u10gwcj6zw644r9f 036nzdgjm0109k28 [URL=http://www.801964.com/406483.html] ky7ctlawxigd0z [/URL] 4mdahgdfbjm5cl

lman5y1s8n4l cxyhmjbd44vklu [URL=http://www.139654.com/221407.html] ngcpazqubyf7re [/URL] ml8b7ipl1y1uuw

ftov5lgpesuot cx3h040niog8r [URL=http://www.481609.com/579063.html] 9ixgd2iwicawzry4r [/URL] js9145ngz1em7r9m

t1ifv9vl0nt1ifv9vl0n z2xa5wscvx 1204700754

0l6y6ekg3 j30ruulv7rb4 [URL=http://www.960772.com/511243.html] 2ort8ij7qhffzm [/URL] wgz28b5j

x29hbvug i5d07w8mqzx9 [URL=http://www.561765.com/1022474.html] btvkngpyz78o9xkl [/URL] oyovc6ve1j2iv34

Personally, I like Plainfacto, he is certainly a warmonger that should be ashamed of himself. But his posts are the basis of such revelry and jocularity that I have soft spot in my heart for him. Who could forget his epic comparison of Bush to Lincoln? COME ON DIMITRY GIVE THE MAN HIS DUE, SOME PEOPLE SPIN SIMPLE UNIMAGINATIVE YARNS. THIS GUY DIGS INTO THE DEPTHS OF SOME STRANGE WELL OF PARANOIA AND INSANITY AND HE PULLS OUT THEORIES THAT SHAKE YOU TO YOUR FUNNY BONE. Plainfacto, you are by far my favorite conservative to use as a rhetorical punching bag. I consider you to be the Washington Generals to my Harlem Globe trotters.

//To debate the correct direction of American foreign policy.//

And you are going to change it from here? Do you know somrthing that makes this site different from any other?
Either you know something that you have not said yet, or you are a diatribe-bent PL

==What is your purpose here?==

To debate the correct direction of American foreign policy.

And you, VRIO?

What is your purpose here?

==Get it yet?==

Yes, the first time. You must upgrade your software to comprehend irony.

What is your purpose here?

Quote: "I don't have to answer every question you ask me" -Dimitry

Get it yet?

==See? ==

I am afraid I don't.

What is your purpose here?

I don't have to answer you.
See?
It came back to haunt you.

==We can go back and forth like this and it will not accomolish anything.==

What is your purpose here, VRIO?

==You don't like me, and I don't care.==

I neither like nor dislike you, since I need to understand a motive of someone in order to develop an emotional response to them.

I don't know why you are here.

Ha, don't flatter yourself. We can go back and forth like this and it will not accomolish anything.
You don't like me, and I don't care.

==//Examples of my Lies please?//

Too many to list. What is a 'sookie' Russian? Too late; you should have responded to that...==

I thought your were speaking Japanese, not pidgin Russian. Were trying to call me a "bit$h"? That was very rude if that was so, but I didn't understand it, if it was a word meant to be in a female gender it should have ended in an "ah".

You will need to improve you Russian module plug-in VRIO.

==You thought that I would need to 'eat crow' after you published that story. I let you know that I want to catch anyone that is taking that money, or doing anything sedicious. Not what you expected - eh?==

I expected you to show me an example of a Democratic lawmaker indicted for supporting terrorism, since you accused Democrats of treason. You didn't because you couldn't, just like you can't show any lies on my part that you accuse me of. Just a run of the mill VRIO.

What is your purpose here, VRIO?

==I am disappointed that you couldn't respect an opposing view; I didnt line-by-line cut your trash article to shreds - even though I could have.==

Your views change daily for a purpose other than a legitimate discussion. There is nothing to respect - you are a VRIO.

What is your purpose here, VRIO?

==When the evidence changes, so must your conclusion. I had followed both sides of the arguement and wrote what I felt was right. I am not a bent, diatribe-spewing political generator - like you. Just because I write on this site, don't assume too much - I don't think like pseudo-liberals.==

As I pointed out several times your change of position is fully inconsistent with that of a human beind arguing in a discussion - you became pro-government after government fraud has been revealed - and that is after you sought evidence of fraud in the first place. People experienced with VRIO behavior notice these things - it feels like there is an AI on the other end of the "line".

What is your purpose here, VRIO?

==You assume too much - and too often. If my point changes daily, ir is because the evidence has changed. It would be illogical if I didn't. It is easy to put pseudo-liberals back in their box; they like it there. Mucking boots are required to clean out horse stall - so one's feet don't get soaked in s#!+.==

Again, your point changes daily in direction opposite of what human logic dictates.

What is your purpose here, VRIO?

==Whereas, you are all-knowing and constantly holding up the pseudo-liberal banner. Neither you or I were in the SOH; all of this is so much speculation anyway. My guess is still as good as your guess; even though I was being fair whie you remain popular with your P-L crowd. I don't say things to be popular or liked; I say it bercaue it needed to be said to be fair. But I am sure you wouldn't know what that means.==

You keep evading the evidence. You can take any position you like, but it must logically self consistent to be treated as that of a debate participant. Great majority of participants follow these self-evident "rules", if one can even call natural human behavior a rule. If you declare yourself to be a government skeptic one day, looking for evidence of government impropriety, and in a blink of an eye flip into a guise of a government supporter, advocating aggressive response to a situation just revealed as largely fraudulent, you reveal a staggering amount self-inconsistency and cognitive dissonance that is usually impossible within a normal human being. It is possible and even likely in a VRIO - an entity that is "debating" for purposes that have nothing to do with looking for truth.

What is your purpose here?

==No, it means that you are probably crying and wish you could run to Mama - just like I said.==

Talking with VRIOs is like talking to an alien life form.

What is your purpose here?

==You don't have much credibility with me; you lie just to attempt to win a point.==

//Examples of my Lies please?//

Too many to list. What is a 'sookie' Russian? Too late; you should have responded to that...

==Just like the story that you published about the Republican that was indicted - you could not understand my answer - I am quite sure of that. So you think you knew the whole story the first time around?==

//My posting of a factual story is evidence of my lying or lack of credibility? Are you insane? Wait, don't answer this - as a VRIO, such question would be meaningless.//

You thought that I would need to 'eat crow' after you published that story. I let you know that I want to catch anyone that is taking that money, or doing anything sedicious. Not what you expected - eh? You didn't get the arguement that you were hoping for. Sounds like are mad and crying to me...

==What a difficult job it must be, acting as if you are God. You have no shame. I didn't 'play' anything in a guessing game - with 'clueless'.==

//You have an unruly temper that you need to control.//

I am disappointed that you couldn't respect an opposing view; I didnt line-by-line cut your trash article to shreds - even though I could have.

==I can admit that I adapted to what the news said, and you just seem to 'know-it-all?==

//What does that mean? You have changed your position 180 degrees in matter of hours, from a proponent of a sceptical attitude toward "government information" to fully backing a strong response to "intolerable iranian aggression toward our Navy!" That's quite a change for a simple human being to take. I posit that you are in fact holding a discussion for purposes other than obvious debate - your actions are consistent with that of a VRIO.//

When the evidence changes, so must your conclusion. I had followed both sides of the arguement and wrote what I felt was right. I am not a bent, diatribe-spewing political generator - like you. Just because I write on this site, don't assume too much - I don't think like pseudo-liberals.

==And yes, I took an unpopular stance in a chatroom full of pseudo-liberals full of themselves. I think that it has become necessary to wear mucking boots to put up with this slop! And I followed thru with my point, regardless of the fact that great genius would need to feed on an opposite but proper arguement.==

//You ARE very brave, to repel the liberals with such manly vigor, at such personal risk! My point is that your "POINT" changes daily, depending on the phase of the news cycle, a position inconsistent with that of a whole individual of any persuasion debating in a forum, and is fully consistent with that of a VRIO.//

You assume too much - and too often. If my point changes daily, ir is because the evidence has changed. It would be illogical if I didn't. It is easy to put pseudo-liberals back in their box; they like it there. Mucking boots are required to clean out horse stall - so one's feet don't get soaked in s#!+.

==Again, so full of yourself that it would be comical if it weren't pathetically tragic.==

//And above disproves my point how, exactly?//

It doesn't; that particular statement is an observation of your character and credibillity.

==I am quite convinced that your own pride will not alow you to see beyond your own great nose. I stuck with my point as long as the evidence stayed the same. Then I ventured the best possible scenario - which by the way was quite well done - and you just couldn't handle it.==

//My point exactly. You stuck with your POSITION, as long as the ofiicial version seemed like it was holding up, then abruptly chaned your entire orientation toward the subject once it unraveled as a fraud, but in a direction OPPOSITE that of standard human cognitive norms. Look here - you took a skeptical position against the government version of events, yet when your skepticism was "proven right", you abruptly became a government supporter, advocating aggressive action. The standard path for human cognition would have been to amplify your skepticism and take a position further against the official trend, once fraud was uncovered. What you have done was a glaring example of argueing for another purpose.//

Whereas, you are all-knowing and constantly holding up the pseudo-liberal banner. Neither you or I were in the SOH; all of this is so much speculation anyway. My guess is still as good as your guess; even though I was being fair whie you remain popular with your P-L crowd. I don't say things to be popular or liked; I say it bercaue it needed to be said to be fair. But I am sure you wouldn't know what that means.

