Flopping Aces � Blog Archive � No Such Thing As A Moderate Muslim

Flopping Aces � Blog Archive � No Such Thing As A Moderate Muslim

TAG: Fascist Principle 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying

Fascist Principle 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying

Ok, now I’ve seen everything. [1] The LA Times has an editorial that actually, wait for it, displays some common sense:
ANOTHER WEEK, another Muslim country burns in rage over months-old Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in an unflattering light. On Friday it was Libya, and earlier in the week it was my father’s homeland, Pakistan, where violent protests were scattered across the nation. Some Muslims have decided that burning cities in defense of a prophet’s teachings, which none of them seem willing to practice, is preferable to participating in rational debate about the myths and realities of a religion whose worst enemies are increasingly its own adherents.
This week’s events should compel those of us who claim Islam as our system of philosophical guidance to ask hard questions of ourselves in order to revive the religion’s essential foundation: justice, peaceful and tolerant coexistence, compassion, the search for knowledge and unwavering faith in the unity of God.
[…]The first truth is that most Muslim ideologues are hypocrites. What has Osama bin Laden done for the victims of the 2004 tsunami or the shattered families who lost everything in the Pakistani earthquake last year? He did not build one school, offer one loaf of bread or pay for one vaccination. And yet he, not the devout Muslim doctors from California and Iowa who repair broken limbs and lives in the snowy peaks of Kashmir, speaks the loudest for what Muslims allegedly stand for. He has succeeded in presenting himself as the defender of Islam’s poor, and the Western media has taken his jihadist message all the way to the bank.
The hypocrisy only starts there. Muslims and Arabs have done pitifully little to help improve the capacity of the Palestinian people to be good neighbors to their Israeli brethren. Take the money spent by any Middle Eastern royal family at a London hotel or Geneva resort during one month and you could build enough schools and medical clinics to take care of 1,000 Palestinian children for a year. Yet rather than educate and feed Palestinian and Muslim children so they may learn to settle differences through dialogue and debate, instead of by throwing rocks and wearing bombs, the Muslim “haves” put on a few telethons to raise paltry sums for the “have nots” to alleviate the guilt over their palatial gilded cages.
The second truth — one that the West needs to come to grips with — is that there is no such human persona as a “moderate Muslim.” You either believe in the oneness of God or you don’t. You either believe in the teachings of his prophet or you don’t. You either learn those teachings and apply them to the circumstances of life in the country you have chosen to live in, or you shouldn’t live there.
[…]In fact, the most glaring truth is that Islam’s mobsters fear the West has it right: that we have perfected the very system Islam’s holy scriptures urged them to learn and practice. And having failed in their mission to lead their masses, they seek any excuse to demonize those of us in the West and to try to bring us down. They know they are losing the ideological struggle for hearts and minds, for life in all its different dimensions, and so they prepare themselves, and us, for Armageddon by starting fires everywhere in a display of Islamic unity intended to galvanize the masses they cannot feed, clothe, educate or house.
This is not Islam. And the faster its truest believers stand up and demonstrate its values and principles by actions, not words, the sooner a great religion will return to its rightful role as guide for nearly a quarter of humanity.
The writer, [2] Manzoor Ijaz, has been speaking out against fanatical Islam for quite some time so his opinion is not that huge of a surprise. That my local Socialist paper would run it IS a surprise. But still, no sign of the cartoons on their pages.
Article printed from Flopping Aces: http://www.floppingaces.net
URL to article: http://www.floppingaces.net/?p=1355
URLs in this post:[1] The LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ijaz18feb18,0,6492979.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions[2] Manzoor Ijaz: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,46241,00.html

[september_eleven_vreeland] Digest Number 1295

There is 1 message in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Recreation of Ballistic 'Cheney Shooting Party' Pepperings
From: "Ozzy bin Oswald" <hisholiness@rome.com>

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 12:43:16 +0800
From: "Ozzy bin Oswald" <hisholiness@rome.com>
Subject: Recreation of Ballistic 'Cheney Shooting Party' Pepperings

[IMAGE]

"My family and I are are deeply sorry for everything that Vice President
Cheney and his family had to go through this week," Whittington said,
appearing emotional in front of television cameras.
http://news.google.ca/news?hl==en&ned=Ê&q==Whittington+sorry

[IMAGE]

Cheney's shotgun

February 14, 2006

- Vice President Cheney was using a 28-gauge shotgun loaded with shells
containing hundreds of tiny pellets when he accidentally shot Texas
lawyer Harry Whittington on Saturday while quail hunting in Texas.

On Tuesday, doctors said some of the birdshot had moved into
Whittington's heart, and he suffered a minor heart attack.

Here's a general look at the gun and pellets involved:

Barrel diameter of 28-gauge shotgun: .550 inch, one of the smallest
shotgun barrel bores. A shotgun's gauge is determined by the number of
round lead balls with the diameter of the bore that would be needed, when
weighed collectively, to equal one pound. The higher the number of balls,
the smaller the bore. Cheney was using a Perazzi shotgun made by Brescia,
an Italian firm.

28-gauge shells: Each is 2.75 inches long. The shells Cheney was using
were packed with size 7-1/2 shot, a tiny pellet recommended by some
hunting experts for shooting small birds like quail or grouse. Size 2 is
used for shooting larger birds, such as Canada geese.

Number of pellets per shell: About 262.

Size of each pellet: Much smaller than BBs, each pellet is about .095
inches in diameter, or about the size of a single grape seed. From the
25- to 30-foot distance from which Whittington was shot, dozens of
pellets could have penetrated his skin.
http://www.knoxstudio.com/shns/story.cfm?pk==CHENEY-PELLETS-02-14-06&cat==AN

Cheney's shotgun a 'rising star'

February 15, 2006

- Size of each pellet: Much smaller than BBs, each pellet is about .095
inches in diameter, or about the size of a single grape seed. From the
25- to 30-yard distance from which Whittington was shot, dozens of
pellets could have penetrated Whittington's skin.
http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2006/02/15/news-rashotgun-02-15.html

Cheney account questioned

February 16, 2006

WASHINGTON Veteran hunters and shooting experts said Thursday that they
still did not understand how the vice president injured his fellow
hunting partner so badly if he was actually 30 yards away as Cheney says.

"It just doesn't add up," said John Kelly, a quail hunter from New York
with more than 36 years of experience. "With a shotgun, the pellets
spread out the further you get, and for that many pellets to hit such a
small part of this man's body means Mr. Cheney was far closer" than the
27-meter distance cited.

On Saturday, while quail hunting, Cheney accidentally shot and wounded
another hunter, Harry Whittington. Witnesses said Cheney, a practiced
hunter, swiveled around and fired at a bird, but hit Whittington with a
tight grouping of pellets in the face, neck and chest.

Estimates of the number of pellets that hit Whittington have ranged from
a half-dozen to nearly 200. Dr. David Blanchard, who has worked on
Whittington at the Corpus Christi, Texas, hospital, said it was not
"medically relevant" how many pellets had been found.

Cheney was using an Italian-made 28-gauge Perazzi shotgun with size 7½
shot. A three-quarter-ounce load of that size ammunition would normally
contain about 260 pellets, experts say. Each steel pellet is barely the
size of a peppercorn. Most hunters agreed that it was probably the tiny
size of ammunition that spared Whittington more critical injuries. But
they also said that raised troubling questions about Cheney's version of
the events.

Whittington suffered a "minor heart attack," a hospital official said,
because one of the pellets had lodged in his heart. For one of the
pellets to enter Whittington's heart, the pellet had to go through four
layers of clothing, including a jacket with thick cushioning, before
entering the chest cavity.

"It does seem like a lot of pellets in a small space," said Phil
Bourjaily of Field & Stream magazine. "But it doesn't seem impossible
that it could have happened as they say."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/16/news/shot.php

Cheney Hunting Companion Is Released From Hospital

February 18, 2006

Jim Wilson, the retired sheriff from Crockett County in West Texas and
the handguns editor at Shooting Times, said that he doubted Whittington
was that far from Cheney.

"At 30 yards that shot pattern is going to have spread quite a bit," he
said. "You could put a person's eye out, but hitting a person's body, the
shot won't penetrate very far."

Nonetheless, Wilson, like other hunters in Texas, said persistent
questions about the accident belied an ignorance of how investigations
are conducted in Texas.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021701888.html

Media Ignores Cheney 'Smoking Gun'
A 28-gauge shotgun fired at 30 yards is too weak to cause Whittington's
injuries

How can a weapon that has little more power than a kids BB gun fire
projectiles that in most cases don't penetrate further than an inch into
a bird's breast and yet in this instance tore through a hunting vest,
clothes underneath, the chest cavity and into the muscle of Whittington's
heart? http://www.uruknet.info/?p==m20674&l==i&size==1&hd==0

SYNOPSIS OF VIDEO NEWS REPORT DOCUMENTING SHOOTING TEST
SCIENTIFIC PROOF CHENEY'S SHOOTING STORY A LIE

Infowars | February 15 2006
by Alex Jones

Below is a ten minute "see-for-yourself" report that conclusively shows
that Vice President Dick Cheney's claims to Kennedy County Sheriff's
Deputies in south Texas is a total fabrication.

A massive cover-up has been conducted concerning the shooting. We know
that most of the facts that have been told to the public are manufactured
frauds.

Cheney claims that he shot Whittington at 90 feet, ballistic tests from
the spread of the shotgun pellets to their penetration depth is 100%
conclusive.

Harry Whittington was shot at close range, between 15 and 18 feet, not
the 90 claimed by Dick Cheney and the Secret Service. It is now clear why
they refused to let Sheriff's Deputies interview Cheney for over 13 hours
and why they claimed that Whittington's injuries were superficial when in
truth they were grievous.

The mainstream media is ignoring this literal smoking gun evidence.
Anytime they wish, the local police can conduct their own ballistics
tests and they will have the exact same findings. The media can conduct
their own tests. The ballistics of shotguns and birdshot is well known to
tens of millions of Americans who hunt fowl.

We have now scientifically proved with an engineer and a police officer
on-site conducting the test that the American people are being lied to
and a cover-up is in progress.

Here are some images from the video (click to enlarge):

[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE] [IMAGE]
[IMAGE]

http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/cheney_shooting_scientific_proof_stills.htm

*Cheney Goes Ballistic:
http://media.putfile.com/Alex-Jones---Cheney-gun-recreation Streaming
video Download: ballistics_test_bb.wmv 22.7 Mb

Texas Sheriff Barred From Interviewing Cheney About Shooting Incident
---------------------------------------------------------------------

February 13, 2006

CBS News reports that local law enforcement officials were prevented from
interviewing Vice President Cheney after he accidentally shot a
78-year-old man during a hunting trip:

CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports Texas
authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from
speaking to Cheney after the incident. Kenedy County Texas Sheriffs
Lt. Juan Guzman said deputies first learned of the shooting when an
ambulance was called.

