Czuch: You are mistaken. I did not vote for Obama. Yes, most liberals see "hope for change" in his election. They are sadly mistaken also. One by one, he has reneged (or is doing so) on every pledge he made to those liberals. A Manchurian candidate.

Artful Dodger: Amen to that.

Artful Dodger: I'm glad we agree on this. What our government is doing is neither Liberalism nor Conservatism, in the American sense of those terms. More like steps taken towards Totalitarianism. It has metamorphosized into a whole new monster.

U.S. Regulators Stand Ready With More Bank Capitol
http://www.prisonplanet.com/us-regulators-stand-ready-with-more-bank-capital.html

(More money out of our pockets to the greedy Wall Street boys. As if we have it to spare. Can anyone say Heil Obama?)

Analyists: New Era Of Chaos Has Taken Hold
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysts-new-era-of-chaos-has-taken-hold.html

(Has to do with the worldwide economic meltdown. The continued nationalization of banks by the Obama administration is further progress towards a Fascist state in America.)

Urban Warfare Drills Linked To Coming Economic Rage
http://www.prisonplanet.com/urban-warfare-drills-linked-to-coming-economic-rage.html

(1984 is three-quarters arrived. Once the internet is "regulated," it will be virtually complete.)

For interested inquirers, the single best book I have found is: The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin.

It was published in 2004, and Griffin does not draw certain conclusions therein, only presents a broad assortment of accumulated evidence, organizes it and asks pertinent questions concerning it. His approach is very even-keeled, which I think makes his book even more devastating.

Subsequent developments did eventually lead Griffin to conclude, personally, that the government was indeed complicit in 9/11. But he did not make this conclusion in The New Pearl Harbor. He concluded only that a more thorough investigation is needed.

The book can be purchased here:
http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Disturbing-Administration/dp/1566565529

Artful Dodger: lol. You won't get much, I'm broke! Have a good sleep.

Artful Dodger: I agree with you. That event alone poses unanswered questions, but does not make a case. A proper case is based on cumulative evidence, of many kinds, which must take into account other events of 9/11, events leading up to it, and events following it. It also must explain motive, means & opportunity for the crime alleged. It is this cumulative evidence, so vast if one really looks into it, that convinces me and many others that the official story can't be true, and that the alternative theory must be.

Bernice: Proof is in the eye of the beholder. The question is, how much evidence, and of what kind, will convince a person of the truth of a particular assertion? It differs. The other question is, upon whom does the burden of proof lie? That also is debatable.

To me, for example, the collapse of WTC 7, which displays all the characteristics of a planned implosion (very strong evidence), puts the burden of proof on defenders of the official version of events, to demonstrate how a different theory better accounts for what we observe on video.

It is also revealing, to me, that the 9/11 Commission did not so much as mention WTC 7's collapse in its Report.

Bernice: Yes, the article is suppositional in the same way that the objection is suppositional. The objection runs thus:

Suppose 9/11 was a U.S. government conspiracy. How, then, could so many people be kept quiet? Or, why has no one come forward?

The article then asks (again supposing for the sake of argument that 9/11 was a U.S. conspiracy), is this objection a reasonable one?

Yet, although the question itself is suppositional, nevertheless the article does provide relevant evidence to back up his assertion that such a cover-up is possible, nor is it unprecedented.

Artful Dodger: Here's a good article that discusses exactly your objection:

Would A 9/11 Conspiracy Have Been Too Big To Keep Quiet?

http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=not_sh_george_w_071210_would_a_9_2f11_conspir.htm


Interesting reading. I just found it myself.

Artful Dodger: That's what a real investigation might discover.

But there are more coincidences. The fact that 3 high-rise steel-frame buildings collapsed totally due to fire that day, for the first & last time history - pulverizing into dust measured in microns - is no doubt the biggest coincidence of them all. I imagine insurance companies rewrote their policies at breakneck speed.....

