, Bridget Dunne opened the Sunday newspapers
eager for information about the blasts that had brought death and
mayhem to London three days earlier. Like many people that
weekend, Dunne was confused by the conflicting reports
surrounding what had initially been described as a series of
"power surges" on the tube. Why were the
Metropolitan Police saying that these surges, which were now
being attributed to bombs, had occurred simultaneously at 8.50am,
when they had originally been described as taking place over the
space of 26 minutes?

Dunne, a 51-year-old foster carer, was also having trouble
squaring the Met´s statement on July 8 that there was
"no evidence to suggest that the attacks were the result
of suicide bombings" with the growing speculation that
Islamic suicide bombers and al-Qaida were to blame for the blasts
that had hit the London underground and a bus in Tavistock
Square. The Met Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, had talked himself
of "these people who oppose our way of life".

"I´m not a conspiracy theorist," insists
Dunne. "I was just trying to make a cohesive, coherent
story from the facts."

But while the papers that Sunday were full of interviews with
people who had survived the bombs, and there was plenty of
speculation about Osama bin Laden´s involvement, Dunne
could find nothing about the times of the tube trains in and out
of King´s Cross on the morning of July 7.

When, a few days later, police released the now famous CCTV image
of Shehzad Tanweer, Mohammad Sidique Khan, Jermaine Lindsay and
Hasib Hussain entering Luton station, her suspicions deepened.
How had police identified the bombers so quickly? And how was it
that amid the carnage of twisted metal and bloody body parts they
had been able to recover credit cards and other ID placing the
men at the scene of the crime?

Suspecting something was not right, Dunne, who lives in Camden,
north London, wrote to her local paper. "Do you think we
are being told the truth over these bombings?" she asked.
"There are so many unanswered questions that just
don´t make any sense."

Dunne´s letter was immediately picked up by a blogger
called Blaugustine and within days she found herself the
recipient, via the internet, of other intriguing snippets, such
as the claim that on the morning of 7/7 a former Scotland Yard
anti-terrorism branch official had been staging a training
exercise based on bombs going off simultaneously at precisely the
stations that had been targeted. Convinced more than ever that
something was not right, Dunne decided to share her thoughts with
her new friends on the internet.

"I have only one reason for starting this blog,"
she wrote last August. "It is to ascertain the facts
behind the events in London on and since the July 7 2005 ...
That the times of trains were totally absent from the public
domain was one of the factors which led to my suspicions that
what we were being told happened was not what actually
happened."

It was a few days after the blasts that I first became aware of
the disconnect between what most people believe and accept
happened on 7/7 - that four British-born Muslim men decided, of
their own volition and for reasons that we may never fully
understand, to detonate a series of suicide bombs on the London
underground - and what people like Dunne suspect happened.

Like many Londoners, I never reached my office on the morning of
July 7 but arrived at the tube at 9.30am to find it already
closed. Dispatched by the Guardian´s newsdesk directly to
Edgware Road, I arrived just as passengers from the bombed
westbound Circle line train were emerging from the temporary
triage centre that had been set up in Marks & Spencer by a former
firefighter, Paul Dadge.

As with other major London crime scenes - the Israeli embassy
bombing in Kensington, the Paddington rail crash, the Brixton
nail bombing - the situation was one of confusion and flux. The
police had only just begun to cordon off the station, while the
fire brigade was attributing the incident to a power surge, even
though it was already obvious to all but the greenest commuter
that three simultaneous incidents on the tube made little sense
even by London underground´s woeful performance standards.

I asked passengers what they had seen and experienced and was
told by two survivors from the bombed train that, at the moment
of the blast, the covers on the floor of their carriage had flown
up - the phrase they used was "raised up". There
was no time to check their statements as moments later the police
widened the cordon and I was directed to the opposite pavement,
outside the Metropole hotel.

Moments later, Davinia Turrell, the famous "woman in the
mask", emerged from M&S together with other injured
passengers and I followed them into the hotel. It was from there
that at around 11am I phoned a hurried, and what I now know to be
flawed, audio report to the Guardian. In the report, broadcast on
our website, I said that it "was believed" there
had been an explosion "under the carriage of the
train". I also said that "some passengers described
how the tiles, the covers on the floors of the train, flew up,
raised up".