McClellan was asked about it at the press briefing but played dumb:

QUESTION: Scott, there’s a report coming out of a sheriff’s deputy
there who said that he was prevented from interviewing the vice
president by the Secret Service. Do you know anything about that? And
is that appropriate?

MCCLELLAN: No, I don’t know anything about that. You have got to
direct that to the Secret Service. My understanding was that Secret
Service took the appropriate steps to inform law enforcement.

Of course, the question is not whether the Secret Service informed law
enforcement, but whether law enforcement was permitted to speak with
Cheney. As Talk Left notes, although the incident was an accident, it
could constitute criminal negligence.

UPDATE: National Journal reports that, after initial resistance, Cheney
was interviewed by law enforcement sometime on Sunday.

UPDATE II: At the breifing McClellan refuses to “speculate” as to whether
the accidental shooting was a criminal offense:

QUESTION: Under Texas law, is this kind of accidental shooting a
possible criminal offense?

MCCLELLAN: I won’t even speculate on that, but I think the sheriff’s
office or the local law enforcement office has already commented on
that and said it was a hunting accident.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/13/sheriff-barred-from-interviewing

More Questions Raised About Delay in Reporting Cheney Misfire

February 14, 2006

The more than 18-hour delay in news emerging that the vice president of
the United States had shot a man, sending him to an intensive care unit
with his wounds, grew even more curious Monday with word from the White
House that President Bush had been informed of the incident Saturday but
not immediately about Dick Cheney's role.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK

Earlier, E&P had learned that the official confirmation of the shooting
came about only after a local reporter in Corpus Christi, Texas, received
a tip from the owner of the property where the shooting occurred and
called Vice President Cheney's office for confirmation.

The confirmation was made but it is not known for certain that Cheney's
office, the White House, or anyone else intended to announce the shooting
if the reporter, Jaime Powell of the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, had not
received word from the ranch owner.

One of Powell's colleagues at the Corpus Christi paper, Beth Francesco,
told E&P that Powell had built up a strong source relationship with the
prominent ranch owner, Katharine Armstrong, which led to the tip. Powell
is chief political reporter for the paper and also covers the area where
the ranch is located south of Sarita, about 60 miles from Corpus Christi.
Armstrong did not notify reporters at larger papers in Dallas, Houston,
Austin, or other cities.

Armstrong called the paper Sunday morning looking for Powell, who was not
at work. When they did talk, Armstrong revealed the shooting of prominent
Austin attorney Harry Whittington, who is now in stable condition in a
hospital. Powell then called Cheney's office for the confirmation around
midday. The newspaper broke the story at mid-afternoon -- not a word
about it had appeared before then.

The Cheney spokesman with whom Powell spoke, Lea Anne McBride, would not
comment on whether the Cheney office or the White House would have ever
released the information had the Caller-Times not contacted them.

"I’m not going to speculate," McBride said, according to Powell. "When
you put the call into me, I was able to confirm that account."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, peppered with questions
about the incident at his Monday morning press "gaggle," explained that
the White House had deferred to the Vice President's office in the
matter, and the latter deferred to the ranch owner.

McClellan said that the first reports that came to the White House only
said that a member of Cheney's party had been shot but did not indicate
that Cheney was the shooter. Top Bush aide Karl Rove later informed the
president of Cheney's involvement but McClellan refused to say precisely
when, beyond saying it was "in a relatively reasonable" amount of time.

The New York Times observed Monday that reporters "seemed frustrated that
Mr. McClellan could not tell them exactly when Mr. Bush learned that the
vice president himself had shot Mr. Whittington." As for McClellan's
knowledge--he said that he did not know about Cheney as triggerman until
Sunday morning.

Francesco, at the Corpus Christi paper, said she felt it was a bit odd
that her newsroom had not received any information about the shooting
since "we often call law enforcement in the area, even on weekends. We
checked in and didn’t hear anything about it." In some states, all
serious shooting incidents must be immediately reported to police.

Hospital officials on Monday continued to offer few details on the
victim's condition, but said he was "very stable" and that pellets were
possibly still being removed. Sally Whittington told The Dallas Morning
News her father was being observed because of swelling from some of the
welts on his neck. His face "looks like chicken pox, kind of," she said.

A hospital spokesman said Whittington was in the intensive care unit
because his condition warranted it, but he didn't elaborate. Whittington
sent word that he would have no comment on the incident out of respect
for Cheney.

While E&P was first to raise questions about the delay Sunday afternoon,
Frank James, reporter in the Chicago Tribune's Washington bureau, put his
own spin on it later in the day, asking, "How is it that Vice President
Cheney can shoot a man, albeit accidentally, on Saturday during a hunting
trip and the American public not be informed of it until today?"

Indeed, others raised questions as well. "There was no immediate reason
given as to why the incident wasn't reported until Sunday," the Dallas
Morning News observed. "The sheriff's office in Kenedy County did not
respond to phone calls Sunday."

The president, who was at the White House over the weekend, was informed
about the incident in Texas after it happened Saturday by Chief of Staff
Andrew Card and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and was updated on
Sunday, press secretary Scott McClellan said.

But neither the White House nor the vice president's staff announced the
shooting. The Washington Post reported late Sunday that Cheney's office
did not make a public announcement.

Asked by The New York Times why it did not make the news known, Cheney
spokeswoman McBride said, "We deferred to the Armstrongs regarding what
had taken place at their ranch."

Armstrong said later, according to The Associated Press, that everyone at
the ranch was so "focused" on Whittington's health Saturday that it
wasn't until Sunday she called the Caller-Times to report the accident.

"It was accidental, a hunting accident," Sheriff Ramon Salinas III of
Kenedy County told The New York Times, adding that the Secret Service
notified him Saturday of the episode. "They did what they had to
according to law."

In an odd disparity, Armstrong told the Houston Chronicle that
Whittington, 78, was "bruised more than bloodied" in the incident and
"his pride was hurt more than anything else." Yet he was airlifted to a
hospital and has spent more than a day in an intensive care unit.

The Chronicle also reports Monday that hunting accidents are very rare in
Texas. In 2004, it said, the state's one million-plus hunters were
involved in only 29 hunting-related accidents (19 involving firearms),
four of which were fatal.

Time magazine on its Web site observed that Cheney is scheduled to join
President Bush on Monday afternoon when he takes questions from reporters
in the Oval Office, following a meeting with United Nations Secretary
General Kofi Annan. "White House aides can be expected to say that the
Vice President did not shoot Whittington, which suggests a bullet, but
rather sprayed him with birdshot, a type of ammunition made up of tiny
pieces of lead or steel," Time predicted.

On Sunday, the Chicago Tribune's James wrote on the Washington bureau's
blog at the newspaper's site, "When a vice president of the U.S. shoots a
man under any circumstance, that is extremely relevant information. What
might be the excuse to justify not immediately making the incident
public?

"The vice president is well known for preferring to operate in secret.
... Some secrecy, especially when it comes to the executing the duties of
president or vice president, is understandable and expected by Americans.

"But when the vice president's office, or the White House, delays in
reporting a shooting like Saturday's to the public via the media, it
needlessly raises suspicions and questions of trust. And it may just
further the impression held by many, rightly or wrongly, that the White
House doesn't place the highest premium on keeping the public fully and
immediately informed."

The New York Times reported late Sunday that Whittington was commissioner
of the state's Funeral Service Commission. In 1999, George W. Bush, then
governor of Texas, named Whittington to head the Commission, which
licenses and regulates funeral directors and embalmers in the state.
"When he was named," the Times revealed, "a former executive director of
the commission, Eliza May, was suing the state, saying that she had been
fired because she investigated a funeral home chain that was owned by a
friend of Mr. Bush.

"The suit was settled in 2001, but the details were not disclosed."
___

Latest update, Monday p.m.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan explained Monday that the
White House knew about the accidental shooting of a fellow hunter on
Saturday night, but deferred to the vice president's office, which did
not announce it. The vice president's office in turn deferred to
Katharine Armstrong, the ranch owner in Texas where the shooting took
place. She called a Corpus Christi reporter at midday Sunday and only
then did the news come out.

McClellan also said Monday, according to The Associated Press, that "Bush
and senior aides were told Saturday night by the staff of the White House
Situation Room that somebody in the Cheney's hunting party was shot, but
he said he was not told until Sunday morning that Cheney was the shooter.
He said he contacted the vice president's office and everyone agreed they
needed to get the information to the public quickly."

Reviewing the late-morning press briefing today, the National Journal's
Hotline site said that reporters reacted with "astonishment" to
McClellan's admission about not knowing about Cheney's role in the
shooting until Sunday. It noted that McClellan did everything possible to
imply that the responsibility for any bungling resides in the vice
president's office.

McClellan also said he did not know about a report that the Secret
Service prevented a deputy sheriff from interviewing Cheney.

Courtesy of USAtoday.com, here is a sampling of the briefing, featuring
NBC's David Gregory.

GREGORY: "The vice president of the United States shoots a man, and he
feels that it's appropriate for a ranch owner who witnessed this to tell
a local Corpus Christi newspaper, not the White House press corps at
large or notify the public in a national way."

MCCLELLAN: "Well, I think we all know that once it is made public, then
it's going to be news, and all of you are going to be seeking that
information. The vice president's office was ready to provide additional
information to reporters. There was no traveling White House press corps
with the vice president, as there is with the president in a situation
like this, so there are some different circumstances. And the other
circumstance was here that someone was injured and needed medical care.
And the vice president's team was making sure he was getting taken care
of, and that he got to the hospital and received additional treatment."

Armstrong told the AP today that her family realized Sunday morning that
it would be a story and decided to call the local newspaper, the Corpus
Christi Caller-Times. She said she then discussed the news coverage with
Cheney for the first time.

"I said, Mr. Vice President, this is going to be public, and I'm
comfortable going to the hometown newspaper," she told the AP. "And he
said you go ahead and do whatever you are comfortable doing."

Earlier Monday morning, McClellan had said, “The first priority… was
making sure that Mr. Whittington was getting the medical care that he
needed. The first priority Saturday night was making sure he receiving
medical care and getting to the hospital and being taken care of, and
that’s what happened. The vice president’s office was taking the lead on
making sure the information got out, and it did. The vice president’s
office worked with Mrs. Armstrong to get that information out.’’