Add to this, the fact that NORAD failed to intercept those flights, having routinely intercepted 67 of them previously that year (& averaging over 100 intercepts a year), and we have the makings of a new theory of the universe:

The Coincidence Theory

Czuch: It is also pure coincidence that George Bush's brother & first cousin - Marvin Bush & Wirt Walker III - were heads of the company providing WTC security. How gullible can I be?

Czuch: Yeah, I'm gullible. How obvious it is to anyone, that that building burned down suddenly in 6.5 seconds! :o)

It is officially claimed that raging fires brought this 47-story skyscraper down. You be the judge.

WTC 7 collapse: 3 short clips

September 11, 2001 at 5:20 pm

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Do your eyes deceive you? Or is this controlled demolition?

Artful Dodger: Sure, I know that's your view. :o)

Artful Dodger: I wouldn't expect you to be convinced, even if you were an eyewitness. But others read this board. Maybe just one person, somewhere, will watch that video and his/her eyes will be opened. Maybe that person won't even post here about it. Maybe there will be more than one. The truth is getting out. I just do what I do, let the chips fall....

This is the first video on 9/11 I ever saw, and I saw it on the internet:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598

DARE TO WATCH IT!!!

Artful Dodger: That's a great post! It made me chuckle.

Czuch: BBC News: --There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.--

A quote from the Senate report:

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support...."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5328592.stm

In other words, the Bush administration lied to get us into war with Iraq. No WMD. No Saddam-al Qaeda connection. Now that they are out of office (too late to impeach), Bush & Cheney ought to be prosecuted for these & other crimes.

Artful Dodger: This also is ironic. That you claim to distrust government, yet believe its biggest lies.

As to solving Gitmo, it's a bit too late to shoot them dead. They aren't on the battlefield anymore. In any case, if they had surrendered, or if you shot them now, that would be cold-blooded murder. So that is what you condone?

Czuch: I stand corrected. There was no claim of a direct, specific link between Saddam Hussein and the events of 9/11 in particular. However, there was an equally false claim, direct if not specific (how specific with no evidence?), that Saddam was linked with al Qaeda, and had trained al Qaeda. This amounts to an indirect, nonspecific claim to a connection between Saddam & 9/11. That is why a poll taken showed half the U.S. population believing it for a long time.

How often this al Qaeda-Saddam so-called link was hammered into the minds of the populace, can be seen here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x1293


As to WMD, they were destroyed in the first Gulf War. Incidentally, they were manufactured in places like France and the U.S., and sold to him. That is how, in the first Gulf War, we knew he had them! We also knew he had not replenished his supply. We knew this because Iraq was strictly controlled during the decade leading up to the second Gulf War, both by sanctions & by on-site inspectors.

Artful Dodger: What would be the plausable reason for detaining Osama bin Laden? Where is the evidence he had anything to do with 9/11? The government certainly hasn't provided any, beyond an obscure video it claims to have found in Afghanistan. It is hardly evidence since the man's facial features do not match photos taken of Osama. Surely the government has a better case than this! What is it? The truth is, it doesn't. Because Osama bin Laden did not mastermind or carry out 9/11. The U.S. government did.

Czuch: If they have no real evidence, let them go. Or turn them over to their respective governments. It doesn't matter where they claim to have found them. Prove it in a court of law.

Czuch: Come on, quit skipping around and follow the posts better. Artful Dodger provided the links, I read the articles & reported on what the Pentagon claims. The laugh is on you...and I think I will eat the cake.

Shut it down immediately. Transfer the inmates to a reputable facility in-country. If we feel there is strong evidence against any, initiate public trials immediately. We've had them long enough to know. And the same goes for those held in extraordinary rendition, i.e., secret CIA prisons overseas. Naturally, "evidence" garnered by torture is inadmissable. For those detainees we have no case against, release them to their home countries with reparations & an apology. The Bill of Rights applies literally only to American citizens, but in principle it applies to all men at all times, everywhere. And the only plausable reason for the secrecy which has surrounded our treatment & trials of detainees, so this point, is that we ourselves have something to hide.

Artful Dodger: I wasn't talking about Gitmo. I didn't realize you still were. The terrorists we need to deal with are/were in the White House, the CIA, and the Defense Dept.