It later became clear from interviewing other passengers who had
been closer to the seat of the explosion that the bomb had
actually detonated inside the train, not under it, but my
comments, disseminated over the internet where they could be
replayed ad nauseam, were already taking on a life of their own.

"Did July 7 bombs explode under trains?" read a
posting that referred to my report a few weeks later.
"Eyewitness accounts appear to contradict the theory that
suicide bombers were responsible for killing 39 [sic] passengers
on London´s tube network that day."

Another went even further: "How Black Ops staged the
London bombings: Staged terror events - like magic tricks - rely
on misdirection to throw people off the track ... The bombs
on the underground were not in the tube carriages. They were
under the floors of the carriages."

Soon, internet chatrooms and blog sites were buzzing with even
more bizarre theories: the bombers thought they were delivering
drugs but were deceived, set up and murdered; or they thought
they were carrying dummy "bombs" designed to test
London´s defences; or the plot was monitored by any number
of secret services, from M15 to the CIA to Mossad, who let it
happen in order to foment anti-Muslim feeling. Then there are the
claims by 9/11 conspiracy theorists that 7/7, like the attacks on
the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, were all part of a
cunning scheme to further the pro-Iraq war agenda of the
Bush/Blair governments and the "New World Order".

In the past week we have had two more claims. The first came in a
book by US journalist Ron Suskind, alleging that Khan was
considered so dangerous by the FBI that in 2003 the US placed him
on a "no fly list" - a claim that was promptly
rubbished by the FBI as a case of mistaken identity.

Then, on Saturday, this paper reported that a computer technician
who helped to encrypt emails at an Islamic bookshop in Leeds
where Khan and Tanweer used to hang out became so alarmed by
their calls for jihad that in October 2003 he delivered a dossier
to West Yorkshire anti-terrorist police. Martin
Gilbertson´s claims have not been denied. West Yorkshire
police simply admitted it couldn´t say whether or not his
dossier had "made its way into the intelligence
system".

Given such confusion, the proliferation of 7/7 conspiracy
theories is hardly surprising. Ever since the Kennedy
assassination, people´s faith in the official narratives
surrounding seismic political events has been steadily eroding.
In their place have come what Don DeLillo, in Libra, his
brilliant psychological novel about Kennedy´s assassin Lee
Harvey Oswald, calls "theories that gleam like jade
idols". Such theories are seductive precisely because, as
DeLillo puts it, they are "four-faced, graceful".
Employing a 20/20 hindsight whose starting point is always cui
bono - who benefits? - they masquerade as an interrogation of the
facts but are actually a labyrinth of mirrors.

But whereas in 1988, when Libra was published, it took years for
conspiracy theories to come together through the sluggish medium
of print and telephone, today such networks can be created
instantaneously with a few clicks of a mouse.

At first sight, Dunne appears as far removed from this paranoid
ether-world as you could imagine. Ushering me into her flat, she
says she would dearly love to "turn the clock back to
before July 7, before I had all these questions" and, for
a moment, I believe her.

"Before my letter was published in the Camden New Journal,
I had little idea of how the internet or blogs worked,"
she tells me. "I was surprised to discover how many people
shared my concerns."

Today, however, Dunne appears extremely internet savvy. She has
invited a colleague to our meeting - a blogger with long dark
hair who gives his name only as the Antagonist. From
Dunne´s blog you can link directly to the Antagonist and
other bookmarked sites including that of the July 7 Truth
Campaign.

At first glance this appears to be an objective guide to
everything that happened on 7/7 and afterwards. But click a
little deeper and it soon becomes apparent that the campaign,
with its linked people´s inquiry forum and petition
calling for the release of "all the evidence" about
7/7, considers the official Home Office account, in which the
blame is laid squarely on the four suicide bombers pictured
entering Luton station, to be just a "story".