===I think your mother is calling you, you better go now...==

//I take that as a sign of deep frustration that your "cover" has been blown//

No, it means that you are probably crying and wish you could run to Mama - just like I said.

Not everybody that notices someone's mistakes or just plain "makes sense" is full of himself or proud.
In every argument, there's a right side and wrong side. It doesn't matter "who" is right or wrong, at this point behind computers, it's just statistics and nicknames. The point is, there is a right- and a wrong.
It'd be useful if wrong side tries to be on the right side, the next time around, that's called advancing towards a better world.

==You don't have much credibility with me; you lie just to attempt to win a point.==

Examples of my Lies please?

==Just like the story that you published about the Republican that was indicted - you could not understand my answer - I am quite sure of that. So you think you knew the whole story the first time around?==

My posting of a factual story is evidence of my lying or lack of credibility? Are you insane? Wait, don't answer this - as a VRIO, such question would be meaningless.

==What a difficult job it must be, acting as if you are God. You have no shame. I didn't 'play' anything in a guessing game - with 'clueless'.==

You have an unruly temper that you need to control.

==I can admit that I adapted to what the news said, and you just seem to 'know-it-all?==

What does that mean? You have changed your position 180 degrees in matter of hours, from a proponent of a sceptical attitude toward "government information" to fully backing a strong response to "intolerable iranian aggression toward our Navy!" That's quite a change for a simple human being to take. I posit that you are in fact holding a discussion for purposes other than obvious debate - your actions are consistent with that of a VRIO.

==And yes, I took an unpopular stance in a chatroom full of pseudo-liberals full of themselves. I think that it has become necessary to wear mucking boots to put up with this slop! And I followed thru with my point, regardless of the fact that great genius would need to feed on an opposite but proper arguement.==

You ARE very brave, to repel the liberals with such manly vigor, at such personal risk! My point is that your "POINT" changes daily, depending on the phase of the news cycle, a position inconsistent with that of a whole individual of any persuasion debating in a forum, and is fully consistent with that of a VRIO.

==Again, so full of yourself that it would be comical if it weren't pathetically tragic.==

And above disproves my point how, exactly?

==I am quite convinced that your own pride will not alow you to see beyond your own great nose. I stuck with my point as long as the evidence stayed the same. Then I ventured the best possible scenario - which by the way was quite well done - and you just couldn't handle it.==

My point exactly. You stuck with your POSITION, as long as the ofiicial version seemed like it was holding up, then abruptly chaned your entire orientation toward the subject once it unraveled as a fraud, but in a direction OPPOSITE that of standard human cognitive norms. Look here - you took a skeptical position against the government version of events, yet when your skepticism was "proven right", you abruptly became a government supporter, advocating aggressive action. The standard path for human cognition would have been to amplify your skepticism and take a position further against the official trend, once fraud was uncovered. What you have done was a glaring example of argueing for another purpose.

What is that purpose?

===I think your mother is calling you, you better go now...==

I take that as a sign of deep frustration that your "cover" has been blown.

This just in the Iranians are acquiring a death ray from the Romulans and they will use it against us, to save American lives we have to nuke them now!!!

Bottom line, the Navy backed away from its assertions as soon as Iran released its tape and some audio people got a hold of the tape and realized that the threat was dubbed in for propaganda. I saw the Iranian tape and if you guys could understand farsi you would see how implausible that based on the conversation, that this crew was planning an attack or to provoke the American battle group. Even though the tape was only 5 minutes long, there where no preparations or orders given for evasive actions, the tone of voice and nature of the comments focused on identify the ships their speed, and raising the bridge of the boat. The guys on the speedboats where practically jovial asking each other if they used proper English, and joking around saying,"do you think they speak farsi". Yes, I know the tape is only few minutes long but their is no indication from the first 5 minutes that it shows that the Iranians were about to charge the American gunboats. Rev. guard sailors are a committed and tough bunch no doubt, but the tone of their voice and their comments were such that they could have been ordering lunch or talking about soccer. I HAVEN'T BEEN IN COMBAT, BUT IF I WAS GOING TO PLAY A GAME OF CHICKEN WITH A BOAT 10,000 TIMES MY SIZE WITH NO WEAPONS, I THINK I MIGHT AT LEAST GET A LITTLE TENSE OR MAYBE AT LEAST THE TONE OF MY VOICE MIGHT GET AGITATED OR EXCITED IN THE MINUTES RIGHT BEFORE YOU CHARGE THE BOATS. THIS WHOLE THING IS A SHAM, AND A POORLY EXECUTED ONE, EVEN SO IT WILL STILL FOOL MANY OF OUR CITIZENS. THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA REPEATED BUSH'S LIE WITH GUSTO, AND THEY BURIED THE NAVY'S SUBSEQUENT BACKTRACKING ON THE BACK PAGES.

The real story here as Dimitry has pointed out is that our government got caught red handed lying again to the American people, and the world in order to create conditions for warfare. HOW THE LITTLE GOEBBELS WHO OCCUPY OUR MEDIA ARE NOT OUTRAGED BY THIS, AND HOW THEY BUY THIS CONVENIENT FILLIPINO MONKEY COVER STORY WITHOUT ANY DIGGING DEFIES THE IMAGINATION. EXCEPT WHEN YOU REALIZE THAT THEY ARE PART OF THE BUSH MURDER CABAL CONSPIRACY.

This problem is actually bigger than just George Bush, it is problem with America at large and our love affair for resorting to violence as the principal means of dispute resolution. Of all the military engagements we have fought in our long and bloody history you can count on one hand the ones that are actually justified. Afghanistan was a justifiable campaign. WWII was justifiable, and probably Korea as well.

THESE DIRTY LITTLE WARS HAVE BADLY DAMAGED OUR SOCIETY AT EVERY LEVEL. THIS CURRENT ECONOMIC DOWNTURN IS PRINCIPALLY DUE TO THE IRAQ WAR, WAR BRINGS INFLATION, ESPECIALLY IF YOU CUT TAXES WHILE INCREASING GOVERNMENT SPENDING. INFLATION NUMBERS NOW SAY THAT LAST YEARS INFLATION RATE WAS THE HIGHEST IN 17 YEARS. BUT I KNOW HOW ARE YOU WARMONGERS GOING TO FEEL LIKE MEN IF YOUR GOVERNMENT ISN'T KILLING SOME BROWN PEOPLE SOMEWHERE. IS VIOLENCE THE ONLY WAY YOU PEOPLE CAN GET THE FLAG TO RISE BEYOND HALF STAFF SO TO SPEAK?

//No, you are not honest. In fact, you spent the first two days after the straits of Hormus "incident" playing "experienced" spy, trying to find technical fault with the official version and attempting to gain credibility as an "independent".//

You don't have much credibility with me; you lie just to attempt to win a point. Just like the story that you published about the Republican that was indicted - you could not understand my answer - I am quite sure of that. So you think you knew the whole story the first time around? What a difficult job it must be, acting as if you are God. You have no shame. I didn't 'play' anything in a guessing game - with 'clueless'.

//Then when the story unraveled by itself, you abruptly changed your tack, ignoring or minimizing the very fraud you recently seemed eager to find, hammering instead on the "Iranian aggression", stubbornly and single-mindedly advocating a "strong" and "long overdue" response to an "intolerable situation". The obvious contradicton of your positions separated by just hours of clock time is of no concern to you - it is best not notices, as far as you are concerned.//

I can admit that I adapted to what the news said, and you just seem to 'know-it-all? And yes, I took an unpopular stance in a chatroom full of pseudo-liberals full of themselves. I think that it has become necessary to wear mucking boots to put up with this slop! And I followed thru with my point, regardless of the fact that great genius would need to feed on an opposite but proper arguement. Sookie!

//This is a classic trait of someone who is not argueing from the facts, but is conversing for a purpose, usually far removed from the specific discussion at hand. This is also a common trait of a "VRIO" (Russian acronym for "Virtual Information Object"), a web-presence animated by a human, but not adhering to standard human cognitive norms.//

Again, so full of yourself that it would be comical if it weren't pathetically tragic.

//I see the same traits in the President as well. When Iraq is not going well, he changes the topic, focusing on the "fight against AQ" and "supporting the troops". When there is no political movement, previous "benchmarks" are discarded and a new talking point - "iraqi solutions" is dragged out in front of the sycophant media. The President's main purpose is to establish the permanent American military presence in Iraqi - a form of neocolonialims and he will go to great length to insure this happens//

I am quite convinced that your own pride will not alow you to see beyond your own great nose. I stuck with my point as long as the evidence stayed the same. Then I ventured the best possible scenario - which by the way was quite well done - and you just couldn't handle it. I think your mother is calling you, you better go now...

==I am honest, and you are bent.==

No, you are not honest. In fact, you spent the first two days after the straits of Hormus "incident" playing "experienced" spy, trying to find technical fault with the official version and attempting to gain credibility as an "independent".

Then when the story unraveled by itself, you abruptly changed your tack, ignoring or minimizing the very fraud you recently seemed eager to find, hammering instead on the "Iranian aggression", stubbornly and single-mindedly advocating a "strong" and "long overdue" response to an "intolerable situation". The obvious contradicton of your positions separated by just hours of clock time is of no concern to you - it is best not notices, as far as you are concerned.

This is a classic trait of someone who is not argueing from the facts, but is conversing for a purpose, usually far removed from the specific discussion at hand. This is also a common trait of a "VRIO" (Russian acronym for "Virtual Information Object"), a web-presence animated by a human, but not adhering to standard human cognitive norms.

I see the same traits in the President as well. When Iraq is not going well, he changes the topic, focusing on the "fight against AQ" and "supporting the troops". When there is no political movement, previous "benchmarks" are discarded and a new talking point - "iraqi solutions" is dragged out in front of the sycophant media. The President's main purpose is to establish the permanent American military presence in Iraqi - a form of neocolonialims and he will go to great length to insure this happens.

Remember Jessica Lynch Story?

Guess who wrote the Strait of Hormuz story:
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3762

There are many honorable people in US Navy. My father taught me to respect honorable people.

//I am very used to the fact that you are a propagandist//

No; but I can see that when someone stands up to your propaganda - by showing plausable facts, you fight back. That makes you a well-disciplined propagandist. I see you do this quite often, and you say I have no shame?
I am honest, and you are bent.

//Judging by yuor pavlovian reaction, it worked quite well.

You are drooling again//

No, I am laughing again.
Big difference...

==liked what I wrote, and it is my opinion.
Get used to it.. ==

I am very used to the fact that you are a propagandist.

==Your attempt to pick apart what I said was humerous, and not at all credible.
Sooo Sorry! Your attempt to call this a psyops deal is wrong; the US used real info and merely waited to use it.
That is NOT how one defines psyops.==

What real info? A shore based common heckler (or likely a flase flag transmission) superimposed on the video of Iranian boats in disputed waters, with every non-politically motivated Navy officer stating that this was no big deal, happens all the time, low threat?

However you define psyops, it was a bunch of lies anonymously leaked to the friendly and dumb MSM to create a false impression of immediate danger from Iran.

Judging by yuor pavlovian reaction, it worked quite well.

You are drooling again.

What's the matter D?
Didn't like my say when it was my turn? Regardless of what you said, it was fair. What I said about the Basij made it real- and you didn't like it?
I liked what I wrote, and it is my opinion.
Get used to it..

Your attempt to pick apart what I said was humerous, and not at all credible.
Sooo Sorry! Your attempt to call this a psyops deal is wrong; the US used real info and merely waited to use it.
That is NOT how one defines psyops.

See: Psych Warfare 101

Hey D, this might surprise you.
I don't give a flyin' fig if it is a repub or a dem that is doing it.
Thanks for the tip.

I would indite them - too. Point is, there have been many dems doing things they shouldn't have. You have only cited one traitor. I don't care where the chips may fall. I am interested in finding them all.

Any traitor(s) or those involved in any sedicious acts against this gov't - from oil money or indirectly from oil money - need to be caught an prosecuted. I would hope that your are interested in seeing the right thing done; not that you felt that you won a small victory in an arguement - as you motivation. Another one down, and more to follow.

Remember, it is the law...

PF here has claimed that Democrats are revealing secrets and abbetting the enemy.

It appears that our Republican friends are rather more guilty:

-------------------------------------------
Ex-lawmaker charged in terror conspiracy

Former Congressman Charged in Conspiracy Involving Terror Fundraising Ring

LARA JAKES JORDAN
AP News

Jan 16, 2008 15:04 EST

A former congressman and delegate to the United Nations was indicted Wednesday as part of a terrorist fundraising ring that allegedly sent more than $130,000 to an al-Qaida and Taliban supporter who has threatened U.S. and international troops in Afghanistan.

The former Republican congressman from Michigan, Mark Deli Siljander, was charged with money laundering, conspiracy and obstructing justice for allegedly lying about lobbying senators on behalf of an Islamic charity that authorities said was secretly sending funds to terrorists.

A 42-count indictment, unsealed in U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., accuses the Islamic American Relief Agency of paying Siljander $50,000 for the lobbying -- money that turned out to be stolen from the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987.
...
-------------------------------------------
Ouch.

REALLY, IT IS COMPILATION NO ONE IN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OR GOVERNMENT CLAIMED THAT WHEN THEY REALESED THE TAPE, NOBODY AND NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT NOW? EITHER WAY IT IS A DOCTORED TAPE AND IT IS THEREFORE A FORGERY. IT IS LIKE ME GETTING A CHECK CHANGING THE NAME ON THE CHECK AND THEN CLAIMING THE CHECK WAS REAL, I JUST PUT MY NAME ON THE CHECK AS OPPOSED TO THE REAL PERSON IT WAS WRITTEN TO, ONE MATERIAL, BAD MOTIVE CHANGE TO A DOCUMENT OR RECORDING IS ENOUGH TO GET YOU THROWN IN PRISON. I WATCHED THE IRANIAN TAPE AND THE ACTIONS AND TONE OF THE IRANIAN SAILORS WAS CALM, RELAXED, AND JOVIAL, HARDLY THE LEVEL OF GRAVITY YOU COULD ASSUME FOR THE CREW OF SPEED BOAT THAT WAS GOING TO A DANCE OF DEATH WITH 3 SHIP AMERICAN BATTLEGROUP.

Even if Bush claims he had permission from Oman(which I have seen no evidence of), it is still Iranian territorial waters and you can have safe passage under the law that M. cited, but you can not use the safe passage as means to intimidate the nation whose waters you are using. Try reading the treaty that he posted. In short, if Oman and Iran share the water they still can't give permission to hostile parties to enter that water against the interests of the other party. Safe passage doesn't mean warships cruising around trying to rattle your cage in your territorial waters.

Bottom line, this whole story fell apart within days of Bush's sensationalistic assertions, and it in no way helped us. It just made us look like liars to the entire world once again, and not just liars but bloodthirsty and incompetent to boot. So it didn't shift the blame of provocation onto the Iranians as you claim, only moronic red state types like yourself who view Iran's existence as a provocation would draw that conclusion.

==I think that the bottom line to bringing this story out - was to use it as punctuation for Bush's ME trip. There's nothing surprising about saying this - of course. I think that it was timely, and yes, even politically motivated.
Why not? 'If the shoe fits...'==

That is Stratfor's view as well. The event was manufactured to draw ME's leaders attention to Iran's potential danger to their oil revenue.

==If the news media were to have heard every instance of US/Iranian brushes and confrontations over a broader scope of time; it would cease to have any value. Ending up as the 'boy who cried wolf' one too many times to be credible; the US complaints would have been minimized out of existance.==

That is the whole point. There is continuous low level friction when our warships are so close to Iran's shores, and the USN considers these "incidents" completely normal. Or used to untill political information officers directed it to cooperate in a psy operation to generate a backdrop for the President's ME trip.

==But more important, it would have lost its meaning when degraded to a back page article in the local press.==

Just like the false story planting acknowledgement has become for the MSM.

==By all means, this situation is one that has all the makings to become a greater conflict.==

Through no actual military threat, but through political decision by the White House. It would be difficult to do now, since the psy ops have been exposed.

==In fact, I think the Administration was quite wise to wait for this moment for Americans to take notice of what the USN had been putting up with for entirely too long.==

That's complete and utter nonsense. The poor US Navy was just harrased out of existence by these manacing skidoos! USN wisely considered these episodes completely routine and did not hype them out of fear that the HYPING can lead to a confrontation.

==It was a more effective way for the US to say 'we have put up with your toying with us, but now you must either grow up and put your toys away and give us undisturbed passage, or be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions for what they are'.==

That's the purpose of the psy ops. But it has nothing to do with reality. Are you participating in the excersise or are you a victim of propaganda?

==Bringing attention to calling and finalizing ones bluff at this point in time, is alltogether proper. Tensions are higher than they need to be, and this is an instance that clearly points the finger away from the US - and squarely places it at the feet of the Iranian leadership.==

I guess, if you accept the US's fraudulent explanation.

==Doubtlessly, someone will say that the Iranian leadership is not to blame, and these small vessels offer no real material threat. It is time for the Iranian leadership to be responsible, because we might not be treating these incidents like innocent playground tumbles any longer.==

If you want to start a war, a sure way to do it is to blow any routine maritime inspection into a shooting incident. I thought you said you are not a warmonger? Sounds very much like you are.

==This situation has gone from being political harrasment to a serious military dilemma. Are we to be lulled into a situation - by constantly wearing out our patience - that nothing will happen here? Are we letting our guard down because up to now - it has been nothing more than harmless? Isn't it - in itself - inherently dangerous to assume that nothing will happen because they haven't done anything yet? ==

OK, I get it! Attack those dastardy Airanians now, before they get any bolder. Mabel, bring the six shooter, the Airanians are preventing our warships from sailing around our beaches!

==It is importat to consider the state of the Iranian Navy. It is not exactly state-of-the-art. It is not even strong in number; nor well-equipped. Nor powerful. Is it their navy that is the threat; or is it something more?==

Why it the leadership that must be destroyed, to deter the Iranian navy, which is endangering our fleet, wait, their navy is a real dog...

==I am also sure they can become sacrificial; recent history backs this claim. During the final phase of the Iraq/Iran war, the 'Basij' were a numerically-superior sacrificial wave of unarmed men throwing themselves into battle and dying en mass - in a desparate effort to wear out the enemies ammo supplies and their ability to pull the trigger fast enough to kill. The Basij's only strategy was to overwhelm the enemy and take his weapons. Saddam Hussein - at this point - turned his armies around and went back to Baghdad. Tens of thousands were killed this way; it is something that has never been seen or repeated anywhere in history. Hussein knew they were defeated; and he knew to continue wasn't war - it would have been purely murder. ==

It is important to continue the "insane Iranians" meme, in order to seed more fear into the American population and manufacture consent for a "preventive" attack.

==I believe this is quite important to keep in mind. I think the lesson here is clear; they can be sacrificial if need be. It is a question of how desperate they are; or wht that desperation can buy them. The Basij - as well as other Iranian forces will 'fight to the burr'. Don't ever underestimate their resolve or their willingness to sacrifice their own to get their way. ==

I think you are loosing your mind. The Iranians are going to sacrifice their speedboats? Says who? Why? Apparently because they are insane Iranians. And we must hit them hard before they attempt to sucrifice themselves, right?

Why are you not embarassed to push this garbage on people here? Have you got no sense of dignity?

==Keep these thoughts in mind... ==

We sure will. But they are not thoughts.

//The US government forged the threat on the tape//

Who's to say that it was forged; what if it was a 'compilation' tape? In other words, the US may have put it together from a number of past incidents - to make a point clear. This doesn't just seem possible - but highly likely. It makes far more sense to do it this way. It doesn't make them wrong - either.

//ADDITIONALLY THIS IS NOT INTERNATIONAL WATERS, AS M. HAS DOCUMENTED BY POINTING TO MARITIME TREATIES THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ BELONG TO IRAN AND OMAN, IT IS WELL WITHIN THEIR 12 MILE DEMARCATION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS. EVERY TIME US WARSHIPS PASS THROUGH THE STRAITS THEY ARE ENTERING THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF IRAN//

OK So the US has been travelling thru these straits for over sitxy years, even though Iran's revolution occured almost thirty years ago. So, why do they want to confront the US now; or over the last couple of years? Why did they choose to this recently? We have the right to navigate these waters; I'm sure Oman has given us permission to do so. How do we know that the Iranians weren't in Omani waters? But no, the Iranians need to claim 'foul' in an attempt to make the US look wrong. Just like Farzad...

The US government forged the threat on the tape, and your silly bluster doesn't change the fact that within 2 weeks of this story Bush has diminished his credibility even further in the eyes of the world, if it that is reasonably possible. So lying and forgery to terrify the American people is a proper activity of the government? I DON'T BELIEVE THIS HECKLER IDEA AT ALL, THIS WAS A CALCULATED MOVE TO LIE TO THE WORLD AND THE AMERICA ABOUT ISSUES OF NATIONAL SECURITY. THIS IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THIS ADMINISTRATION, WHEN YOUR CAUSES FOR WAR ARE PROVEN BOGUS, JUST CREATE A NEW CAUSE.

ADDITIONALLY THIS IS NOT INTERNATIONAL WATERS, AS M. HAS DOCUMENTED BY POINTING TO MARITIME TREATIES THE STRAITS OF HORMUZ BELONG TO IRAN AND OMAN, IT IS WELL WITHIN THEIR 12 MILE DEMARCATION OF TERRITORIAL WATERS. EVERY TIME US WARSHIPS PASS THROUGH THE STRAITS THEY ARE ENTERING THE TERRITORIAL WATERS OF IRAN.

I think that the bottom line to bringing this story out - was to use it as punctuation for Bush's ME trip. There's nothing surprising about saying this - of course. I think that it was timely, and yes, even politically motivated.
Why not? 'If the shoe fits...'

If the news media were to have heard every instance of US/Iranian brushes and confrontations over a broader scope of time; it would cease to have any value. Ending up as the 'boy who cried wolf' one too many times to be credible; the US complaints would have been minimized out of existance. But more important, it would have lost its meaning when degraded to a back page article in the local press.

By all means, this situation is one that has all the makings to become a greater conflict.

In fact, I think the Administration was quite wise to wait for this moment for Americans to take notice of what the USN had been putting up with for entirely too long. It was a more effective way for the US to say 'we have put up with your toying with us, but now you must either grow up and put your toys away and give us undisturbed passage, or be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions for what they are'.

Bringing attention to calling and finalizing ones bluff at this point in time, is alltogether proper. Tensions are higher than they need to be, and this is an instance that clearly points the finger away from the US - and squarely places it at the feet of the Iranian leadership.

Doubtlessly, someone will say that the Iranian leadership is not to blame, and these small vessels offer no real material threat. It is time for the Iranian leadership to be responsible, because we might not be treating these incidents like innocent playground tumbles any longer.

This situation has gone from being political harrasment to a serious military dilemma. Are we to be lulled into a situation - by constantly wearing out our patience - that nothing will happen here? Are we letting our guard down because up to now - it has been nothing more than harmless? Isn't it - in itself - inherently dangerous to assume that nothing will happen because they haven't done anything yet?

It is importat to consider the state of the Iranian Navy. It is not exactly state-of-the-art. It is not even strong in number; nor well-equipped. Nor powerful. Is it their navy that is the threat; or is it something more?

I am also sure they can become sacrificial; recent history backs this claim. During the final phase of the Iraq/Iran war, the 'Basij' were a numerically-superior sacrificial wave of unarmed men throwing themselves into battle and dying en mass - in a desparate effort to wear out the enemies ammo supplies and their ability to pull the trigger fast enough to kill. The Basij's only strategy was to overwhelm the enemy and take his weapons. Saddam Hussein - at this point - turned his armies around and went back to Baghdad. Tens of thousands were killed this way; it is something that has never been seen or repeated anywhere in history. Hussein knew they were defeated; and he knew to continue wasn't war - it would have been purely murder.

I believe this is quite important to keep in mind. I think the lesson here is clear; they can be sacrificial if need be. It is a question of how desperate they are; or wht that desperation can buy them. The Basij - as well as other Iranian forces will 'fight to the burr'. Don't ever underestimate their resolve or their willingness to sacrifice their own to get their way.

Keep these thoughts in mind...

Looks like evil jihadi, America hating, liberal, little ole me was telling you the truth when I told you that this was propaganda and that the threatening voice on the audio tape was purposelly put on the tape to brainwash the American people. I KNOW THE PEOPLE THAT LIE TO YOU, KILL YOUR CHILDREN TO FURTHER THEIR GREEDY POWER AND MONEY AGENDA, AND WHO DAMAGE OUR REPUTATION BY LYING US INTO WAR THEY ARE PATRIOTS WHO LOVE AMERICA. I have to say, the media in this country is worthless in providing truth and news, but a perfect instrument of furthering the American fascists movements drive to war. AGAIN IN AN HONESTY CONTEST BETWEEN AHMADINEJAD AND GEORGE BUSH, BUSH LOSES AGAINST, NOW YOU CAN ADD FORGERY TO THE LONG LIST OF WAR CRIMES THAT SENIOR BUSH ADMIN. OFFICIALS SHOULD BE IMPRISONED FOR.

AND THERE IS NO FILLIPINO MONKEY ON THAT TAPE, THE COMMENT APPEARING ON THAT TAPE IS TOO PERFECT TO BE AN ACCIDENT, THE ONLY MONKEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAKE THREATS ON THAT TAPE IS THE CRAWFORD MONKEY AND HIS MINIONS. THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT GEORGE BUSH, SHAVE A CHIMP DOWN A LITTLE, PUT HIM A 2,000 DOLLAR SUIT AND HE COULD BE GEORGE BUSH'S TWIN.

Now that the "Iranian boat incident" has been definitively unmasked at the classic psy ops operation (the kind we are not supposed to have stateside, by the way), I have to say that I am again very dissapointed in the main stream meadia's inability to counteract these types of events.

All MSM outlets carried the initial sensational reporting, though the story combined all the classic "red flags" that should have made all professional journalists working in the area of national security highly suspicious. The videotape was clearly and heavily manipulated, the history of these incidents did not conform to the current version, the timing was very convenient to regional events and the top government officials who provided the original information demanded anonimity (though their position should results in mostly public press releases). Yet all of the big name reporters swallowed this line and sinker and reported nearly exactly what the psy ops initiators wanted. Once the fraud became apparent several days later, MSM outlets did report it, but in much subdued, "below the fold" fashion. The headlines led with "Iran nearly attacks our fleet", but did not change to "Government plants false story; American reporters duped again." Rather, a small print disclaimer was issued, and I am sure the ombudsman will "weigh" in with some ciriticism that no one will read. Therefore, even though this opearation was fairly quickly unmasked, it will still be considered a success by the propagandists, because most people will only remember the initial reporting and as a result the support for war with Iran has just been moved by a few percentage points. The administration knows that it doesn't need majority public support to start a war - just a solid minority - enough to credibly scare Congress with screams of disloyalty and force a consent resolution plus funding, much as they have been doing all along with Iraq.

Why are American reporters unable to withstand the classic techniques of propaganda? I would propose a personal and institutional reasons. First, most Washington reporters have become accustomed to a upper middle class lifestyle that attempts to emulate the truly wealthy of this city. Their lifestyle is fully dependent on continuing access to the very same anonymous sources who are planting these propaganda stories in the first place. The sources are vidnictive and have long memories - if you cross them and challenge their version of events in print upfront you will never be called again until the change of government. Therefore, reporters have a strong financial incentive to cultivate quid pro quo relationships with government propaganda officials.

Most main stream media outlets are run by large multinational corporations with much business always pending before the government. It is considered to by very unwise to form an adversarial relationship with the very entities that decide important matters that affect your company's bottom line. Therefore, there is strong financial incentive on the parts of the parent corporation to maintain cordial relations with the government. There is supposed to be a firewall that separates the financial side with the news media organization, but I strongly suspect that this firewall is quite porrous, in a "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" sort of way.

The net result, unfortunately, is a form of reporting that is functionally very similar to the central control of the press as practiced in totalitarian societies (is it relates to public opinion formation), while retaining external trappings of the "free press". The actual free press in this nation reaches a tiny proportion of the population - the amount of access is directly proportional to financial expenditures, which only the largest media corporations can afford.

This has been written about many times before, but is worth repeating, just the same.

Finally, it was clear from the beginning, that several elements of this sensational story did not add up. For some people these glaring inconsistencies put the entire thrust of the story to doubt, as they distrust the motives of the current government. For others, inconsistencies were ignored or rationalized, and the core thrust of the story was amplified and accepted, as they believe that the main reasons behind government actions are good and proper.

This uderscored basic differences between individuals and their resistance to propaganda. Even bad propaganda, such as this incident works on willing subjects.

Pretty definitive wrap-up of this topic:

-------------------------------------------
How the Pentagon Planted a False Story

by Gareth Porter

Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran's military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.

Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would "explode" in "a few seconds." Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS that he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are "just not a major threat to the U.S. Navy by any stretch of the imagination."

Just two weeks earlier, on Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. But that incident had gone without public notice.

With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.

The decision came just as President George W. Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.

That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the 5th Fleet on the incident at about 4:00 a.m. Washington time Jan. 7. It was the first time the 5th Fleet had ever issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.

The release reported that the Iranian "small boats" had "maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy]." But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

On the contrary, the release made the U.S. warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. "Following standard procedures," the release said, "Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats, and conducted evasive maneuvering."

The release did not refer to a U.S. ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that U.S. ships would "explode in a few minutes," as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a U.S. ship as a potential danger.

That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that "military officials" had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out "threatening maneuvers," but had transmitted a message by radio that "I am coming at you" and "you will explode." She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was "in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away."

CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats "dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water." Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.

The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.

In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that U.S. ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away - a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

On Jan. 9, the U.S. Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice - one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the U.S. ship in the Iranian video - appears to threaten the U.S. warships.

A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHF channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon's Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was "a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command, and Navy leadership in the field."

"Leadership here," of course, refers to the secretary of defense and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the U.S. Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defense

That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers - often referred to as "Filipino Monkey" - frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.

One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, "Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you."

By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. "No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats," said Morrell.

The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Capt. David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon's story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, "I saw them float by. They didn't look threatening to me."

The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7. A week later, Cmdr. Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away "before we got to the point where we needed to open fire."

The decision to treat the Jan. 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and Navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the Navy's reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Cmdr. Robertson of 5th Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, "There is a different perspective over there."

(Inter Press Service)
-------------------------------------------
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12221
-------------------------------------------

==Not everyone knows what I have been taught. Privelidged - D? Maybe - maybe not. But I'm sure your parents gave you things that only they could give you - too.==

OK, secrets-man. My parents never gave me classified information.

I am sure lots of CIA and FBI men believed that the US was full of Soviet saboteures, and everytime something exploded at a chemical plant, it was investigated as an act of Soviet terrorism.

CIA has tortured perfectly legitimate Soviet defectors for years to extract their non-existant double-agent status.

Hoover had plans ready to suspend habeas corpus and imprison over 10,000 Americans as enemies of the state.

Rings a bell today, doesn't it.

It's nice to have a real edge; he hee! My Dad taught me right. Some things are best kept with people that appreciate their value. Not everyone knows what I have been taught. Privelidged - D? Maybe - maybe not. But I'm sure your parents gave you things that only they could give you - too. And I am sure that you too have appreciated what they gave you. Alas, Dimitry will need to study on a subject that he doesn't know as well as he thought. Don't feel bad; not every parent worked for the CIA. I can tell you this much, knowing this stuff doesn't make me feel anything but responsible. Responsible for gov't and its people. That is what it means.

My Dad had to warn me at an early age, to beware of possible retalliation on him thru me - yup. It has been no free ride - that is for sure! It made growing up in this enviorment a bit more difficult than most kids deal with. It's not like a had a rocket pack in my closet. Hahahaha! Nooo.

It was more like having to read about the Pueblo incident at 9 y.o. and Francis Gary Powers book at 10 y.o. - and then be prepared to give an oral presentation on each for Dad. My Mom wasn't exactly hip about me doing this. She was a language expert; she could speak six languages fluently. She sat on me and my brother until we could at least speak Russian. "J" was better at it than me; but Dad knew I was more interested in his work.

Actually, I enjoyed reading this stuff; I knew that this was my Dad's work. When he was getting blind, I would read him some espionage based books. That was a kind of inspiration - I guess.

I just wanted to share these thoughts.

I guess I rest my case, as I yet have to learn how to hate people I can't even identify.

Meanwhile... I guess Mr. Arkin is not anyone's favorite poster here, although his blog is very active.
He sure chooses good topics, though...

==Its not BS - unfortunately. I will take the loss here and not divulge. I'm sorry; I thought you knew enough of what I said to figure it out for yourselves. ==

Pure BS, just as I thought. If you knew bonafide secret information, you wouldn't be pimping it out in bits, like you are doing now.

The key point here is that your consider the US to be under constant attack by multiple countries/groups/gangs/individuals. Against the backdrop of the irrational paranoia, you form opinions which favor authoritarianism and aggression.

Like I said - a classic case.

//Just ignore his insane posts, trying to argue logically with a man who has no logic is like trying to teach a cabbage to talk//

Hahaha! That is pretty funny; coming from a guy who once was a pumpkin that turned into an attorney! Ha!

Just ignore his insane posts, trying to argue logically with a man who has no logic is like trying to teach a cabbage to talk. He just jumps around, changes the subject, and throws out wild allegations. Neocons don't like facts; it gets in the way of their prejudices, biases, preconceived notions, and ideology.

We were attacked by al quaeda but we have spent most of our time and resources subjugating Iraq, which prior to the invasion was a secular dictatorship. We were attacked by Sunni fundamentalists opposed to the government of Iran and shiites in general, and now we are involved in a proxy war with Iran who helped us in Afghanistan against Al quaeda.

MANY AMERICANS WHO SUPPORT NEOCON MURDER SIMPLY BELIEVE THAT ANY MUSLIM GROUP OR NATION THAT OPPOSES US OR ISRAEL AND OUR POLICIES IS A VALID TARGET, REGARDLESS OF THE GROUP THAT ATTACKED US. THEY THINK THAT 9-11 GAVE THEM AN INHERENT RIGHT TO KILL ANY MUSLIMS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THAT SCARE THEM, EVEN IF THEIR FEAR IS IRRATIONAL. AND IN ORDER TO GET EVEN AND SATIATE THEIR BLOODLUST THEY WILL BANKRUPT US AND KILL AND CRIPPLE THOUSANDS OF OUR PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS, DRAGGING ALL OF US INTO THEIR MISERABLE, HATEFUL, AND BIGOTTED UNIVERSE. AMERICA IS NOT THEIR MOTIVATION, RETRIBUTION AGAINST THOSE THAT THEY VIEW AS ENEMIES AND THOSE THAT THEY FEAR IS WHAT MOTIVATES THEM. It has nothing to do with getting justice for the victims of 9-11, it has everything to do with "bomb them back to the stone age" type of thinking. Don't assume that they give a lick about America, they don't, they are just bigots and bullies that have found a ripe target that is acceptable for their own internalized rage and smallness.

//Either it is a known entity US is fighting, or it's a "many different, active in US, US active in them, Machiavellian, thats-all-we-know" entity. Maybe that should be my question... is this entity known or unknown? can it be somehow identified?//

Like I said, there are other countries that secretly side against the US.

I read somewhere recently that there is an Iranian national working out of a Pakistani embassy in the US; this bit is meant as an example. I don't know if the source was factual or part of the war being fought thru our press. But it helps to show you what I mean. I am not saying there is a new group that it is doing this; its the same groups with different covers.

//Enough BS already! If you have information - cite it, don't - STFU//

Its not BS - unfortunately. I will take the loss here and not divulge. I'm sorry; I thought you knew enough of what I said to figure it out for yourselves.

==The lesson of the 'minutemen' is a lesson to you that you have never had the opportunity to know. And yours is a perspective of naiivity and ignorant bliss to undocumented info. Just because it didn't make it in the paper, you won't believe it? Sleep well, missile dude...==

So far you are on an embarassing rip of "I am privy to facts mere mortals can't know", which is generally an acknowledge form of internet BS, when you have nothing left of your credibility, but your pride can't let you admit defeat. So you keep on talking nonsense hoping that your opponent tires of making fun of you.

==By the way - Dimitry - I am not a bloodthirsty warmonger - but I know this helps you attempt to win your point by saying so. Sooo Sorry!==

I guess you are just an empty wingbag then.

//Yours is a classic example of unreasonable fear driving irrational response and support of authoritarianism. You are a classic target for government propaganda, a prototypical case. And your position is about as far away from patriotism as one can get.//

The lesson of the 'minutemen' is a lesson to you that you have never had the opportunity to know. And yours is a perspective of naiivity and ignorant bliss to undocumented info. Just because it didn't make it in the paper, you won't believe it? Sleep well, missile dude...

>> Actually, it is an intuitive process of eliminating each country one-by-one as to economic and political aspirations/motives against the US and its allies.

I still can't point fingers. Who's US fighting? Is it AQ? if so, then why US changed focus to Iraq? Is it AQ and many other groups? Then who are these more dangerous other groups that US decided to deal with first, instead of AQ?

Either it is a known entity US is fighting, or it's a "many different, active in US, US active in them, Machiavellian, thats-all-we-know" entity. Maybe that should be my question... is this entity known or unknown? can it be somehow identified?

==Just never reported, goes under the subject of 'damage control' once again. Dang, D! I am disappointed in you! I thought you understood this already? ==

Enough BS already! If you have information - cite it, don't - STFU.

==That was 'damage control' for what had been done. Figure it out for yourself; use your imagination - since no one is going to tell you what to believe anyway. I will say no more on that subject...==

This getting boring. See above.

//I really want to help the cause, so can you please give me some more information about these other groups which've proven to be more dangerous, maybe done more than AQ to US, and they're so important that US has gone after them instead of AQ//

That sounds dangerously close to what enemy spies claim when they think they have a reliable source! (Ha haha!) Actually, it is an intuitive process of eliminating each country one-by-one as to economic and political aspirations/motives against the US and its allies. The, go back over the same list and identify those countries that may act in bahalf of another country. eg: Bulgaria did a lot of the USSR's 'wet work' (read: assassinations) during the cold war. There are many other such examples.

Winston Churchill's memoirs are a great way to understand this Clausewitz/Machaiavelli angularity of warfare. By the way - Dimitry - I am not a bloodthirsty warmonger - but I know this helps you attempt to win your point by saying so. Sooo Sorry!

//Even with the Cold War, which is a dubious example were the continental US was never attacked//

Just never reported, goes under the subject of 'damage control' once again. Dang, D! I am disappointed in you! I thought you understood this already?

See: Espionage 101

//Top Republican leadership has completely blown the anti-proliferation deep undercover system headed by one V. Plame, which was focusing on Iranian WMD work in the past.//

That was 'damage control' for what had been done. Figure it out for yourself; use your imagination - since no one is going to tell you what to believe anyway. I will say no more on that subject...

>> Don't even consider for a moment that it is just one group that I am referring to here (eg: Al Qaida). Many differnt groups have been active in the US. And we have also been active in theirs; tit for tat. Or better...

Let me confirm just to make sure my sensitivities didn't make blind: So US is at war, with many different groups, that they all have been active. one example is Al Qaeda.

But I already mentioned AlQaeda, and asked you why US changed focus from AlQaeda?

Oh, maybe these other groups are more important and dangerous.

I really want to help the cause, so can you please give me some more information about these other groups which've proven to be more dangerous, maybe done more than AQ to US, and they're so important that US has gone after them instead of AQ?

==You left out an extremely important one - the 'Cold War'. there has been many acts of sabotage in the US by the highly-capable USSR intelligencia apparatus. We have also fought them in other countries - thru proxy wars and acts of espionage and sabotage. Fighting over countries for favoritism - gee - just like Iran! Don't get me going on this path - I could go on and on... ==

Even with the Cold War, which is a dubious example were the continental US was never attacked, that makes 4 times the US was attacked. In your mind's eye, the US is constantly being attacked by multiple entities, as you have written. Upon simple historical examination, your factual basis appears to be ephemeral, as the US has suffered from war MUCH less than great majority of the world.

Yet, in you confused state, you have developed a philosophical response to non-existent aggression, where a constant state of (non-existent) war is used to justify all kinds of extra-constitutional means, most of which are only peripherally related to any military neccessety.

Now you are eager to spy on your fellow citizens to deter the shadowy multitudes that are attacking us in your imagination. Total surveilance? Hey man, the enemies are all around! Habeas corpus suspension? We gotta do what is required! Any citizen can be declared an enemy combatant? You gotta break some eggs!

Yours is a classic example of unreasonable fear driving irrational response and support of authoritarianism. You are a classic target for government propaganda, a prototypical case. And your position is about as far away from patriotism as one can get.

==Not nonsensical at all. The Democrats have done too many things to compromise security. It is - by far - on of the biggest reasons that I am disappointed with them. When they start giving up secrets that compromise operational methods just because the operation didn't go the way they should have - they must keep their friggin' mouthes closed! That alone, is a major breech. I was one that also claimed they were treasonous/wrong to do this - just so they could use the info to gain support for their party. I am still extremely angry about it, if you can't tell. Don't go down this path, because I have NO sympathy for what they used in attemping to get in to the White House. Just like Hillary; she is a known liar/opportunist. Be very, very wary of her... ==

You are not just a run of the mill warmonger, you are also a crude propagandist, as well. Republicans have been remarkable in their politization of security issues, up to and including revealing likely important classified information. Top Republican leadership has completely blown the anti-proliferation deep undercover system headed by one V. Plame, which was focusing on Iranian WMD work in the past. The President has repeatedly selectively declassified intelligence reports and directed his underlings to leak them to the friendly reporters to bolster his political direction. They really have been remarkably unscrupulous in their free use if classified material, as well as their obvious disdain for intelligence professionals.

==And I have no problem with it; of course. As you know. part of the system works off of 'key words'; since this is a blog - it is free speech and not 'message passing'. And you think I worry about things too much; how about you?==

I don't understand why any American that professes to value freedom of speech will express acquessense with government listening in on all public exchanges between law-abiding citizens. An authoritarian leaning snitch, though, will nave no problems with this state of affairs, don't you think?

==The NSA is one of them best that we have, I wouldn't mind having a job with them. That is the difference between you and me. I see war as suffering, and you cannot accept the fact that war means suffering. I can accept suffering; it only lasts awhile. The alternatives are not acceptible.==

The actual difference between me and you is that you are eager to spy on you fellow citizens to further a political agenda, i.e. you are a philosophical communist (historical necessety type), and I am not.

//Who is them? Please spare me with threats of Iran as well know what those damn Eye-Rainians are capable of, just say something. give that "them" an entity.
You sure dont think US is at war with a fictional nameless entity, do you?//

Don't even consider for a moment that it is just one group that I am referring to here (eg: Al Qaida). Many differnt groups have been active in the US. And we have also been active in theirs; tit for tat. Or better...

//Wow! So United States has gone to war for favoritism?
And there're people in this country calling themselves conservative or Christian?

Am I the only one outraged at this?//

Please tell mre that you didn't remember that I was referring to espionage and sabotage in a clandestine setting. Or can't you tell the difference? Don't let your delicate sensitivities blind your eyes to the fact that every country is doing the same thing to tilt things in their favor. Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, India, etc...............

Don't read in things that aren't there - unless that is how you debate something - of course.

>> Yes we are at war. The best thing is, we have been somewhat successful dealing with them domestically.

Who is them? Please spare me with threats of Iran as well know what those damn Eye-Rainians are capable of, just say something. give that "them" an entity.
You sure dont think US is at war with a fictional nameless entity, do you?

//Or when you say: if "every" Russian believes there's no difference in freedom, and you know at least one Russian that says so (your mom), then even if another Russian is born, he should believe there's no difference in freedom in US.
Keyword here being "every".//

If I said 'every' I was wrong. But I did say that as a Russian immigrant, My Mom would disagree with Dimitry - thats all. Difference of opinion - since an opinion was already in play...

>> We have also fought them in other countries - thru proxy wars and acts of espionage and sabotage. Fighting over countries for favoritism...

Wow! So United States has gone to war for favoritism?
And there're people in this country calling themselves conservative or Christian?

Am I the only one outraged at this?

//Ok so you think US is at war. Say.. with Al Qaeda. But instead of Al Qaeda, US is focused in Iraq now. So.. maybe US is in war with Islamofacists. But then US' biggest ally, Saudi, is the biggest exporter of Islamic Fundemantalists?//

Yes we are at war. The best thing is, we have been somewhat successful dealing with them domestically. We could have stopped AQ and the Taliban - if it wasn't for Musharaff. He clearly dropped the ball.

I believe that Iran has done more acts of terrorism in Iraq and the ME than we have admitted. That is the nature of intelligence; to create or dispell illusions. I know you don't like that term - or the way that I have used it so often - but it is essential to understand it if you want to know more of what is really happeneing. Some of that battlefield extends itself in to your favorite newspaper or news carrier.

My Dad taught me quite a bit on this subject, as he was an OSS/CIA guy - at the operations end. Espionage and sabotage are elements of war; the better quality of work that is accomplished in this realm has a longer - more useful effect. Every major country does this to influence and tilt things in their favor. Don't be naiive about this feature.

Since it is almost universal, we better be doing it right the first time. Iran has better inroads than we do in Iraq; the Shia have their loyalties to Shia everywhere - be they Arab Shia, Persian Shia. or Pakistani Shia. That is Iran's area of influence, but it is only one they have.

I can't speak for Russians, but I can speak mathematics.
In maths, there's a rule called extrapolation. There're two extrapolations, incomplete and complete. Incomplete extrapolation is when you say 3 is a prime number, 5 is a prime number, 7 is a prime number, so every prime number is an odd number. or when you say: I don't see any difference in freedom. My brother doesn't either. My mom too.
Incomplete extrapolation is a fallacy, a non sequitur (2 is prime too).
Complete extrapolation is when you say if every n can be divided by 2, then n+2 can be divided by 2 as well, and it's obviously correct for n=0 too.
Or when you say: if "every" Russian believes there's no difference in freedom, and you know at least one Russian that says so (your mom), then even if another Russian is born, he should believe there's no difference in freedom in US.
Keyword here being "every".
If that's your strategy of proving your point, then please follow the math.
Hint: It's not a good strategy in human analysis, cause one can always say your set doesn't include "every".

//That is remarkable in it ahistorical glory. We have only been attacked maybe thrice - the British in 1812, the Japanese in 1941 and AQ in 2001.//

You left out an extremely important one - the 'Cold War'. there has been many acts of sabotage in the US by the highly-capable USSR intelligencia apparatus. We have also fought them in other countries - thru proxy wars and acts of espionage and sabotage. Fighting over countries for favoritism - gee - just like Iran! Don't get me going on this path - I could go on and on...

//It is nonsensical. The treats are no illusion. The accusation of treason are no illusion. And forget about me - maybe I am a wounded individual. Look at Congress - Democrats are being continuously accused of treason and helping the enemy - sometimes in those words, sometime in code. And it is working - though their constituents are flooding their offices with demands to curtail war funding, war supporters continuous accusations are successfully forcing the Democrats to vote for the war time and time again.//

Not nonsensical at all. The Democrats have done too many things to compromise security. It is - by far - on of the biggest reasons that I am disappointed with them. When they start giving up secrets that compromise operational methods just because the operation didn't go the way they should have - they must keep their friggin' mouthes closed! That alone, is a major breech. I was one that also claimed they were treasonous/wrong to do this - just so they could use the info to gain support for their party. I am still extremely angry about it, if you can't tell. Don't go down this path, because I have NO sympathy for what they used in attemping to get in to the White House. Just like Hillary; she is a known liar/opportunist. Be very, very wary of her...

//I am pretty sure this blog is monitored by the NSA's computer systems. I few well (or poorely) chosen points will bring unwanted and previously completely unwarranted attention. I detest this.//

And I have no problem with it; of course. As you know. part of the system works off of 'key words'; since this is a blog - it is free speech and not 'message passing'. And you think I worry about things too much; how about you?

The NSA is one of them best that we have, I wouldn't mind having a job with them. That is the difference between you and me. I see war as suffering, and you cannot accept the fact that war means suffering. I can accept suffering; it only lasts awhile. The alternatives are not acceptible.

==They might be so on paper; but real Americans are willing to defend this country. It is essential, because what we have has been so often attacked from many different countries and persuations.==

That is remarkable in it ahistorical glory. We have only been attacked maybe thrice - the British in 1812, the Japanese in 1941 and AQ in 2001. Most countries in the world have been attacked many more times during their modern histories than the US. On the other hand, the list of countries that we have attacked is quite long and makes for rather unpleasant reading. Unless of course you have a faith that we have a right to be the world's overlords and our attacks on other nations don't actually count - we just send troops to a far-flung province to restore American order.

>> To answer your dilemma about our freedoms during war...

Ok so you think US is at war. Say.. with Al Qaeda. But instead of Al Qaeda, US is focused in Iraq now. So.. maybe US is in war with Islamofacists. But then US' biggest ally, Saudi, is the biggest exporter of Islamic Fundemantalists? (google it).
I dont think US is in war with the rest of the world, or all the religions, or... anything specific? who "exactly" US is fighting?
You don't need to explain too much, just say a name and I promise to research it.

Now that you can write, I can't wait to be enlightened and learn.

I don't believe that George Bush is doing anything to protect America, he promised to capture those responsible for 9-11 and instead he went to Iraq for Israeli strategic interest and the profits of his oil buddies. Bush's policies and that of people like him actually make us less safe. Bush is damaging the country, I don't understand how you can't see it.

ANSWER MY QUESTION MR. PATRIOT HOW IS IT THAT WE WERE ATTACKED BY SAUDI FUNDAMENTALIST MUSLIMS BASED IN AFGHANSITAN AND WE END UP INVADING SECULAR AND OIL RICH IRAQ? HOW DID BUSH DROP THE BALL AND FINALLY START TO SEND FORCES TO PAKISTAN 6 YEARS AFTER HE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT DECISION? IF IT IS WORTHWHILE TO SEND TROOPS TO PAKISTAN NOW, HOW COME HE DIDN'T MAKE THAT PUSH IN 2002 WHEN ALQUAEDA MEMBERS WHERE FLEEING ACROSS THE BORDER IN DROVES?

Answer my questions, if you try to change the subject to something else, I will just ignore you and report my questions.

I read what you said earlier about the 'crickets'. Unfortunately, I cound not write, as I suffered a computer malfuntion over the last 24 hours. Now that I have fixed it - and I hope it stays fixed - I will do what I can to respond to you point of view in a more timely fashion.

To answer your dilemma about our freedoms during war; I must say that it would be best to read up on Lincoln and how he had to deal with the Civil War. My point was to use it as a comparison. If you want to make a debate of it and use evidence, I think that it would be great. As in "Lincoln vs Franklin vs Jefferson". That would be useful - if not wildly interesting.

My mother - too - is a Russian immigrant; she never noticed anything that smacked of tyranny being presently in power. She felt safer knowing that terrorism wouldn't force us to make decisions that would ultimately compromise the future of this country. During WWII, she worked with my Dad (an OSS officer) to translate decrypted German intercepts so the info could be passed back to the OSS HQ. She helped protect this coutry, and she had only just become a US citizen!

Just because someone lives in the US; does it automatically make him an American? Absolutely not. They might be so on paper; but real Americans are willing to defend this country. It is essential, because what we have has been so often attacked from many different countries and persuations. I don't think this answers your questions - per se - but it is a start to understand my point of view.

Don't put it past this country to have another Lincoln empowered if it was deemed necessary. You might be angry, sad, dissapointed, amused, or even surprised; But the unpopularity of Lincoln at the close of the Civil War was very close to that of what President Bush has now. Surprised?)Plainfacto

SIR, GEORGE BUSH IS NO ABRAHAM LINCOLN, ANYONE WHO HAS READ THE STIRRING QUOTES AND SPEECHES THAT LINCOLN WROTE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF SPEECHWRITERS AND TELEPROMPTERS WOULD NEVER CONFUSE HALF WIT AND GREEDY BUSH FOR HONEST ABE. LINCOLN WAS A LEGENDARY ORATOR, BUSH DOESN'T JUST MURDER THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HE TORTURES IT, KILLS IT AND THEN DESECRATES ITS GRAVE. THEY CALLED HIM HONEST ABE, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THE UNIVERSE WOULD CALL THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HONEST, UNLESS HE HAPPENS TO BE PART OF THE TINY MINORITY OF FLAT EARTH SOCIETY MEMBERS WHO STILL SUPPORT HIM.

I love it, your posts are so funny, I would get mad at you and stomp on you like I do to other conservatives but I just love to read your drivel. Nothing amuses me more than when conservatives compare Bush to Lincoln, it just shows everybody in the world who isn't a brain dead neocon how absolutely nuts this movement has become. Lincoln, did everything he could for peace, the south attacked federal installations upon his election, the confederacy chose war, not the other way around. Lincoln had to fight the most brutal war to save the country, Bush chose a war that has damaged the country but helped his faction.

Not to mention Lincoln was a poor man who raised himself up by his bootsraps, while Bush is a retard who happens to be the heir to the biggest political dynasty in the country. Please the chances of history remembering George Bush as an Abraham Lincoln figure is about the odds of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy releasing a sex tape on the internet. HONESTLY PLAINFACTO YOU ARE MY FAVORITE POSTER ON THIS SITE, IF PEOPLE ACTUALLY TAKE TIME TO READ YOUR POSTS THEY COME TO THE REALIZATION THAT YOU CONSERVATIVES ARE NOT JUST INCOHERENT BUT THAT YOU MAY HAVE TAKEN SOME SERIOUS DRUGS THAT YOUR BRAIN HASN'T RECOVERED FROM. FESS UP, DID YOU FRY YOUR BRAIN DRINKING WHISKEY AND DOING COKE WITH GEORGE BUSH IN THE 70S?

Plainfacto,
What I've been saying all along, is asking for you to explain. That I'm listening, if you have anything to say, and every time I ask you a question, all I hear is crickets - and mind you, I ask simple and direct questions.
Here's another question, and I'm all ears for your answer:
Why do you think "I can still do what I used do" or "My brother can't say anything" means an intellectual russian immigrant that feels his privacy is being invaded is is delusional, or that his is a transitory effect, or that he is plain wrong about his freedom?

Only idiots think they're superior than others. All humans are born the same, we start becoming different the moment we're born.

I never said I like Democrats - and I don't. Probably one of the worst things that can happen to this country is a Hillary. I respect and appreciate conservative values, and republican free market.

==But Lincoln was posed with the same dilemma that we are in now; and he chose to change rights/status as a necessary measure to ensure that the enemy couldn't find sanctuary and do their misdeeds againt this nation - all under the protection of its dearest liberties.==

Lincoln was presiding over a largest war this country has ever known, with significant percentage of the national population under arms universal conscription and casualties well over a million souls. It is patently ludicrous to even remotely compare the Civil War to GWOT.

==There is a defined difference between a peacetime US and a wartime US. This has been my point all along.==

Defined where? and how?

==Our enemies in WWII had committed many acts of sabotage, and we didn't lose our rights - even though the NCIS, CID, and the FBI didn't do anything different than they are now.==

I guess most white Americans didn't loose their rights, but I wouldn't push this line of BS on Americans of Japanese decent.

==I'll bet you would be VERY surprised if you found out what they did - and how they did it - to insure/secure the space between our coastlines. Why don't you hunt these facts up thru NARA; but my guess is that you will not find them... ==

Again, that was WWII. 50 million men dead world-wide, over half a million Americans, the greatest carnage the world has ever known. How does that compare to GWOT? Except for the exorbitant price, of coarse!

==The 'Patriot Act' is more paper than substance; it might scare some in what it says; but we are still the same country protecting us at home and following the threat abroad. If you were to ask me if the Patroit Act is more fiction than fact - I would have to say 'yes'. Illusions... ==

I guess we will have to wait for open extrajudicial executions on the street, or conversely, shortages of sausage, to convince you things are not as they should be. Patriot act officially suspends habeas corpus for anyone the President designates as enemy combatant, citizens included. True, the right has not been used widely yet, but it is hardly the point. When the government have a right to throw you in jail without a trial, it doesn't actually have to do it. The Soviet government never had to purge the population in the 50s, 60s and 70s anymore - there was no need, as the treat was more than enough. Most of our communications appear to be listend to through automatic means, much web traffic is monitored as well. We are rapidly approaching totalitarian informaiton society, with much of the population happy as clams as long as "Survivor" and "Idol" is on the tube.

==What you have said is that your intellect has been invaded; but I dare say that the effect is transitory - but more illusion than fact. We will do whatever we must to ensure that our rights exist, even if you may think you intellectual space has been invaded. ==

It is nonsensical. The treats are no illusion. The accusation of treason are no illusion. And forget about me - maybe I am a wounded individual. Look at Congress - Democrats are being continuously accused of treason and helping the enemy - sometimes in those words, sometime in code. And it is working - though their constituents are flooding their offices with demands to curtail war funding, war supporters continuous accusations are successfully forcing the Democrats to vote for the war time and time again.

==Pardon me; but I don't anyone at all on this page being 'bleeped' or having the FBI sniffing up their pooper. Well, except for maybe Farzad. (I have to remind you this is meant as trite/lite humor - of course)==

I am pretty sure this blog is monitored by the NSA's computer systems. I few well (or poorely) chosen points will bring unwanted and previously completely unwarranted attention. I detest this.

Your outrage 'M' is only surpassed by your inability to look at other possibillities that exist.

Of course, you are a pseudo-liberal that is convinced of your own superiority and correctness. If you were to listen very closely, off in the distance you can hear Thomas Jefferson 'spinning in his grave' like a dynamo. If he were alive right now, he would be throwing stones at you if he could, I'm afraid. Thomas Jeffersons's concern for this country - didn't attempt to grind up and despise those who were insistant upon defending this country. That is why you are not a liberal; but a pseudo-liberal.

Now really, what is it about what I have just said that you choose not to understand? Doublessly - all of it; because your are mistaken in your own false sense of superiority. Even Dimitry knows better than to do that.

I think what I see coming from your writing, is a 'sour grapes' mentality. Don't worry too much, because when a Democrat gets into office, you will be an 'equal oppertunity sob-story artist'; you won't respect them either. In which case, you can continue on your merry way of creating yet new diatribes to consume yourself with. There will always be anecdotal evidence to feed from...

Otherwise, you will have nothing to do with yourself. Much like Farzad - who insists upon his own outrage and soils his 'tidy whiteys' on a daily basis. Now, I have given you some reason to be outraged...

I'm outraged by people who deny the obvious truth.
I'm outraged when somebody calls truth "illusion". All you're doing is calling any truth you don't like illusion.
I'm outraged by calling ignorance "faith". If you had faith in yourself, you were a leader, not a follower. not a "just accept him" type.
I'm outraged when people call their guesses facts. (Lincoln was posed should be "I think Lincoln was posed", or send a reference)
I'm outraged when people talk about what they think are facts, then say go check it, then say "but you can't find it!"
I'm outraged when people with no real exposure call a law of no substance (Only if you knew how Patriot Act has touched many people's lives)
I'm outraged at people calling invasion of intellect an illusion and transitory. (Even God didn't tell Israelites their dispersion is transitory or an illusion)

And most of them all, I'm outraged when you think nobody has been bleeped or sniffed in here. If you haven't experienced it yourself, it doesn't mean it doesnt exist.
Only if you looked middle eastern, had a middle eastern name and a middle eastern passport, you knew how your country could be a whole new experience to you.

Dimitry told you his first hand experience, and you still call it illusion? You still say nothing has changed for anyone?

That's outrageous.

Dear ceflynline@msn.com:

They didn't make the plutonium; it was given to them. And we did it.

See the movie "Sum Of All Fears" starring Ben Afleck and Morgan Freeman. I'm sure you can find out about the plutonium give away thru official sources if you must, but I thought you might enjoy the movie. Even though Ben's performance is far from great. Overall, it is a good film, it is in my DVD library. Along with many other films like it.

I'm watching "The Hunt For Red October" at the moment; the first in the series of 'Dr. Ryan' - based CIA thrillers. Another one of my favorites.

Well 'M'; this page is Arkin's party for the outraged cynics. I'll even bet that you are one of the 'birthday boys' - so to speak. You have mistakenly exchanged the concept of 'faith' for 'naiivity'. It is not mistake; but your oversight. Now you know.

That is why you cannot understand me...

//I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said,"those who would trade freedom for security don't deserve either."//

Yes, Ben said that. It would have been interesting to see Lincoln and Franklin argue the subject with the Civil War as the background. You and I can only speculate what they would say. But Lincoln won and put the country back together.

Don't put it past this country to have another Lincoln empowered if it was deemed necessary. You might be angry, sad, dissapointed, amused, or even surprised; But the unpopularity of Lincoln at the close of the Civil War was very close to that of what President Bush has now. Surprised? I knew you would be!

Being a president is not a 'Mr/ Nice Guy' competition; it often fraught with disappontments, heartaches, surprises, and tragedies. Ultimately, it is how well they can improvise, adapt, and overcome that puts them on a five-dollar bill.

Regardless of what one may think about me saying this - it is nonetheless true. History will show the Bush was a good president. If the situation gets worse when a Democrat gets into office and does real and almost irreversible damage - he will be looked upon as the right president for his time.

Point in fact: Nixon was demonized in the press - he is to this day. But if you were to look deep into his presidency, you would see a much different Nixon than the press had portrayed. I am not very fond of Nixon, but having re-read a biography of the man, he has certainly been done wrong by the media. It certainly changed ny view of the man.

Plainfacto,

Just answer one question: are you really that naive or you just pretend?

I find either really hard to believe, unless you're the greatest actor of 21st century.

ceflyline,
I did, the whole post. I think I know what you're talking about, that IF Israel has nukes, then it has wastes, which's harmful, to someone, somewhere.
My point is, there is no IF. Olmert said it straight away couple of months ago that they do have nuclear bombs. it's not that the waste might harm some, it sure does, but why'd your everyday American worry about some nuclear waste buried deep underground in Palestinian side of Israel, with just some unknown, unheard of Palestinian women and children living in?
Americans are not even worried about American soldiers who are suffering from depleted uranium of gulf war. Palestine is too far for many.

Excellent Post, Dimitry, I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said,"those who would trade freedom for security don't deserve either." This is it people, America is standing on the precipice, one more war for Israel and American corporations will literally ruin the Treasury. Unemployment is up, inflation is picking up, foreclosures are at 15 year highs, we are still bleeding money in Iraq, and the dollar has lost 50-60% of its value against the Euro. If the dollar falls to the point that it loses favor as the reserve currency you will see horrific inflation that we haven't seen in a generation or more, as foreign central banks dump trillions of dollars into a commodity markets that are already seeing the dollars decline. BUT I KNOW THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED THESE CONDITIONS AND HAVE PROFITED ENORMOUSLY FROM SQUEEZING AND BLEEDING THE MIDDLE CLASS THEY ARE PATRIOTIC. THE REAL ENEMY ARE PEOPLE LIKE ME WHO DON'T STROKE YOUR EGO WITH LAME MEANINGLESS CLICHES ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING IS WONDERFUL IN AMERICA AND HOW WE ARE WINNING, AND ACTUALLY TELL YOU THE TRUTH THAT NO ONE ELSE WILL? THOSE OF YOU WHO STILL SUPPORT THE RADICAL REPUBLICAN/NEOCON/ZIONIST PLATFORM SHOULD KICK YOUR OWN A--, YOU DON'T LOVE AMERICA YOU LOVE YOUR DERANGED WORLD VIEW AND YOU WANT TO BE RIGHT.

M: Did you read the whole post? The question isn't whether Israel has nukes, but the result of the perception that they have nukes, and, as well, were are they? Israel has a few devout citizens who expect that God is truly on their side, but as surely as even God can't make a circle ten units across that is exactly thirty units around, He can't truly hide several hundred tons of nuclear waste. I