Artful Dodger: For now, the solution is awareness. Let us observe, study, research, and not be fooled by a media-machine (left & right) determined to keep us in the dark. Let us not be afraid to examine alternate sources of news, and trust our growing discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff. Knowledge is power, at least potentially so. The ultimate solution? I don't know.

Artful Dodger: These two articles refer to a recently released Pentagon study. However, the Pentagon has all along argued that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Gitmo detainees. The International Red Cross battled with them over this issue for years.

That said, the Red Cross does report that conditions have improved in Gitmo, according to this article:
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,95370,00.html

That is a good start. It still doesn't alter the fact that, according to many reports & testimonies, including the Red Cross, long-term inhumane treatment of detainees was standard procedure at Gitmo in the past.

Nor do I have the faith in Obama, or Obama's Pentagon, that other liberals might have. He, like Bush, works for men who do not have the interests of the American people (or anyone else besides themselves) at heart.

"Military uses include defensive armor plating and armor-piercing projectiles."

The U.S. has been using depleted uranium shells since the first Iraq war.

Learn about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium


See its results here:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=depleted+uranium&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=nZygScXOE4G4twfw1-37DA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title

[WARNING: A strong stomach required!]

This is diabolical. This is the American war machine at work. How in good conscience can anyone support this?

(V): I agree. It is an elitist philosophy with fascist roots. Henry Ford, for example, was a great advocate of this philosophy. He was also a staunch supporter of the Nazi movement. People also ought to research the Bush family on this. They also supported Nazism by criminally maintaining & furthering business relations during war, specifically the selling of arms to Germany. Elitism is the danger. Whether it comes in the form of Fascism or Communism, it is equally detrimental to humanity's well-being. And what we have in places of power, is something like a world-wide network of moneyed elitists. America is one of the main hubs of this group. To be sure, there is competition among different elitist groups. The elitists in China & Russia against the elitists in America, Israel & Great Britain, for example. But none of these groups have the interests of the common man in view. And woe unto us, that their power is growing.

Artful Dodger: Personal responsibility is never to be degraded. We all have it. Part of our personal responsibility is helping those who need it. Another part of our personal responsibility is insisting that our government doesn't put obstacles in the way of those trying to help themselves. I'm glad you also agree that modern Republican politicians have not been true to the conservative ideal, but have piled heavy debts upon U.S. citizens. This began with Reagan. And as you've (hopefully) noticed, I don't exempt Democrats from this criticism. Economically, they are to the right of Nixon now. The truth, however, is that social programs, if well designed, are far less a burden on people than military spending, partly because they build the economy from within. Think of Roosevelt's policies, back when a living wage was the rule, not the exception. They also are better for the world at large, because they don't encourage or facilitate an imperialist agenda. This is an agenda that conservatives also traditionally condemned.

Artful Dodger: More to the point, it is a logical extension of totalitarian philosophy, whatevef the economic system in question. The Nazis, for example, were fascists, not socialists.

I'm glad we agree that these "pure race" policies are wrong, whether practiced in Sweden, Nazi Germany, or America for that matter.

Czuch: Logic is fundamental, we both agree. An argument can be strictly valid, yet unsound. (I'd recommend you take a course in logic, or get a used textbook & study it, if you haven't.) An unsound argument either lacks validity, or it is valid as it goes, but is based on a false premise.

Take, for example, the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It was logical. The argument was that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and that he had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

Yet the argument was unsound, because the premises were false. He did NOT have weapons of mass destruction, and he was NOT involved in 9/11.

The real evil is that we knew this going in. The premises were knowingly falsified. So, to be logical, the sound argument is that Bush administration exceeded Constitutional limits & defied International law, directly causing the deaths of Americans & Iraqis.

Czuch: What a convenient excuse for ruthlessness.

But let us extend your argument. Since "we should wipe [the terrorists] off the face of the planet," and since they use innocents as human shields, it follows that we'll have to wipe out all the Palestinians, terrorists & innocents together. Some advocate this. Apparently you are one of them?

Czuch:

"you confuse society with government"

No my friend, I only say government reflects society. I never voted for, or wanted, the kind of Big Brother government we have now. I only say that, if we have it, it ought to do some good, rather than harm.

You don't seem to object to big government, per se. If you did, you'd object to Homeland Security, the size of the Defense Dept., etc. But don't you relish handing over your hard-earned money for these?

You only seem to object to big government's using your money for other purposes, like environmental sustenance, or uplifting the downtrodden.

Nobody responded to my question when I posted the following quote early this morning:

``The [government] must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge.... Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children.... The prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a period of only 600 years, would ... free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune.''

The quote is Adolph Hitler's. As (V) also observed, occasionally some posts here sound rather Hitlerish. We ought to be careful we know what spirit we are of.

Czuch: So is that why we needed to "get Saddam Hussein" also? So that we wouldn't be forced by his wickedness to murder 500,000,000 more Iraqi children (like we did in the '90s) just to keep him in line? Of course we got rid of him for sure! Him and another good million or so innocents.

It's tough we've got to murder innocents to fight the noble fight against wickedness. Ah well....I guess you'd argue, it's a tough job but somebody's gotta do it.

Czuch: You bet. Psychopaths are quite logical.

You seem to misunderstand my position (purposely?). I don't love government. I love people. Could it be that you don't hate government, either...you just hate people?

“The fascist state has always been an attempt to control private industry by means of inflation, taxation, and regulation. Fascism has always been a system of keeping the big boys alive and happy at the expense of the taxpayers.”

http://mises.org/story/3333

And you guys are worried about socialism....

“Of the 1,330 Palestinians killed by the Israeli military during the 22-day invasion of Gaza, 437 were children. Let me repeat that: 437 children — each as beautiful and precious as our own.”

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2009/02/20/once-you-see-what-truly-happened-in-gaza-it-will-change-you-forever/
[WARNING: This link is graphic!]

RNC Protesters Face Felony Terrorism Charges

“Luce Guillen-Givins…is one of the first people ever to be charged under the 2002 Minnesota version of the federal PATRIOT Act. Guillen-Givins and 7 other members of the group RNC Welcoming Committee — also known as the "RNC 8" — were formally charged with conspiracy to riot in furtherance of terrorism.”

http://www.infowars.com/criminalizing-dissent-rnc-protesters-face-felony-terrorism-charges/

``The [government] must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge.... Those who are physically and mentally unhealthy and unworthy must not perpetuate their suffering in the body of their children.... The prevention of the faculty and opportunity to procreate on the part of the physically degenerate and mentally sick, over a period of only 600 years, would ... free humanity from an immeasurable misfortune.''

Bernice: World downturn.

Definition 1: progressive

Synonyms: advanced, avant-garde, broad, broad-minded, catholic, enlightened, flexible, free, general, high-minded, humanistic, humanitarian, indulgent, intelligent, interested, latitudinarian, left, lenient, libertarian, loose, magnanimous, permissive, radical, rational, reasonable, receiving, receptive, reformist, tolerant, unbiased, unbigoted, unconventional, understanding, unorthodox, unprejudiced

Antonyms: conservative, narrow, narrow-minded

Definition 2: giving, generous

Synonyms: altruistic, beneficent, benevolent, bighearted, bounteous, bountiful, casual, charitable, eleemosynary, exuberant, free, free-and-easy, handsome, kind, lavish, loose, munificent, openhanded, openhearted, philanthropic, princely, prodigal, profuse, soft-touch, unselfish

Antonyms: economical, greedy, mean, thrifty, ungenerous

Definition 3: Favoring civil liberties and social progress.

Synonyms: liberalistic, progressive

--------------
That's a nice word. Think I'll stick with it. :o)

Artful Dodger: I'm forming a new PAC to counter your influence: Political Order Of Taxaholics, or POOT.

Bernice: Very true and.....ok I'll behave. No more naughtiness! Back to politics! Rolling up my sleeves....

ScarletRose: You have to stop that!

Thanks for helping us to lighten up a bit. :o)

Artful Dodger: "ole chap" and protruding teeth...I've got those down already. lol