The first "hole" in the narrative is the Home
Office´s claim that on July 7 the quartet boarded a 7.40am
Thameslink train to King´s Cross. According to Dunne, when
an independent researcher visited Luton and demanded a train
schedule from Thameslink, he was told that the 7.40am had never
run and that the next available train, the 7.48, had arrived at
King´s Cross at 8.42 - in other words too late for the
bombers to have boarded the three tube trains that exploded,
according to the official timings, eight minutes later at
Aldgate, Edgware Road and Russell Square.

The next problem is the CCTV picture. If you look closely at the
image, Dunne says, you will see that the railings behind Khan,
the man in the white baseball cap, appear to run in front of his
left arm while another rail appears to slice through his head.
"It´s just a theory but some people believe the
image was faked in Photoshop," she tells me.

To Dunne´s way of thinking, this theory is bolstered by
the fact that police have never released the further CCTV footage
showing the four emerging on to the concourse at King´s
Cross where, according to the home office narrative, they are
seen hugging and appear "euphoric". Then there is
the "fact" that in the only other CCTV sequence of
the bombers taken on June 28 (the day police believe they made a
test run to London), only three men - Khan, Tanweer and Lindsay -
are seen entering Luton station. Hasib Hussain, who would
detonate a rucksack bomb on the top deck of the No 30 bus,
providing the only above-ground image of what Sir Ian Blair would
later call "the largest criminal inquiry in English
history", is nowhere to be seen.

"I know people who have spoken to Hasib Hussain´s
family," says Dunne. "He was in the middle of his
college career. He was taking driving lessons. I don´t
have a conspiracy theory, but until I´ve seen all the
evidence and can personally join the dots I can´t say that
he or any of these men were suicide bombers."

Dunne and the Antagonist aren´t the only ones who would
like to see all the evidence. Rachel North, who was travelling in
the front carriage of the Piccadilly line train with Lindsay when
he detonated his bomb deep beneath Russell Square, and who
miraculously escaped with only minor injuries, has also called
for an independent public inquiry.

But unlike Dunne she does not think there is any mystery about
what happened. "We all know what happened," she
says. "We were there. What we want to know is why it
happened."

She says that conspiracy theorists have repeatedly twisted her
words to make out there was no bomb on her train and even that
she is a professional M15 disinformation agent. When she
challenged these claims, she says she was subjected to vitriolic
abuse. As a consequence, she refuses to have anything to do with
the July 7 Truth Campaign or related sites, arguing that they
risk undermining the legitimacy of survivors´ calls for a
public inquiry.

"I have had endless run-ins with these people," she
says. "Some of them are fairly well intentioned, if
eccentric, others hugely offensive. I worry that they are making
all of us look like conspiracy theorists and/or traumatised
people who shouldn´t be taken seriously."

She argues that given that inquests have yet to be held, and the
ongoing mass-murder inquiry, it is hardly surprising that the
police have withheld evidence from the public domain. Quite apart
from the distress that the release of CCTV images might cause
relatives, North says she has been told there are people in the
background of the King´s Cross CCTV sequence whom police
are still trying to trace.

Police have also kept back details of what the bombers were
wearing in order to be sure that witness statements taken from
people who may have seen them on the Thameslink train can be
corroborated. "Train timetables rarely bear any relation
to real life," says North dismissively. "Where
conspiracy theorists go with this is that the train never ran, so
the bombers were never on the train, or the bombers were lured to
Luton and then taken away and killed and their body parts were
placed on the tube later to incriminate Muslims. They just take
these small anomalies, which is what you will get in any rolling,
multi-sourced news investigation, and make it into evidence of a
conspiracy."

North isn´t the only person with first-hand experience of
7/7 whose testimony has been called into question. Paul Dadge,
the "hero of Edgware Road" (it was his idea to set
up the temporary triage centre in M&S), who was photographed
leading Davinia Turrell from M&S to the Metropole hotel, has also
been on the receiving end. On internet bulletin boards people
have questioned why he is wearing blue surgical gloves in the
picture (reproduced on the cover of G2) and wonder why Turrell,
who is now 25, appears "so old" and where she got
the mask from.