Matt Cooper, the Time magazine reporter, said on CBS's "The Early Show"
today, "It's clearly an accident, but the fact that the White House
didn't release this information, that it sat around for almost a day is
in itself, bizarre."

In an online chat at the Washington Post site, the paper's White House
reporter Peter Baker said reporters in D.C. are "flabbergasted" by the
shooting. He indicated that the Post was looking deeply into how it was
reported to the local sheriff and the exact condition of the victim.

"It sure woke up a lot of folks here in Washington on a quiet, snowy
Sunday," Baker said. "Whether the story has legs I suppose remains to be
seen." He said the delay question is "being asked a lot in Washington
today...

"I'm not sure there is a standard protocol when the vice president shoots
someone, but it's fair to say reporters prefer that news be disclosed in
a timely fashion."

In response to another query he revealed, "we are looking today into the
issue of the local sheriff's office and what involvement they had in
this. Stay tuned, more to come."

Asked if knew of any other vice president shooting a man, Baker replied:
"Obviously there was Aaron Burr shooting Alexander Hamilton in a duel in
1804, but that was actually intentional and in that case the victim
died."
http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=R3702

[IMAGE]

Dick 'Bwana' Cheney

[IMAGE]

Harry Whittington

Dick Whittington

Dick WhittingtonAKA Richard Whittington

Born: ?
Died: 1423
Location of death: London, England
Cause of death: unspecified

Gender: Male
Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Politician

Nationality: England
Executive summary: Mayor of London

Richard Whittington, Mayor of London, described himself as son of William
and Joan. This enables him to be identified as the third son of Sir
William Whittington of Pauntley in Gloucestershire, a knight of good
family, who married after 1355 Joan, daughter of William Mansel, and
widow of Thomas Berkeley of Cubberley. Consequently Richard was a very
young man when he is mentioned in 1379 as subscribing five marks to a
city loan. He was a mercer by trade, and clearly entered on his
commercial career under favorable circumstances. He married Alice,
daughter of Sir Ivo Fitzwaryn, a Dorset knight of considerable property.
Whittington sat in the common council as a representative of Coleman
Street Ward, was elected alderman of Broad Street in March 1393, and
served as sheriff in 1393-94. When Adam Bamme, the mayor, died in June
1397, Whittington was appointed by the king to succeed him, and in
October was elected mayor for the ensuing year. He had acquired great
wealth and much commercial importance, and was mayor of the staple at
London and Calais. He made frequent large loans both to Henry IV and
Henry V, and according to the legend, when he gave a banquet to the
latter king and his queen in 1421, completed the entertainment by burning
bonds for £60,000, which he had taken up and discharged. Henry V employed
him to superintend the expenditure of money on completing Westminster
Abbey. But except as a London commercial magnate Whittington took no
great part in public affairs. He was mayor for a third term in 1406-07,
and for a fourth in 1419-20. He died in March 1423. His wife had
predeceased him leaving no children [All Whittington descendents through
a brother, Robert, physician to Henry V], and Whittington bequeathed the
whole of his vast fortune to charitable and public purposes. In his
lifetime he had joined in procuring Leadenhall for the city, and had
borne nearly all the cost of building the Greyfriars Library. In his last
year as mayor he had been shocked by the foul state of Newgate prison,
and one of the first works undertaken by his executors was its
rebuilding. His executors, chief of whom was John Carpenter, the famous
town clerk, also contributed to the cost of glazing and paving the new
Guildhall, and paid half the expense of building the library there; they
repaired St. Bartholomew's hospital, and provided bosses for water at
Billingsgate and Cripplegate. But the chief of Whittington's foundations
was his college at St. Michael, Paternoster church, and the adjoining
hospital. The college was dissolved at the Reformation, but the hospital
or almshouses are still maintained by the Mercers' Company at Highgate.
Whittington was buried at St. Michael's church. John Stow relates that
his tomb was spoiled during the reign of Edward VI, but that under Mary
the parishioners were compelled to restore it. Whittington had a house
near St. Michael's church; it is doubtful whether he had any connection
with the so-called Whittington Palace in Hart Street, Mark Lane. There is
no proof that he was ever knighted; Stow does not call him Sir Richard.
Much of Whittington's fame was probably due to the magnificence of his
charities. But a writer of the next generation bears witness to his
commercial success in A Libell of English Policy by styling him "the
sunne of marchaundy, that lodestarre and chief-chosen flower."

Pen and paper may not me suffice
Him to describe, so high he was of price.

The Richard Whittington of history is thus very different from the Dick
Whittington of popular legend, which makes him a poor orphan employed as
a scullion by the rich merchant, Sir Hugh Fitzwarren, who ventures the
cat, his only possession, on one of his master's ships. Distressed by
ill-treatment he runs away, but turns back when he hears from Holloway
the prophetic peal of Bow bells. He returns to find that his venture has
brought him a fortune, marries his master's daughter, and succeeds to his
business. The legend is not referred to by Stow, whose love for exposing
fables would assuredly have prompted him to notice it if it had been well
established when he wrote. The first reference to the story comes with
the licensing in 1605 of a play, now lost, The History of Richard
Whittington, of his lowe byrth, his great fortune. Thomas Heywood in 1606
makes one of the characters in If you know not me you know nobody, allude
to the legend, to be rebuked by another because "they did more wrong to
the gentleman." "The legend of Whittington", probably meaning the play of
1605, is also mentioned by Beaumont and Fletcher in 1611 in The Knight of
the Burning Pestle. The story was then no doubt popular. When a little
later Robert Elstracke, the engraver, published a supposed portrait of
Whittington with his hand resting on a skull, he had in deference to the
public fancy to substitute a cat; copies in the first state are very
rare. Attempts have been made to explain the story as possibly referring
to vessels called "cats", which were employed in the North Sea trade, or
to the French achat (purchase). But Thomas Keightley traced the cat story
in Persian, Danish and Italian folklore at least as far back as the 13th
century. The assertion that a carved figure of a cat existed on Newgate
jail before the great fire is an unsupported assumption.

Father: Sir William Whittington
Mother: Joan Mansel
Wife: Alice Fitzwaryn

http://www.nndb.com/people/219/000103907

Richard Whittington, the Lord Mayor of London in 1419, who was famed for
his love of cats. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13741/13741.txt

http://www.toymania.com/custom/Galleries/Joshua/Joshua3/The%20Penguin.jpg

http://www.hillcity-comics.com/toys/batman_penguin_import_2.jpg

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Quotes_of_the_Imperium

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/september_eleven_vreeland/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
september_eleven_vreeland-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flopping Aces � Able Danger Hearing Transcript

Flopping Aces � Able Danger Hearing Transcript

The following is the transcript of the Able Danger hearings that we’re held on Feb 15th:
Jim Saxton:
The Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities meets this afternoon in joint session with our colleagues from the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces to explore the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) project known as Able Danger. This is an oversight hearing conducted by the two subcommittees of jurisdiction with the goal of determining whether Able Danger represented a missed opportunity to avert the tragedy of September 11. Our purpose is to find out what happened, and let members draw their own conclusions from the testimony presented.
The Able Danger story is complex—no single individual has first hand knowledge of all the relevant events. The subcommittees, guided by our friend and colleague Curt Weldon, who has devoted much study to this issue, have invited a wide range of witnesses to testify in both open and closed session. Each has a piece of the narrative to relate. As in any complex mosaic, no one had the benefit of the whole picture. I caution the witnesses to tell the committees what they have first hand knowledge of, and not speculate about events of which they have no direct evidence. Even though we have assembled many key witnesses, some few have left government service and have declined to appear for personal reasons. We reached out to every relevant witness made known to us so that we could hear all the evidence. We are, after all, the primary committee of jurisdiction for this program and are ultimately responsible for its oversight.
Members must decide for themselves what to believe from the testimony presented today—there will be some inconsistencies. Having reviewed the totality of the evidence, I do not believe that Able Danger represents a major blunder by SOCOM, the Army, or any presidential administration. Rather, I think it is yet another example of the many pointed out by the 9/11 Commission of the federal government’s inability to integrate intelligence information effectively and take appropriate action. It is conceivable that Able Danger, if fully and aggressively pursued and vigorously acted upon, could have provided key intelligence that may have averted 9/11. It’s easy to say that today, with the benefit of clear hindsight; we can and have said the same thing about other missed opportunities—the 9/11 Commission report lists many across the federal government. Put in its proper perspective, Able Danger, despite its promise, was a new, untested program just beginning to forge a niche in the intelligence community. At the time the alleged chart with Mohammed Atta was produced, no Able Danger product was used for operational purposes.
Unfortunately, it took the tragedy of 9/11 to drive home our inability to share information among federal agencies. To our credit, we have acted to correct these deficiencies by enacting the Intelligence Reform Act, creating a Director of National Intelligence, and establishing a cross cutting National Counter Terrorism Center. Further, the Able Danger project started by SOCOM in 1999 was brought to the headquarters in Tampa and continues to this day, under a different name, thanks to the far sighted leadership of General Pete Schoomaker. Far from being a sad story, I think a critical examination of the facts shows that the federal government has made much progress, and that SOCOM in particular was astute enough to press ahead even before 9/11.
Terry Everett:
As a member of both the House Armed Services and Intelligence committees, I am keenly interested in data mining and its importance to our intelligence community in conducting the war on terrorism.
At the outset, I believe it is important to highlight the key objectives of this hearing:
To better understand the Joint Chiefs tasking of Special Operations Command in late 1999 to conduct an information operations campaign against Al Qaeda, and The tools used by the Able Danger team to map out the Al Qaeda network and how that information was shared.
I have heard numerous reports that Mohammed Atta’s name was known before 9/11 but have not heard a definitive answer as to what significance his name and photo might have had in warning the United States of an impending attack. Even if Mohammed Atta’s name did show up in the Able Danger project, what was the significance of this information to the intelligence community? I hope to learn more on this today.
I also note that there is an on-going Department of Defense Inspector General investigation associated with certain aspects of the Able Danger. I know that we will all be careful to stay clear of matters that are the subject of this investigation as well as ensuring we avoid the discussion of classified material while in open session.
I want to commend my colleague, Curt Weldon, for his interest and hard work in this area.
Stephen Cambone:
Good afternoon, Chairman Saxton, Chairman Everett, and members of the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats & Capabilities Subcommittee and the Strategic Forces Subcommittee.
You invited us here this afternoon to discuss the planning activity known as Able Danger. Congressman Weldon informed me of his interest in Able Danger in August of last year. As a result of our conversation, I initiated a review of what the Department knew, or did not know, about Able Danger.
The review team involved more than 90 DoD and contract personnel who spent an estimated 6,500 manhours conducting significant document and data searches, interviewing over 50 individuals, and interacting withMembers and Staff of this and other Committees. The review was conducted Department-wide with the full cooperation of all relevant DoD organizations, as well as two contractor firms: Orion, which provided opensourceresearch support to the Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity (LIWA) and Raytheon, which supported USSOCOM with all-source analysis.
The review team was comprised of individuals from my office, the Army’s G2, the office of the DoD General Counsel, and staff officers from the Joint Staff, USSOCOM, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. None ofthem had first-hand knowledge of Able Danger.
Members of the review team are here with me today. (Introduce team members - Mr. Tom Gandy from the Army’s G2, CAPT Hal Dronberger, formerly of the Joint Staff, and CDR Christopher Chope, formerly of USSOCOM.)
The review did not uncover a chart or charts with information on 911 hijacker Mohammed Atta that pre-dated the 911 attack. Nor did the review discover any data - hard copy or soft - that provided information on Attaprior to the 911 attacks. That said, we do not have evidence to tell you definitively whether such a chart existed or not.
The review did not find that the Department deliberately failed to share Able Danger information with the FBI.The review did not find that Able Danger information was inappropriately destroyed. Rather, the destruction of Able Danger information was done in accordance with Departmental regulations and procedures.
What was “Able Danger?” It is helpful to establish the evolution of Able Danger.
In late December 1998, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff identified the need to develop asymmetric capabilities to deter transnational terrorist organizations. He believed that a comprehensive DoD strategy andsupporting campaign plan were needed to leverage DoD capabilities and enhance ongoing interagency efforts against terrorism. In October 1999, USSOCOM was formally tasked by the Joint Staff to develop such acampaign plan. “Able Danger” was the unclassified name for the project.
The initial focus of the project was the identification and exploitation of vulnerabilities associated with A1 Qaeda’s command and control infrastructure, its leadership and supporting organizations. To assist in theeffort, USSOCOM explored the use of analytic tools and methodologies available in the 1999-2000 timeframe that could assist it in:
identifLing linkages and patterns in large volumes of data; and, reviewing those links and patterns against previous, known activities for indications and warning of possible hture activity.
To perform this “nodal analysis,” USSOCOM requested support from a number of organizations and businesses during various phases of the effort and with varying degrees of success:
The Joint Warfare Analysis Center (JWAC), Dahlgren, Virginia, had computerized analytic tools. We were told that JWAC collaboration with USSOCOM began in December 1999 and ended in January-February 2000 because it produced indeterminate results that did not meet USSOCOM’s needs.
The Army’s Land Information Warfare Activity (or LIWA), at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia, had the capability desired by USSOCOM and was approached for support in early 2000. Orion, a commercial firm, provided support to LIWA during this time. Orion produced multiple pattern analysis and cluster analysis charts in support of LIWA. Wewere told that Orion responded to specific requirements from LIWA and that Orion employees were not “read onto” Able Danger. We were also told that LIWA supported USSOCOM on Able Danger with analytic products only for a brief period in early 2000. Later, we will discuss the reasons for the termination of LIWA’s support. It wasduring this period that the Atta chart - with his name and/or picture - was said to have been provided to USSOCOM.
In March 2000, Commander USSOCOM decided to develop an organic data mining capability. In July 2000, a Raytheon facility was set up in Garland, Texas, working in direct support of USSOCOM.
Recall, the purpose of the Able Danger effort was a campaign plan. In November 2000, the Garland effort was terminated and resources shifted to development of a draft of that campaign plan - this occurred just after thebombing of the USS Cole. USSOCOM’s deadline for the plan’s production, December 2000, was looming. The draft plan was delivered to the Joint Staff in January 2001 at which time Able Danger activities ceased.
The plan contained recommendations on a strategic approach to transnational terrorism. It did not contain the expected level of tactical detail necessary to operationalize the plan. The Joint Staff rolled the Able Dangerplan into ongoing contingency planning. A later planning effort developed by the Joint Staff had a component which was similar to the product of Able Danger.
Following the November 2000 termination of the analytic effort at the Raytheon facility in Garland, USSOCOM established its follow-on analytic capability at its headquarters in Tampa.
Did the Department inappropriately destroy Able Danyer-generated information?
The LIWA intelligence oversight officer determined during the course of LIWA’s support to USSOCOM that the data it had compiled was not in compliance with DoD intelligence oversight policies, specifically with regard to retention of U.S. persons information. Additionally, a required Terms of Reference, or TOR, authorizing LIWA to support USSOCOM was not in place in early 2000. LIWA had to develop procedures to deal with the U.S. persons information issue, but apparently could not resolve the problem in time. We were told that LIWA purged its data files and destroyed hard copy material related to Able Danger in the March-April timeframe.
As best we can ascertain, USSOCOM had Raytheon purge the majority of its Able Danger-related information upon completion of the Garland effort in November 2000. A small percentage of information - roughly only 1% - was transferred back to USSOCOM headquarters although we received varying reports of exactly how much of the original Able Danger information still resides in USSOCOM servers. A USSOCOM analyst who was present during the time of Able Danger told us that the purged information included software applications, open sourcedead ends and other non-relevant data. Only the data needed to write the campaign plan and to facilitate the establishment of an analytic data mining capability at USSOCOM headquarters was retained.
Did the LIWA or other Able Danger-related activities produce unique information on the 911 1 hijacker Mohammed Atta prior to 2001?
Of the approximately 50 persons interviewed by the team, five people recalled a chart containing the picture and the name of Atta.
Orion produced link charts derived solely from open source information. Orion’s charts included photographs of terrorists. We were told that LIWA did not produce charts with photographs. Three Orion personnel knowledgeable of Orion products provided to LIWA told us that they were certain that the charts did not contain a picture or a reference to Atta or any of his aliases. In addition, these personnel told us that an “Al Qaeda” chart was provided to LIWA only as an example. The chart was originally prepared for use in a training course on counterterrorism analysis. We were told that Orion provided the chart on Al Qaeda to LIWA on October 21,1999 without any supporting data. That is, additional analysis would have been required to validate the individuals and associations depicted on the chart. There may have been subsequent updates to this chart that were provided to LIWA, but again, Orion personnel told us that Atta’s photograph was not included.
The review team could not identify the precise data sets that were used for data searches and nodal analyses during the time of Able Danger.
In an attempt to discover open source information on Atta with the use of contemporary and more advanced tools, the Army G2 directed INSCOM to conduct searches against open source information with emphasis on theNovember 1999 to May 2000 timeframe. This time was chosen to bracket the period during which a chart with Atta’s name andlor picture might have been produced.
Searches were conducted on 20-21 August 2005 by the Intelligence Information Services office at HQ INSCOM, the 1 st I0 Command, and the National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC). A very large volume of data was searched by multiple search engines running against fourteen government and commercial data stores. The searches did not discover any information on Atta in the specified timeframe.
USSOCOM also conducted searches against an extensive repository of information, including all of the Able Danger information previously transferred to USSOCOM headquarters from the Garland facility. Thosesearches also did not discover any information on Atta in the specified time frame.
We asked Orion, the company which provided open source analysis support to LIWA, to conduct a search of its own files. Orion reported that its search did not uncover a chart with information on Atta or any data thatmight have produced it.
However, we did discover a chart during our data searches that was dated as of May 1999 and produced by Orion that was similar to that described by CAPT Scott Phillpott. The chart bears the photos and names ofMohammed Atef and Mohammed Ajaj, but not Mohammed Atta.
At least one of the individuals who told us that he saw a photo of Atta on a chart produced for Able Danger in early 2000 described the photo as “grainy” — and not the one used for Atta’s Florida dnvers license shortlyafter he first entered the United States in June 2000. The photo on the drivers license was widely circulated after 9/11. The review team attempted to track down the existence of this other photo. Because Orionproduced charts with photos, the team interviewed the individual who was the Chief Executive Officer of Orion at the time of Able Danger. He told us that Orion did not purchase such a photo. He said that the only photos ofAtta in Orion’s possession were obtained after 9/11. We have not seen a copy of the so-called “grainy” photo.
Did the Department fail to share Able Danger-related information with the FBI?
Claims have been made that during Able Danger three meetings with an FBI agent had been arranged or were in the process of being arranged in September 2000 for the purposes of sharing Able Danger information andthen cancelled by SOCOM officials out of misplaced concern over intelligence sharing protocols. The FBI agent said to be involved did not corroborate those claims. In response to questions posed during the SenateJudiciary Committee’s September 2005 hearing, the Department of Justice denied such claims in a letter to the Committee. I understand that your staff has a copy of this letter. If you do not have the letter, I have a copy and can provide it for the record.
We found no reason to believe that USSOCOM leadership or anyone from the DoD legal community prohibited or prevented the sharing of Able Danger information with other federal agencies. USSOCOM set up a classified “chat room” to further interagency coordination and break down existing stovepipes. It was designed so that any agency could enter anonymously to discuss issues without having to lay out any internal information. We were told that the chat room was not actively used. USSOCOM leadership at the time of Able Danger have said theywere aware of the legal and regulatory guidelines that governed intelligence gathering and dissemination. These guidelines would not have prohibited the exchange of information on suspected terrorists.
The Department has the authorities necessary to share information of interest with respect to collection, retention, and dissemination of intelligence about U.S. persons with other U. S. government organizationsand agencies. These authorities have remained unchanged since 1982. The conduct of intelligence activities by DoD intelligence components is governed by the requirements set forth in EO 12333, “U.S. Intelligence Activities,” 4 December 198 1, DoD Directive 5240.1, “DoD Intelligence Activities,” 25 April 1 988, and DoD Directive 5240.1 -R, “Procedures Governing the Activities of DoD Intelligence Components that Affect U.S. Persons,” December 1982. Attorneys from the office of the DoD General Counsel, the Joint Staff, the Army, and USSOCOM were involved in providing legal advice and guidance during all stages of the Able Danger effort. These authorities and regulations also involve strict measures to ensure protection and safeguarding of information on U.S. entities.
Was the Department Responsive to the 9/11 Commission’s Request for Able Danger information?
Mr. Anthony Shaffer, a DIA civilian employee then on temporary active duty, discussed Able Danger with several Commission staffers during an October 2003 Commission staff field trip to Afghanistan. That discussionresulted in two subsequent Commission requests for specific Able Danger documentation in November 2003. The Department conducted document searches and provided a number of documents to the Commission inresponse to these requests between December 2003 - February 2004. The documents provided to the Commission included several briefings which contained nodal analysis charts or diagrams. None of those charts contained any reference to Mohammed Atta or any of the other 911 1 hijackers.
In July 2004, as the 911 1 Commission was nearing completion of its effort, then CDR Scott Phillpott, USN, came forward. He said that he had seen early in 2000 an Able Danger-produced chart that depicted suspectedAl Qaeda networks and that identified Mohammed Atta. CDR Phillpott asked to meet with the 911 1 Commission staff to share that information: the meeting was subsequently arranged by the Department.
The Department responded to all Commission requests for information. No DoD documentation on Able Danger responsive to the requests was at any time withheld from the Commission. It is true that in the course of this recent review, DoD has unearthed additional documents related to Able Danger. These documents were found with considerable effort. Some of these documents would have been responsive to the Commission’s information requests and were generally consistent with the DoD documents already provided to the Commission. None of these newly identified documents, however, add information substantively different than that provided to the Commission.
In summary, the Department undertook its recent review of Able Danger in good faith and with due diligence:
No chart or charts with Atta’s name or photo have been found.
No data sets that contain such information have been found.
Material associated with Able Danger was destroyed, but in each case consistent with standard policies.
The FBI has denied that meetings were scheduled or in the process of being scheduled to pass data to it from Able Danger, or cancelled.
DoD was responsive to the 911 1 Commission’s information requests.
We have briefed Members of this Committee previously on the review. We have also briefed the staffs of the HPSCI, HAC-D, SSCI, and SJC as well. You are welcome to any documents that we have on the subject that are not restricted by any ongoing legal proceedings.
The individuals here today are prepared to answer your questions on what they discovered in the course of the review.
The DoD Inspector General has an ongoing formal investigation into Able Danger. The DoD IG is also investigating the security revocation case of Mr. Anthony Shaffer. The IG’s office has informed me that its Able Danger investigation is expected to be completed in May 2006. Should any new information come to light as a result of the IG’s investigation, we will pursue any new avenues of discovery that are necessary.
Able Danger was one of the Department’s earliest attempts at employing data correlation through emerging information technology capabilities. our capability has improved considerably in the last 5-6 years.
Today, USSOCOM and the Army’s Information Dominance Center, or IDC, house state-of-the-art capabilities. These two centers and others in DoD have significant capability to process, analyze, fuse, and graphically display data at rates exponentially greater than our initial pre-9/11 efforts. Today these centers are collaborating on a continual basis, enhancing our ability to coordinate and conduct intelligence and operations in counter terrorism, counter proliferation, information operations, and unconventional warfare.
Several Members of this Committee have visited at least one of these centers. To those Members who have not yet had the opportunity to visit either center, I recommend a visit in the near future. We could not haveachieved these successful efforts without the support of Congressman Weldon and your subcommittees.Thank you.
I would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Saxton:
Thank you again Mr. Secretary, I understand your collegues at the table are there for purposes of answering questions and they do not have opening statements.
Cambone:
They do not.
(Ms. Tauscher or Ms. McKinney or Ms. Sanchez or Ms. McMorris) Not sure which one of these four is the one speaking. These are the only four females on the two subcommittee’s.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I have a question.
Saxton:
Maam, we’re gonna go in regular order here.
Female:
I understand that but my question is a parlimentary inquiry. I would like to know if we will be allowed to offer opening statements for the record.
Saxton:
If you would like to offer opening statements in writing for the record I see nothing wrong with that.
Female:
Thank you Mr. Chairman, and also does that include questions for the record?
Saxton:
Sure.
Female:
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Saxton:
Mr. Everett.
Everett:
Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me do a couple things first, housekeeping here since the FBI is not here represented I would like to unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from the DoJ in response to Sen. Specters query to FBI Director Mueller concerning AD and a letter to Sen. Specter and Sen. Leahy from former Sen. Slate Gordon on the 9/11 commission, concerning the same AD information.
Saxton:
These letters will also be entered into the record without objection.
Everett:
I listened carefully to the opening statements of you Mr. Chairman and of the ranking members and I’m really impressed with the lack of knowledge we have concerning AD, the committee has concerning AD. However I would also like to point out that there is one member of the house armed services committee who is very close to this issue so at this time I would like to yield my ten minutes of questioning to Mr. Weldon, Curt.
Weldon:
I thank the gentlemen for his time and I thank the witnesses for coming and I thank Chairman Hunter who is ill today and could not be here for scheduling this hearing and also for his request to initiate the IG investigation of the treatment of witnesses who simply came to tell the truth. We were at a point in time where one of our witnesses was within two days of having not only his classified status removed but having his personal pay and health care benefits for his kids removed and put on a status that Mark Zine his attorney says he has never seen before. Where he was persona non-grata but yet he could not talk to Congress or the media.
That’s been corrected with the help of Gordon England, I thank him for that, and Sec. Rumsfeld. Because of their intervention along with the new Director of DIA to allow for a thorough investigation of the treatment of Lt. Col. Shaffer and others we can procede forward.
I want to thank Dr. Cambone for coming in, he was the first one I called officially when this story broke in the NYT’s. And as you remember Dr. Cambone you came in and said to me, “you know Congressman, you know more about this program then I do.” You don’t refute that statement do you?
And you said that because it was the Congress and this Committee back in 1999 and 2000 that was agressively pushing the prototype that the LIWA had established at Fort (unk) that we were all so impressed with.
In fact it was on November the 4th of 1999 that the suggestion of then Deputy Secretary of Defense John Amery that we convened a meeting with the Deputy Director of the FBI and the CIA using the LIWA model and proposed an actual collaborative center.

Foreign Affairs - Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq - Paul R. Pillar

Foreign Affairs - Intelligence, Policy,and the War in Iraq - Paul R. Pillar

Blogger Thoughts: It's worth repeating: The official treatments of these subjects are a cover-ups. Perhaps the Author is uniformed and earnest?

Diversions from Blondesence

BlondeSense: Playtime

[911TruthAction] Digest Number 1135

There are 12 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1. Re: Re: New rule to stop the disruptors?
From: Kevin Hammond <sir_oglaigh@yahoo.com>
2. Wing TV 2/20 NYC promo
From: "Greg Nixon" <nxngrg@yahoo.com>
3. HMmmmm! Douglas Clark
From: "Lowell Byrd" <cbyrdman@yahoo.com>
4. Re: HMmmmm! Douglas Clark
From: Naveed <flanker12k@yahoo.com>
5. RE: New rule to stop the disruptors?
From: "Scott Peden" <scotpeden@cruzio.com>
6. Revised with new link for Wing TV if you can't get the original to load
From: "Marsha" <Mofmars3@wmconnect.com>
7. RE: New rule to stop the disruptors?
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
8. Federal tactics for Information Warfare
From: "savefreedom2005" <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
9. Totalitarians use misfits to disrupt free speech on the internet.
From: "savefreedom2005" <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
10. GARGER: Katrina & 9/11 Demand Impeachment - SF Bay View
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
11. Re: Bloggers in Amsterdam
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
12. re: Kick ass on Monday!
From: JKMarion@aol.com

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 19:56:45 -0800 (PST)
From: Kevin Hammond <sir_oglaigh@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Re: New rule to stop the disruptors?

Larry, personally, I did not have a problem with some of what you have posted, and some of my research follows similar lines as yours. But the MAIN purpose of this group is to discuss strategies to dissemenate {SPELLING}? the truth of what happened on that horrific day. Activism strategy. One of the only problems that I have with your posts is that they seem to go on and on. Otherwise I am a major proponant of REAL free speech. All the time that is spent constantly denouncing others detracts from actual activism. And newcomers take a look at this stuff and think we are ALL a bunch of nuts! Itis a bit confusing to newbies. I myself am guilty of partaking in a pissing contest which is something that I absolutely abhor ad told myself that I would NEVER DO. It is counterproductive.

Kevin.

hitech_01_47460 <hitech_01_47460@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK then Alan, may I be allowed back in this group if I follow these
rules also???

I mean I think I shared some compelling EVIDENCE as to who is
furnishing DISINFORMATION and who isn't.

If you want to be FAIR, I should be allowed to 'debate' with FACTS
AND EVIDENCE others can see.

Unless you really BELIEVE in those 'arab hijackers' whom many were
found ALIVE in Saudi Arabia. etc.

I again encourage email with any questions you have to
hitech2@bluemarble.net bluemarble.net

Or you can phone me.

My goal since 2000 in Yahoo groups has been to share information
freely, though I have battled with
DISINFORMERS making like claims over that time.

If I'm right, (AND I'M ENCOURAGING VERIFICATION OF WHAT I SAY HERE)
then shouldn't I be ALLOWED to participate?

Larry Lawson (NOT Tim White)

And NO I work on the behalf of NO FEDeral agency or FOREIGN
government like Israel.

--- In 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com, alan random <alanrandom@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> As you've all noticed, there have been a lot of divisive posts
lately with people attacking others as Cointelpro, etc. And this can
be very depressing and distracting. That's what they want. So don't
let it get to you. Don't let them ruin this very important group. We
can figure out a way to fix this problem.
> Here's my suggestion:
> NEW RULE. If you want to post something accusing another list
member of being a spy or disruptor, you must first send it OFF-LIST
to the moderators for approval. If you send it to the entire group,
you will be warned. If you do it again, you will be removed.
>
> In general, I've always said that I think it's a bad idea to
launch spy/disruptor accusations on the list. Because then it just
leads to more accusations and more disruption. The best way to handle
someone you suspect is a disruptor is to a) ignore them, or b)
express your disagreement with their arguments in a polite,
respectful manner. I think if we can all agree to do this, we can
keep the real disruptors from achieving their goal, which is to
destroy the morale of this group.
>
> Any further suggestions are appreciated.
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Brings words and photos together (easily) with
> PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.
>

SPONSORED LINKS
United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance Moving to the united state United state patent United state patent search United states patent office

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:01:39 -0000
From: "Greg Nixon" <nxngrg@yahoo.com>
Subject: Wing TV 2/20 NYC promo

http://thewebfairy.com/hardtruth/gregnixon02-20.mp3

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 3
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 04:32:11 -0000
From: "Lowell Byrd" <cbyrdman@yahoo.com>
Subject: HMmmmm! Douglas Clark

Doug (may I call you Doug?), if I had the knowledge you say you have,
without a doubt, a hundred dollars ain't shit. I could beg, borrow, or
pawn to get that measely amount. With your said knowledge, you
shouldn't have any problem at all.
NO! I do not intend to fall for your scheme.
sorry'boutthat!

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:07:31 -0800 (PST)
From: Naveed <flanker12k@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: HMmmmm! Douglas Clark

cool your jets.......

or have them cooled for you....

Lowell Byrd <cbyrdman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Doug (may I call you Doug?), if I had the knowledge you say you have,
without a doubt, a hundred dollars ain't shit. I could beg, borrow, or
pawn to get that measely amount. With your said knowledge, you
shouldn't have any problem at all.
NO! I do not intend to fall for your scheme.
sorry'boutthat!

SPONSORED LINKS
United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance Moving to the united state United state patent United state patent search United states patent office

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot.
- Notebook, 1904

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 5
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 00:19:50 -0800
From: "Scott Peden" <scotpeden@cruzio.com>
Subject: RE: New rule to stop the disruptors?

Accusing someone of being a mole/troll/cointelpro/spy, definitely is a
pointed personal derogatory remark (unless the rare person out there just
loves the label).

-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of alan random
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] New rule to stop the disruptors?

OK, how about this?:
From now on, let's consider all spy/cointelpro accusations of list members
as a form of flaming. Under this rule, you can still accuse people not in
this group of being disinfo agents (although this too, is a very annoying
distraction), but if one accuses a fellow 911truthaction group member of
being an agent/spy, they will be warned once. If they do it again, they will
be removed.

For those on this list who are currently engaged in spy-accusation battles,
you are free to continue your threads, but from here on out you must debate
only the issues and refrain from further personal attacks or accusations.

If anyone disagrees with this policy suggestion, let me know. If no one
disagrees, I think it should be made effective immediately.

Scott Peden <scotpeden@cruzio.com> wrote:
I think this will help.

Personally I like the no flaming rule. It works like this;
!

A flame is a derogatory remark, pointedly personal at a group member. Issues
are OK for flame the hell out of, people on the group, no way.

In one of my larger groups we have found ! that what drives people off
fast, are Flame wars, Spam, and the same article being posted repeatedly.
Flame wars cost a group of 600 members about 3 members a day for at least 3
days after then flaming has stopped. That is, one day of flame wars can cost
10 members.

You can’t get the word out if the group members are now looking at the
negative side of being in the group.

If you want the cointel disinformation subversives agents here on this list,
as it has appeared to me, then post it on the home page so the new members
know what is up and that they have to figure this out fro themselves.

Stick to the groups purpose, rules only facilitate achieving your purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of alan random
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:13 PM
To: 911truthaction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] New rule to stop the disruptors?

Hi everyone,

As you've all noticed, there have been a lot of divisive posts lately with
people attacking others as Cointelpro, etc. And this can be very depressing
and distracting. That's what they want. So don't let it get to you. Don't
let them ruin this very important group. W! e can figure out a way to fix
this problem.
Here's my suggestion:
NEW RULE. If you want to post something accusing another list member of
being a spy or disruptor, you must first send it OFF-LIST to the moderators
for approval. If you send it to the entire group, you will be warned. If you
do it again, you will be removed.

In general, I've always said that I think it's a bad idea to launch
spy/disruptor accusations on the list. Because then it just leads to more
accusations and more disruption. The best way to handle someone you suspect
is a disruptor is to a) ignore them, or b) express your disagreement with t!
heir arguments in a polite, respectful manner. I think if we can all agree
to do this, we can keep the real disruptors from achieving their goal, which
is to destroy the morale of this group.

Any further suggestions are appreciated.
_____

Brin! gs words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/PMall/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.
com> - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

_____

What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=38382/_ylc=X3oDMTEzNWFva2Y2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlY
wNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDMmF1dG9z/*http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/popular/thisweek
.html%20%0D%0A>
SPONSORED LINKS
United state bankruptcy court western district of texas
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+bankruptcy+court+western+d
istrict+of+texas&w1=United+state+bankruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&
w2=United+state+life+insurance&w3=Moving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state
+patent&w5=United%20>
United state life insurance
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+life+insurance&w1=United+s
tate+bankruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&w2=United+state+life+insuran
ce&w3=Moving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state+patent&w5=United+state+pate
nt+search&w6=Unit%20>
Moving to the united state
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Moving+to+the+united+state&w1=United+st
ate+bankruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&w2=United+state+life+insuranc
e&w3=Moving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state+patent&w5=United+state+paten
t+search&w6=Unite%20>
United state patent
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+patent&w1=United+state+ban
kruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&w2=United+state+life+insurance&w3=Mo
ving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state+patent&w5=United+state+patent+searc
h&w6=United+state%20>
United state patent search
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+state+patent+search&w1=United+st
ate+bankruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&w2=United+state+life+insuranc
e&w3=Moving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state+patent&w5=United+state+paten
t+search&w6=Unite%20>
United states patent office
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=United+states+patent+office&w1=United+s
tate+bankruptcy+court+western+district+of+texas&w2=United+state+life+insuran
ce&w3=Moving+to+the+united+state&w4=United+state+patent&w5=United+state+pate
nt+search&w6=Unit%20>

_____

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group " 911TruthAction
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction> " on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .

_____

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 6
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 09:08:09 -0000
From: "Marsha" <Mofmars3@wmconnect.com>
Subject: Revised with new link for Wing TV if you can't get the original to load

Press Release "War Crimes" and "Media Cover-Up of 9/11" Forward Widely

Presidents' Day "March for 9/11 Truth," NYC Ground Zero, 10 a.m.
Monday, 2/20/06

Activists Plan 60's Style Protest against "War Crimes" and "Media
Cover-Up of 9/11" in downtown Manhattan

New York City, NY (PRWEB) February 18, 2006 -- Vermonter Greg Nixon
is a man on a mission to save America - from itself. He is one of a
new breed of issue-oriented activists who were often not even
involved in politics before 9/11. What mobilizes him is a prospect of
indescribable horror: he sees plain proof that the WTC was destroyed
on 9/11 in an undercover operation within America's own military
intelligence establishment.

From all angles, it's a topsy-turvy world view, that can bowl one
over with vertigo at first. A mirror world with such contrarian
coordinates as:
- the terrorists are Americans, not Arabs;
- ex-mayor Giuliani and George Bush are suspects, not heroes of 9/11;
- much as the Bush administration capitalized on 9/11 to advance its
agenda, the 9/11 Truthers seize on it as the Achilles heel of
the "new militarism," with evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC
1, 2 and 7 as the smoking gun or fatal flaw in the official version;
- "left-leaning" media like The Nation, Pacifica's Democracy Now, and
The New York Times, along with groups like ANSWER and the Democratic
Party, are not seen as a real opposition; because they don't
accept "9/11 Truth," they are just playing a part in the plans for
World War IV on the oil fields of the Middle East.

Indeed, Greg Nixon would like the President's Day March to take aim
especially at the "establishment left gatekeepers."

The plan for Monday's march is fairly ad hoc. After assembling at WTC
Ground Zero, the protesters may march to Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer's office with a letter demanding his resignation for failing
to investigate 9/11. Last year, 9/11 activists in New York filed an
extensive complaint with Spitzer, and hopes were high for a time that
he might take up the case. Offices of the above-mentioned "left-wing
gatekeepers" could be next.

Speakers expected are Greg Nixon and others, including:
Craig Hill, the Vermont Green Party senatorial candidate, who
includes photographic evidence of the WTC demolition in his campaign
platform. His website is www.hillsenatenow.org .
Sander Hicks, author of the 9/11 expos? The Big Wedding, and owner of
the Vox Pop Democracy Caf? in Brooklyn, www.voxpopnet.net.

9/11 activist, historian and radio personality Webster Tarpley will
speak at a Greg Nixon event on April 27th at the University of
Vermont. Tarpley is devoting his energies to opposing the latest war
drive on Iran. He says the plan is to attack Iran already by the end
of March, which leaves much less time for mobilizing springtime
demonstrations such as we saw before the attack on Iraq. (see
http://www.waronfreedom.org/activists/stop-amerigeddon.html) He is
the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA.

During the run-up to the Iraq war, 9/11 activists tried but failed to
convince the peace movement that exposing 9/11 was the only way to
stop the juggernaut of war. They felt that rank-and-file pacifists
were receptive, but the leadership marched to a different,
establishment tune.

More details on the Presidents' Day march at
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/332307.shtml .

See also the feature article on the march at
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/132464/index.php "2/20 March
for 9/11 Truth NYC: The Tipping Point? The world is at the most
serious crossroads in modern history. The fraudulent 'War on Terror'
threatens the very future of humanity."

For an interview with Greg Nixon, see
http://www.phillyimc.org/en/2006/02/19016.shtml . Quote:
"Bring your digital camera, too. Because something tells me that
history is going to be made in New York City this upcoming Monday, in
honor of President?s Day. That?s the day those actually informed
about 9/11 will gather together in NYC to honor the birthday of the
first GW. You know, the GW who was unable to tell a lie."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Today>>>Friday>>>wingtv.net...All media and people everywhere must
see this interview with Greg Nixon

If you can't get the show to play...Left click where it says to right
click and watch later

Alternate link>>>http://thewebfairy.com/hardtruth/gregnixon02-20.mp3

Marsha McClelland
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
XXX XXX-XXXX

"We The People United Movement"
We are many Political and Patriot Groups joining together, to help
right the wrongs in America..."United We Will Stand"

WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WETHEPEOPLE_UNITED/

Join your fellow Patriots and Unite for Action:

TheRevolutionaryCoalition
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheRevolutionaryCoalition/

WeThePeopleCoalition
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WeThePeopleCoalition/

Click here: 911TruthAction
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 7
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 02:53:15 -0800 (PST)
From: John Perna <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
Subject: RE: New rule to stop the disruptors?

Check the archives.
My posts were general information
and comments about disinformers;
which mentioned no names.

My posts often stated this:
"This does not mention anyone's name.
If there is anyone who thinks that this description accurately
applies to himself,
that person is invited to comment."

I mentioned Disinformers, WITHOUT MENTIONING ANYONE'S NAME,
and there was one member who took offense, and popped in to comment.
I did not mention anyone's name,
but apparently someone insisted, and still insists, that this was about them.

It is safe to conclude that if one were to throw a rock into a pen full of
pigs,
and one of them squealed,
that the one that squealed,
would be the one that you had hit.
Who is it that says that this "shoe fits"?
It is a good dog, who knows his name,
and comes when he is called.

It makes perfect sense to ban the person WHO ACTUALLY IS
making personal attacks BY NAME.

It makes NO sense AT ALL to ban the person WHO IS NOT
making personal attacks, BUT who just
"hit the nail on the head" so well that the disinformer
identified himself by taking it personally.

Scott Peden <scotpeden@cruzio.com> wrote:

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} Accusing someone of being a mole/troll/cointelpro/spy, definitely is a pointed personal derogatory remark (unless the rare person out there just loves the label).

-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of alan random
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2006 3:28 PM
To: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [911TruthAction] New rule to stop the disruptors?

OK, how about this?:
From now on, let's consider all spy/cointelpro accusations of list members as a form of flaming. Under this rule, you can still accuse people not in this group of being disinfo agents (although this too, is a very annoying distraction), but if one accuses a fellow 911truthaction group member of being an agent/spy, they will be warned once. If they do it again, they will be removed.

For those on this list who are currently engaged in spy-accusation battles, you are free to continue your threads, but from here on out you must debate only the issues and refrain from further personal attacks or accusations.

If anyone disagrees with this policy suggestion, let me know. If no one disagrees, I think it should be made effective immediately.

Scott Peden <scotpeden@cruzio.com> wrote:
I think this will help.

Personally I like the no flaming rule. It works like this;
!

A flame is a derogatory remark, pointedly personal at a group member. Issues are OK for flame the hell out of, people on the group, no way.

In one of my larger groups we have found ! that what drives people off fast, are Flame wars, Spam, and the same article being posted repeatedly. Flame wars cost a group of 600 members about 3 members a day for at least 3 days after then flaming has stopped. That is, one day of flame wars can cost 10 members.

You can’t get the word out if the group members are now looking at the negative side of being in the group.

If you want the cointel disinformation subversives agents here on this list, as it has appeared to me, then post it on the home page so the new members know what is up and that they have to figure this out fro themselves.

Stick to the groups purpose, rules only facilitate achieving your purpose.

-----Original Message-----
From: 911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com [mailto:911TruthAction@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of alan random
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:13 PM
To: 911truthaction@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [911TruthAction] New rule to stop the disruptors?

Hi everyone,

As you've all noticed, there have been a lot of divisive posts lately with people attacking others as Cointelpro, etc. And this can be very depressing and distracting. That's what they want. So don't let it get to you. Don't let them ruin this very important group. W! e can figure out a way to fix this problem.
Here's my suggestion:
NEW RULE. If you want to post something accusing another list member of being a spy or disruptor, you must first send it OFF-LIST to the moderators for approval. If you send it to the entire group, you will be warned. If you do it again, you will be removed.

In general, I've always said that I think it's a bad idea to launch spy/disruptor accusations on the list. Because then it just leads to more accusations and more disruption. The best way to handle someone you suspect is a disruptor is to a) ignore them, or b) express your disagreement with t! heir arguments in a polite, respectful manner. I think if we can all agree to do this, we can keep the real disruptors from achieving their goal, which is to destroy the morale of this group.

Any further suggestions are appreciated.

---------------------------------

Brin! gs words and photos together (easily) with
PhotoMail - it's free and works with Yahoo! Mail.

---------------------------------


What are the most popular cars? Find out at Yahoo! Autos

SPONSORED LINKS
United state bankruptcy court western district of texas United state life insurance Moving to the united state United state patent United state patent search United states patent office

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

Visit your group "911TruthAction" on the web.

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail
Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 8
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:57:21 -0000
From: "savefreedom2005" <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
Subject: Federal tactics for Information Warfare

Invasive Federal tactics for Information Warfare on the Internet
(only a fed disinformer could object to this post. Let's see who
squeals)

It is very simple:
We learn who the most effective human rights activists are,
by seeing who the government shills attack.
We learn who the government shills are,
by seeing who attacks the most effective human rights activists.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb/misc/infowarDistraction.html

Information Warfare on the Internet
[I posted this to alt.mindcontrol in early December, 1997. The
group had been flooded with posts for sex-related web sites, and
included graphic jpeg images. While this post is mostly about Usenet
news groups, much of it applies to email and web sites too. The term
information warfare is, in many respects, just a new word for what
used to be called propaganda.]

The recent porn posts in alt.mindcontrol fit in as one of a variety
of techniques for disrupting internet news groups. If you read about
the basic cointelpro techniques, most such disruptions are
variations on those themes. They are also deniable, and this
uncertainty is cultivated and prized by harassers because it can
lead to (justified) paranoia and false accusations that discredit
the victim.

Information techniques
Distraction with irrelevant posts. What better example than the
recent porn posts? Discussion is lost in the noise. (In this case,
the posts may make the group "appealing" to a new audience, so a
small silver lining is that new people can be informed about mind
control.)
Distraction by voluminous postings with no information by blowhards
and empty name-callers. (Can be hard to distinguish from genuine
blowhards.) People who wallow in the mud do not need to outdebate
you; they only need to drag you down there with them. Kill files can
help if your newsreader has them.
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people
will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an
alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular
posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other
and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember,
net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) As
cointelpro showed, there is little that is more poisonous to an
organization than to have it tear itself apart from the inside with
accusations of moles. (The CIA knows all about this from its own
mole hunts.) Moles love to accuse others of being moles; then again,
there are real moles. You have to judge for yourself who to listen
to or what to believe.
Hardware techniques
Spoofing. Forgeries and modified content. Does not need to be global
over the whole internet, for example just your local news server can
be modified. If they control your regular communication line like
your phone line there is no end to the illusions that can be
created. There is a danger that some forms of spoofing will be
detected, though, and it is harder to do, so I think these
techniques are used less widely than the others.
Canceling posts. Posts disappear or only propagate in a limited
region. This has deniability as just network problems, since
sometimes there really are network problems. One technique is to
secretly "localize" posts that are not approved by some censor or
gatekeeper. Most people will not notice if their post only appears
on their local news server, and will assume it has propagated
worldwide. They will just think no one has replied (though spoof
replies can be posted locally, too). I check to see that my posts
show up at DejaNews. Hardly foolproof, but at least then I know
people can read them there (at least until more sophisticated
spoofing is available, perhaps tailored to domain names or user
names).
Delaying posts. By controlling when posts show up, the flow of the
debate can be controlled. A heads-up warning can be given to the
plants on the group to counter arguments ahead of time. They can
also make the same arguments or statements themselves ahead of time
to build their own "credibility" or to steal thunder.
Controlling search engines. If no one can find it, it is not there.
I do not have any evidence that this has happened. The real danger
is the possibility of "voluntary" self-censorship like we have seen,
for example, in the newspapers with regard to radiation experiments.
Combined hardware/information techniques
Feedback pathways. An important aspect of psychological warfare is
to have a feedback path to the victim. (This is like a control
signal in dynamical systems theory.) The feedback path may be used
covertly to manipulate the victim, the victim may become aware of it
on his or her own, or the victim may be purposely made aware of it.
Harassers often want victims think their harassers have control over
them. To know they are being watched. This can help induce
psychological trauma and regression in the victim. [According to the
KUBARK interrogation manual, "All coercive techniques are designed
to induce regression."] A feedback path can alert the victim that he
is being manipulated. This can be done by telephones ringing or fax
machines. It can be done with sophisticated mind control methods. It
could even be done in newspapers if some person or agency knew the
newspapers the victim reads and could influence their content (e.g.
the final cointelpro link below).

But the internet is a fairly new medium that fits this bill
perfectly if the subject reads newsgroups. In a simple example, you
cancel a person's post and then post your own article hinting that
you have done it. (Incidentally, psychological torturers can pretend
to have caused anything they are aware of having happened.) The
person gets angry, but they may not be sure, and if they accuse the
tormentor they are ridiculed. (Always try to goad the victims into
doing things in public that will discredit them.)

When the hardware is expanded to include home surveillance and mind
control techniques, the effects can be magnified immensely.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------

Can anyone truly doubt that these techniques have been extensively
studied and documented by our government? The stonewall of denial
fights for every inch of ground, no matter how trivial. People will
still deny obvious, documented (cointelpro) things like this to
delay having to deny the next step of the chain ("Yes, maybe they
studied it but they would never test it on Americans [they did], and
they surely are not still doing it today [they are].")

Secret agencies are still arms of the federal government.

cointelpro:

http://mediafilter.org/MFF/USDCO.idx.html
http://dickshovel.netgate.net/coin.html
http://www.webcom.com/~pinknoiz/covert/cointelpro.html

and at the last site, especially

http://www.webcom.com/~pinknoiz/covert/seberg.html

If a simple request for evidence gives rise to a vitriolic personal
attack,
or an attempt to censor, rather than the addressing of the issue,
then one can only assume that the attacker has no other way to
respond.
Any time that a simple request for evidence gives rise to a
vitriolic personal attack,
you can be assured that you are dealing with a hoax.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 9
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 11:07:29 -0000
From: "savefreedom2005" <savefreedom2005@yahoo.com>
Subject: Totalitarians use misfits to disrupt free speech on the internet.

Totalitarians use misfits to disrupt free speech on the internet.
This procedure will destroy the totalitarian's most effective
method of disrupting free speech on the internet.
Trolls; who have seen this procedure work before,
will generally leave as soon as this message is posted.
Please pass this around.
Permission to add this to web pages is granted.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreedomOfSpeechNow/message/25

What is a Troll?

An Internet "troll" is a person who delights in
sowing discord on the Internet.
He tries to start arguments, and upsets people.

Trolls see internet communications as
convenient venues for their bizarre game.
They are actually afflicted with a form a sadism;
in that, they take joy in hurting people.
A sadist gets sexual pleasure from causing pain.
Quite simply; a troll is a sadist,
who is engaging in the sadist's version of "cyber sex".
Many trolls are bigots.
Bigotry is a good cover for sadism.

Trolls feel no sorrow whatsoever for the pain they inflict.
Indeed, the greater the suffering they cause;
the greater their joy.
For the moment, the relative anonymity of the net allows
trolls to flourish.

Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism
(constructive or otherwise).

Arguing with a troll is like playing Russian roulette with a dead
man.

The troll's usual reaction to a response will be amazingly similar
to the adolescent phrase:

"I know you are, but what am I?"

When the trolls become very desperate, they will resort to insulting
the normal member; by name, AND IN THE SUBJECT LINE, OF THE MESSAGE.

It is very simple:
We learn who the most effective human rights activists are,
by seeing who the government shills attack.
We learn who the government shills are,
by seeing who attacks the most effective human rights activists.

Trolls are quite predictable.
Within a few hours of the first time,
that that this message was posted ,
one of the internet's most active trolls posted a message,
with my name in the subject line,
saying that I am the ultimate troll.

After this message was first posted,
many people asked if there was a web page;
which gave a list of known trolls.
If you want the trolls to identify themselves,
just post this message,
and see who takes offence,
and pops in to comment.

It is safe to conclude that if one were to throw a rock into a pen
full of
pigs,
and one of them squealed,
that the one that squealed,
would be the one that you had hit.

You cannot negotiate with trolls.
You cannot cause trolls to feel shame or compassion.
You cannot reason with trolls.
Trolls cannot be made to feel remorse.
You can say:
"Why don't you take your silly bickering to the chat room,
and stop filling up everyone's mail box with drivel?"
BUT THEY NEVER WILL.
The reason that the trolls refuse to take their silly bickering
to the chat room is that then everyone would see how few people are
interested in what they have to say,
by the fact that NO ONE would go with them to the chat room.
NO ONE, BUT THE TROLLS, WOULD BE THERE!
ALSO; then they would not be filling up everyone's mail box,
with drivel;
which is their real goal.

Trolls do not feel they are bound by the
rules of courtesy or social responsibility.

Perhaps this sounds inconceivable. You may think,
"Surely there is something I can write that will change them."
But a true troll can not be changed by mere words.

The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your
reaction to reminding others not to respond to trolls.

When you try to reason with a troll, he wins.
When you insult a troll, he wins.
When you scream at a troll, he wins.
The only thing that trolls cannot handle is being ignored.

Taking out the trash

There is a scenario;
which repeats itself continuously on the internet egroups.

A group; which was originally formed for a specific purpose,
loses it moderator, and is taken over by trolls.
The trolls bully the normal members,
and drive many of them out,
with insults and personal attacks.
You could put the troll into your "blocked sender" list,
but then you would not know what he is saying about you.
If the normal members leave then they have turned the list OVER to
the trolls.

There is a simple solution:
The list decides on one "Designated Driver for the garbage truck".
The "garbage truck" is for
hauling away the trash, from list trolls.

All but ONE member, of the list, puts the troll into their "blocked
sender" list.
The "Designated Driver" for the garbage truck
reads the troll's garbage,
and notifies the list, or notifies any individual members PRIVATELY,
of anything that might interest them.
Then the rest of the list can operate at peace.
No one is worried about what the troll in writing about them,
AFTER they put him into the blocked sender list..
No one EVER responds to the troll's message.
If you think that someone might have read the troll's insults and
slander,
then just make a general post, that does not mention the troll,
but addresses his slander.
This should NEVER be posted as a reply.
Replying TO THE TROLL will cause those who have put him into their
blocked sender list,
to have to see his message.

OF COURSE, the list trolls can create new ID's,
that are not blocked, as long as they like,
but that is fine.
It only takes one click,
with the mouse,
to put the new ID in "blocked sender" also.
The troll will get ONE POST PER ID.
IF YOU REPORT THE TROLL, eventually he will lose each of those ID's.

Trolls are a way of destroying freedom of speech.
Read up on the invasive tactics for Information Warfare on the
Internet

visit:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~alb/misc/infowarDistraction.html

excerpt:
Information techniques
Distraction with irrelevant posts. What better example than the
recent porn posts? Discussion is lost in the noise. (In this case,
the posts may make the group "appealing" to a new audience, so a
small silver lining is that new people can be informed about mind
control.)
Distraction by voluminous postings with no information by blowhards
and empty name-callers. (Can be hard to distinguish from genuine
blowhards.) People who wallow in the mud do not need to outdebate
you; they only need to drag you down there with them. Kill files can
help if your newsreader has them.
Planting of provocateurs (and sleeper agents, etc.). These people
will vary from the posters who suddenly show up one day under an
alias attacking regular posters, to people who seem like regular
posters themselves. They may work in teams, supporting each other
and giving the illusion of popular support on the net. (Remember,
net IDs are basically free, and one person can have many.) As
cointelpro showed, there is little that is more poisonous to an
organization than to have it tear itself apart from the inside with
accusations of moles. (The CIA knows all about this from its own
mole hunts.) Moles love to accuse others of being moles; then again,
there are real moles. You have to judge for yourself who to listen
to or what to believe.
The reader will notice that no one is named in this discussion.
If there is any person; who feels that this discussion accurately
describes themselves,
that person is invited to comment.

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 10
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 05:49:33 -0800 (PST)
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
Subject: GARGER: Katrina & 9/11 Demand Impeachment - SF Bay View

REQUEST WIDESPREAD DISTRIBUTION


My article discusses that Katrina was an Inside Job just like 9/11 and, as such, is grounds for Impeachment. In it I also call for all concerned citizens to ensure that the Katrina Investigation Panel is not yet another 9/11 COVER-UP Commission Panel.

The article is listed near the top of the middle column at: http://www.sfbayview.com/ .
Please consider sending a thank you letter and supporting this publication if you appreciate their practice (quite rare in media) of reporting actual truth.

Purposeful genocide deserves impeachment

by Cathy Garger

Even if there were no phony, illegal, staged wars going on,
Even if the president had never authorized deadly weaponized uranium to be used in our guns and tanks,
Even if there was no Patriot Act denying Americans their freedom,
Even if there was nothing that would lead us to believe that 9/11 was the inside job many scholars now believe it was,

Continued: http://www.sfbayview.com/021506/purposefulgenocide021506.shtml

Also, check out my new weekly column, Against These Wars, at:
http://mytown.ca/garger/

Sign the 9/11 Treason Independent Prosecutor Act Petition:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/736718529?ltl=1140268605

Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Cathy Garger
Maryland
savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com

The world can only be redeemed through action--movement -- motion. Uncoerced, unbribed and unbought, humanity will move toward the light.
Alice Hubbard's introduction to An American Bible (1912)

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Autos. Looking for a sweet ride? Get pricing, reviews, & more on new and used cars.

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 11
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 06:41:34 -0800 (PST)
From: Cathy Garger <savorsuccesslady@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bloggers in Amsterdam

Dear Roy,

Nice hearing from you again. It encourages me greatly that you are taking up the role of 9/11 Truth Activist overseas!

Thanks so much, Roy, on behalf of us here (some of us stuck, LOL) in the States.

From everything I have read, it is apparently easier for Europeans to grasp the complicity of the US government's role in 9/11 because (a) many already think of our government as the "Evil Empire," that is clearly up to no good (Note: I was shocked to find out from someone I know who recently came back from abroad that other nations actually refer to the US as "The Empire"!) and (b) because they do not possess a personal sense of pride and love for America which prevents so many Americans from acknowledging 9/11 Truth due to the defense mechanism of denial of painful truths due to cognitive dissonance.

Although I do not know any of these bloggers personally, I would like to suggest an approach you might like to consider. As I see it, the formation of the group, Scholars for 9/11 Truth (of which I am proud to be an Associate Member) has, almost overnight, lent a tremendous amount of credibility resulting in a widespread, growing media exposure to the entire 9/11 Truth movement.

In addressing bloggers throughout the world, I might suggest that you share the following press release: EXPERTS CLAIM OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY IS A HOAX - Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium. http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/PressRelease30Jan2006.html

I would simply stand up and read a few excerpts from the website of this group of respected scholars and associates: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ . I would also mention that a large and growing number of Americans are waking up to the truth about 9/11 as an Inside Job (as well as many other illegal activities at the hands of our government).

In addition you may want to tell them about Jon Leonard's ( http://www.waronfreedom.org/) press release about Monday's protest in NYC that is the brainchild of Greg Nixon from our own 911truthaction:
http://newjersey.indymedia.org/en/2006/02/9918.shtml .

Best of luck to you, Roy.

Cathy Garger
Maryland
PS - Still trying to educate Americans about this War On America. My recent works include an article at: http://www.sfbayview.com/021506/purposefulgenocide021506.shtml
and a new weekly column http://mytown.ca/garger/ .


Dear 9/11 truth people,
Democrats Abroad Netherlands, of which I am nominally a member but which
I don't support, screened "Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price" last night
in The Hague and I went over and watched it. After it was over, the current
chair of the group asked me if I was going to "the blogger event" in
Amsterdam on Saturday. I had no idea what she was talking about, and it
turned out the announcement on it had just been sent out earlier in the
evening, so I saw it when I got back to Rotterdam:

From: "Democrats Abroad NL" <robbie@democratsabroad.nl> To: <announce@democratsabroad.nl> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:39:57 +0100 Subject: [Democrats NL] REMINDER: Bloggers in Amsterdam at the Treehouse tomorrow afternoon! Sender: announce-bounces@democratsabroad.nl
Bloggers in Amsterdam
Saturday, 18 February, 4:00 - 6:00PM (doors open at 3:30PM for voter registration) American Book Center Treehouse (Voetboogstraat 11, Amsterdam) Holland.com and Blogads are bringing 25 American bloggers to Amsterdam for the "Bloggers in Amsterdam" program. We're lucky enough to have gotten the chance to have four of the nation's premier political bloggers engage in a panel discussion about the American and international political blogospheres, ways in which both types of bloggers can support each other's efforts and other topics.
Attending will be:

Jeralyn Merritt of Talkleft.com
Ezra Klein
Lindsay Beyerstein of Majikthise
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon
Martin Wisse of Progressive Gold to represent international bloggers

Admission to this event is free. Refreshments will be for sale. Non-members are encouraged to attend. Hope to see you there! Thanks go to Sandra Culley for helping us put this together. Brian Walsh Communications Co-chair Democrats Abroad Netherlands webmaster@democratsabroad.nl

Details of this blogging junket can be found on the Web, and a list of
the 26 bloggers being feted with free flights, five-star hotels, etc.
is at http://www.bloggersinamsterdam.com. The whole thing hit me as kind
of fishy, and I see it's being criticized simply from an ethical viewpoint.
I'll look at some more of these people's blogs tomorrow before going up
in the afternoon, but so far they all seem to be squinky-clean on 9/11,
electoral fraud and so forth.

I'm wondering if anyone is acquainted with any of these bloggers and
has any comments to offer about them. I would also appreciate any quick
advice on how I might best approach this event in the interest of 9/11
truth. I'm tending to doubt that they're all junior-CIA blogging agents
or anything - or maybe they are, what do I know? - but I have a feeling
I could surely handle this thing in a better or worse manner, so I'm
asking for advice and will appreciate any that any of you can whip off
here at the last minute.

Thanks,

Roy McCoy <roy@luna.nl>
Rotterdam, NL

The world can only be redeemed through action--movement -- motion. Uncoerced, unbribed and unbought, humanity will move toward the light.
Alice Hubbard's introduction to An American Bible (1912)

---------------------------------
Relax. Yahoo! Mail virus scanning helps detect nasty viruses!

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 12
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 10:43:53 EST
From: JKMarion@aol.com
Subject: re: Kick ass on Monday!

hiya

I wish I could be there on Monday at GZ but I can't- to all who do make
it- kick some ass! get assertive- know your rights and do not be afraid to
express that to the NYPD jerks- MAKE AN IMPACT- that is the battle cry this
year imop do what you have to do, nonviolently to MAKE AN IMPACT!
Don't get suck in by fomenter agents that crawl around NYC- they want to
cause trouble to distract and tear us down. Good luck Patriot Jim Kujawa of
Tampa fl

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911TruthAction/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911TruthAction-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------