"Basically, people were saying the picture was made up by
the government to forward the campaign against terrorism in
Iraq," Dadge tells me when we meet near his office in west
London.

Dadge never reached work on 7/7 but was forced to interrupt his
journey at Baker Street. Travelling on a westbound Hammersmith &
City line train just behind the bombed Circle line train, he left
the station at 8.53am and began walking towards Paddington when
he noticed the fire engines heading towards Edgware Road and
decided to investigate. To this day, his abiding memory, like my
own, is one of confusion and chaos. In his testimony to the
London Assembly, Dadge told the inquiry team looking into the
failings of the emergency response that he felt he had no choice
but to take command of the situation as the police were clearly
overstretched and it was "becoming difficult to establish
who was passing public, and who was involved in the
incident".

For the record, Dadge who works for the internet provider AOL and
whose job there, ironically, involves monitoring discussion
threads, says he was not part of any "black ops"
but obtained the gloves from a paramedic in M&S. The same
paramedics provided Turrell with the mask to protect her burns.
Yet although Dadge, like North, has been a target for vitriol -
some objected to his being described as a hero - he
doesn´t seem to mind.

"I don´t read the conspiracy theories and get
upset," he says. "I read them and I´m
intrigued."

Indeed, it is natural after an event as cataclysmic and
unexpected as 7/7 to want to interrogate what happened. But
interrogation is not the same as understanding, and after a
certain point you must move on.

As I leave Dunne´s flat, she tells me that she and the
Antagonist are in the process of refining the July 7 Truth
Campaign site and are still uncovering new "facts".
"I can´t explain it but something shifted for me
that day," she says.

When I get home, I decide to take a look. Under the heading Some
Hypotheses is a list of alternative theories. Number one is
"al-Qaida mastermind recruited British Muslims as suicide
bombers". Number three is "homegrown and autonomous
action by four British Muslims with no mastermind." But it
is hypothesis eight that attracts my attention: "The four
men were chosen or lured to be patsies in a classic `false
flag operation´."

Beneath the headline is an extract from a newspaper interview
with a passenger on the Aldgate train, reporting that the metal
around the hole in the bomb carriage was "pushed upwards
as if the bomb was underneath the train". But it is the
next entry that I find most alarming. Highlighted in blue is the
sentence: "Mark Honingsbaum [sic] also recorded several
witnesses speaking of explosions under the floor of the
train."

I click on the link and listen once again to my off-the-cuff
recording from the Metropole hotel. Then I press the button and
loop the broadcast a second time. In the internet age, it seems,
some canards never die.

(source
<http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/go.php?http://www.guardian.co.uk/at\
tackonlondon/story/0,,1806794,00.html> )

Comments
<http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/06/30/the-guardian-seeing-isnt\
-believing/#comments>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

18.: US Losing War on Terrorism

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:03 am (PST)

<http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062906B.shtml>

Comment:

The whole point of the Iraq War was to greatly *INCREASE*, not decrease, the level of terrorism against the United States, and to drive Americans into World IV on behalf of neoconservative and Israeli interests.

Did Bush understand what was happening during this process in which Americans were suckered into the Iraq War? Probably not. But he may well understand what is going on now -- hence the caution about attacking Iran in a headlong rush, under the prodding of Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, AIPAC and the Israeli government.

Excerpt:

Poll finds that more than 8 in 10 respondents blame the Iraq war.

Washington - The United States is losing its fight against terrorism and the Iraq war is the biggest reason why, more than eight of 10 American terrorism and national security experts concluded in a poll released Wednesday.

One participant in the survey, a former CIA official who described himself as a conservative Republican, said the war in Iraq has provided global terrorist groups with a recruiting bonanza, a valuable training ground and a strategic beachhead at the crossroads of the oil-rich Persian Gulf and Turkey, the traditional land bridge linking the Middle East to Europe.

"The war in Iraq broke our back in the war on terror," said the former official, Michael Scheuer, the author of "Imperial Hubris," a popular book highly critical of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism efforts. "It has made everything more difficult and the threat more existential."

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

19.: Classic Works on the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:19 am (PST)

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/3540253815/>

Classic Works on the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions (Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing) (Hardcover)

by Arthur P. Dempster (Editor), Ronald Yager (Editor), Liping Liu (Editor)

This book brings together a collection of classic research papers on the Dempster-Shafer theory of belief functions. This book will serve as the authoritative reference in the field of evidential reasoning and an important archival reference in a wide range of areas including uncertainty reasoning in artificial intelligence and decision making in economics, engineering, and management. The carefully selected contributions are grouped into seven sections, including conceptual foundations, theoretical perspectives, theoretical extensions, alternative interpretations, and applications to artificial intelligence, decision-making, and statistical inferences. The book also includes a foreword by Dempster and Shafer reflecting the development of the theory in the last forty years, and an introduction describing the basic elements of the theory and how each paper contributes to the field.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

20.: Re: [ctrl] Re: [political-research] Re: The Geralee Holmfairy Blob

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:42 am (PST)

You come across to me as a delusional psychotic and a fanatic. Mentally disturbed fanatics are unable to tolerate any interpretation of the world which contradicts their pet theory. They are completely destructive human beings, and not worth getting into discussions with -- a real waste of time.

If 9/11 was an inside job and a false flag op, the conspirators could have used any number of methods to achieve their ends, including planes or no-planes, and numerous sub-scenarios under those two major scenarios.

Until insiders speak out about what really happened, we won't know what really happened for sure. We can only guess and speculate, based on confusing evidence.

We still aren't sure what really happened with Watergate and Iran-Contra, even after the conspirators delivered their explanations of what happened. Conspirators often lie in their official testimony and are often controlled, sometimes without their knowledge, by higher level conspirators who remain hidden in the background.

Conspiracy fanatics for the most part have no grounding in advanced intellectual disciplines which teach one the value of humility in trying to figure out what is going on in the world. They are essentially religious fundamentalists in their psychology and outlook.

Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com> wrote:
Mearsheimer and Walt are too busy hugging planes to care.
All Planehuggers smell alike.
The BIG LIE that planes hit buildings supports the Arabs did it theory
of 911.
Supposedly this should be something that they would want to debunk,
instead of limiting their interest in 911 to a round of planehugging..
Planehugging supports the War on Terror by imagining that planes were
used as guided missiles on 911.
While this was part of their scenaro planning going back at least 15
years, this does not mean any physical planes hit any physical
buildings on 911.
They have been building the plotline scenario that would become 911 for
many years.
For example, the Northwoods Doucments invent the idea of imaginary
victims, a problem we found with the
passenger lists of Flight 11, and probably others as well.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html

Sean McBride wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I wouldn't presume to read Mearsheimer's and Walt's minds on 9/11, or
> to demand that they make this or that statement on the subject.
>
> The higher one rises in the academic world, and in the world in
> general, the more careful one has to be about how many and which
> fights one picks. The more influential you are, the greater the
> retaliation you are likely to suffer if you step on the wrong toes.
>
> By taking on the Israel lobby as they have, M&W have already
> demonstrated far more courage than 99% of their colleagues. One
> should congratulate them for their efforts to open up that subject.
>
> Many high level people in the government strongly suspect, or know for
> a certainty, that 9/11 was an inside job and false flag terrorist op.
> They are waiting to speak up for when it is less dangerous to do so.
> Those few government and former government officials who have spoken
> up already deserve a great deal of credit, whether they subscribe to
> the no-planes theory or not.
>
> The lower one is on the food chain, the easier it is to pick lots of
> fights and make many controversial statements. The bad guys don't pay
> much attention to the small fry.
>
> I regard it is a major step forward when any American citizen
> questions any aspect of the official story on 9/11 in whatever terms
> they feel comfortable with. I don't apply a litmus test for believing
> in any particular theory.
>
>
> */Bill Giltner <bill.giltner@gmail.com>/* wrote:
>
> Sean,
>
> If John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt are two of the "best minds", why
> aren't they raising issues about 9/11?
>
> --- In political-research@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:political-research%40yahoogroups.com>, Sean McBride
> <smcbride2@...> wrote:
> >
> > The Geralee Holmfairy Blob Thingie
> >
> > These days it's impossible to differentiate Gerard Holmgren's and
> Rosalee Grable's posts on many topics -- they seem to have merged into
> a single personality, with the effect of reducing Grable's
> intelligence and truthfulness. Address a post to one and you are
> likely to receive a response from the other, speaking for the
> two-headed creature as a whole.
> >
> > I googled Holmgren on Israel, and discovered that he is in fact
> much preoccupied with the topic, while knowing absolutely nothing
> about American politics, Israeli politics, Mideast politics or the
> role of the Israel lobby in American politics.
> >
> > Compare Holmgren's essay on the subject here:
> >
> > http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm
> <http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/holm.htm>
> >
> > with that of Stephen Sniegoski here:
> >
> > http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm
> <http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_conc1.htm>
> >
> > or that of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt here:
> >
> > http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011
> <http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011>
> >
> > One moves from a high school essay, to a graduate school essay, to
> an essay from the best minds at two of the best universities in
> the world.
> >
> > So: we've got a guy who is focused on turning all the energies of
> the 9/11 truth movement into attacking itself and self-destructing,
> and who is also, like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast, quite upset with
> mentioning Israel and the Israel lobby in relation the politics of
> 9/11 and its aftermath.
> >
> > Again, the first word that pops to mind is COINTELPRO.
> >
>
>
>

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

21.: Why Most Academics Steer Clear of 9/11

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:49 am (PST)

<http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=441>

Comment:

Questioning the official story on 9/11 can destroy your career and your life.

The neocons have made it clear repeatedly, in many bloodcurdling public threats, that they intend to imprison or murder their political opponents. Why do you think they are building concentration camps on American soil? Does anyone here think that they are just kidding, engaging in idle chit-chat?

These are the very same personality types who engineered the worst crimes of the Soviet Union -- a totalitarian enterprise which murdered tens of millions of innocent people while destroying all civil liberties.

Questioning the official story on 9/11 is potentially extemely dangerous. It's no wonder that the vast majority of academics will not utter a public word on the subject which contradicts the official story.

__________________________________________________________
Save and share anything you find online - Furl @ http://www.furl.net

Back to top
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post
Messages in this topic (1)

Create New Topic | Visit Your Group on the Web

Messages | Database | Polls | Calendar

Search the archives for political-research at http://www.terazen.com/

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at http://rss.groups.yahoo.com/group/political-research/rss

You are receiving a Daily Digest Change Delivery Settings
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

Saturday, July 01, 2006

[political-research] Digest Number 1278

Messages In This Digest (25 Messages)

Messages

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:48 pm (PST)

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:49 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:50 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Thu Jun 29, 2006 6:07 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Bill Giltner" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Thu Jun 29, 2006 9:37 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:01 pm (PST)

Posted by: "better_off_said" better_off_said@yahoo.com better_off_said

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:47 pm (PST)

Posted by: "better_off_said" better_off_said@yahoo.com better_off_said

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:47 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Elvo Him" elvenhobbitdragonelhoim@yahoo.com elvenhobbitdragonelhoim

Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:48 pm (PST)

Posted by: "Elvo Him" elvenhobbitdragonelhoim@yahoo.com elvenhobbitdragonelhoim

Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:43 pm (PST)

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:32 am (PST)

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:32 am (PST)

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:34 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:58 am (PST)

Posted by: "Vigilius Haufniensis" nerdmann@earthlink.net concept_of_irony

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:17 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:35 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:42 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:46 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:47 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:48 am (PST)

Posted by: "bill.giltner@gmail.com" bill.giltner@gmail.com bgiltner

Fri Jun 30, 2006 8:54 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:03 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:19 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:42 am (PST)

Posted by: "Sean McBride" smcbride2@yahoo.com smcbride2

Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:49 am (PST)

No comments: