Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
Lets start here.
Ahmadinejad is dangerous as it is, given his apparent disposition, as the president of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But as the president of a nuclear armed nation, the situation could be untenable.
"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/
and here:
'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
By Anton La Guardia
Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006
As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"
Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.
But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission."
btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.
We're grown ups.
Oh yeah.
Threatwatch is the net publication of an outfit called "Center for Threat Awareness". Apart from the brief bios of some of the Board of Threatwatch, which indicates it's just a shill for the pro-Israeli, war on terror (Islamic only) cheersquad, all I could find about the CTA was this:
Shy little fellows, they are. I wonder who funds the CTA.
-
So you think Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the US? I assume that means you believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal? Can you show me any evidence?
Quite possible. Pretty much required for the return of the 12th Imam. In any case yes...the leasdership of Iran is quite suicidal. Pretty much standard stuff for extreme hardline Muslims. But the again if you listen to the current bluster from Iran they are not planning on losing
I see. The old 12th Imam stuff. The Shia have a belief in the endtimes similar to the Christian belief in the rapture. Extremist Christian televangelist John Hagee from San Antonio wants America to bring it on fast. He advocates a nuke attack on Iran. Do you agree with him? Does he speak for all Christians? Is he suicidal? Do do you make a distinction between one extremist endtimes belief and the other?
Now you say the Iranian leadership is suicidal yet in your last sentence you state that you believe the Iranians plan to win. This is totally contradictory. Planning to win indicates a desire for self preservation, not suicide. Acquisition of nuclear weapons also indicates a desire for self preservation rather than suicide. If the reverse is the case, then you obviously believe the US, France, Britain, Israel and other nuclear states are suicidal. You should emigrate--quick.
Of course, we know that if Iran had nukes they would be most unlikely to use them. Why? Well, in the 50 odd years they have been in existence, no one has ever used them, except your country when, comfortable in the knowledge that there would be no retaliation, they bombed away. Since the fifties, quite a few states have had the power to launch nuclear war but no-one has--not even Kim Jong-Il. Leaders share a common trait, regardless of whether they lead Iran, China, the US or North Korea, namely their lives are spent attaining power over others--a trait which indicates self preservation, not suicide. They love to send soldiers to fight conventional wars but none of them want nuclear war because the lives of themselves and their families would forfeited. Moreover, the damage Iran could cause its enemies would be dwarfed by the total destruction of Iran which would be caused by the massive retaliatory strike.
Personally, I believe nukes are the ultimate deterrent. It would be better if they didn't exist but since they do it should be accepted that many countries will acquire the technology. If we don't accept this fact, we will be condemned to an endless cycle of pre-emptive preventative wars from which there is a good chance of a slide into global conflict on religious lines, imo. Unfortunately, this appears to be the path that the US and Israel wish to follow.
Except for your unsupported claim, you have yet to show evidence that the Iranian leadership is suicidal. All you've shown is that they have a strong desire for self preservation.
I don't mean physical evidence but any observation you have made that would indicate the Iranians are determined to destroy themselves and their country.
See above, a very good place to start.
I have an open mind and if you can show me any evidence that this is the case I will change my mind. Can't do better than that. I'm offering you a free shot at the goal and if you score, I'll concede right here.
Lets start here.
Ahmadinejad is dangerous as it is, given his apparent disposition, as the president of the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism. But as the president of a nuclear armed nation, the situation could be untenable.
"Considering his aggressive radicalism in context with the potential convergence of nuclear opportunity, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could be the most dangerous foreign leader we have faced. He must be seen and analyzed as more than just ‘potentially’ irrational, as his religious beliefs must be clearly and thoroughly understood. His openly stated desires to “wipe Israel off the map” and “pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam” open the possibility that, with the power of nuclear weaponry at hand, he could unthinkably forsake the well-being of his own nation. In order to serve a ‘greater purpose’, he may be capable of creating a situation so cataclysmic that it would usher in the 12th Imam, thereby, potentially in his mind, saving the world and restoring Islam."
http://analysis.threatswatch.org/2005/11/u...ng-ahmadinejad/
and here:
'Divine mission' driving Iran's new leader
By Anton La Guardia
Last Updated: 12:33am GMT 15/01/2006
As Iran rushes towards confrontation with the world over its nuclear programme, the question uppermost in the mind of western leaders is "What is moving its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to such recklessness?"
Political analysts point to the fact that Iran feels strong because of high oil prices, while America has been weakened by the insurgency in Iraq.
But listen carefully to the utterances of Mr Ahmadinejad - recently described by President George W Bush as an "odd man" - and there is another dimension, a religious messianism that, some suspect, is giving the Iranian leader a dangerous sense of divine mission."
btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.
We're grown ups.
-
Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.
Iran is the most powerful country in the middle east...can you name even one that comes close. How much more powerful will they be with nukes?
For heaven's sake, Craig, you don't have the vaguest idea what you're talking about.
Israel is the most powerful nation in the Middle East, not Iran.
The Wikipedia page on Israel's air force states that the Israeli Air Force "is considered the strongest air force in the Middle East and one of the best and most sophisticated in the world". It has over 1000 active aircraft including the latest variations of the F-15 and F-16 fighter jets. It also boasts the Raphael Python 5 and Apache Longbow missiles, Stinger, Hawk, Patriot and Jericho 1/11/111 missile systems. The best and latest in American and Israeli air defence and missile technology. Moreover, The 2004 Center for Strategic and International Studies Report claims that, by contrast, the Iranian air forces are "well aged and in poor maintenance"
When it comes to ground forces, Israel wins again. The CSIS Report claims Israel has 4300 main battle tanks compared to Iran's 1565 and 9480 Armoured Personnel Carriers compared to Iran's 865. The report adds that Iran's ground forces are mostly older technology, with maybe one to three full divisions of modern equipment:
http://www.milnet.com/Iranian-Military.html#in-general
Israel has far superior military forces than Iran. Furthermore, Israel has nukes and Iran does not. Yet you say Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East. Incredible.
I'll address the rest of your bizarre post shortly--when I stop laughing.
-
Who is naive Mark? Your posts make a pretty good case for you being the naive one here, among others. How do you like bending over for the mullahs? If we listen to you we would find that Iran is just a peace loving country with no designs towards anyone. Those nukes they want to build are just for self defence. They just want to get along with everyone, and all of this is just some sad joke created by the evil Jooos.
12th Iman? No problem. Israel's gotta go? No problem. New caliphate? No problem. Disrupt any progress towards a state of Palistine that does not include the land of Israel? No problem. Keep Syria well armed? No problem NUKES AND LONG RANGE MISSLES TO SUPPORT THOSE AIMS? No problem. A whole bunch of naive people thought that Nazi Germany was no problem....
Nice rant, Craig. I see you've even swallowed the Nazi Germany line as well. But it's not really a valid comparison is it. Germany in 1938 was the most powerful nation in Europe. Iran is not even the most powerful country in the Middle East. You've got to stop letting Norman Podhoretz write your posts.
So you think Iran will launch a nuclear attack on Israel and the US? I assume that means you believe the Iranian leadership is suicidal? Can you show me any evidence? I don't mean physical evidence but any observation you have made that would indicate the Iranians are determined to destroy themselves and their country.
I have an open mind and if you can show me any evidence that this is the case I will change my mind. Can't do better than that. I'm offering you a free shot at the goal and if you score, I'll concede right here.
btw, 'They hate us for our freedom' is banned. That goes for you too, Norman.
We're grown ups.
-
Agreed, Mark, on the "politically justifiable" bit.
But America's body politic -- bent at the waist, hands gripping ankles -- hardly may be described as a "tough crowd" (as in "difficult audience").
How hard a sell do you think the Colbys and Lamsons, in their wooly millions, would require before they bought in?
Putin is wrong. There is nothing mad about them. They are cold, calculating, brilliant (the shepherds, not the sheep). We diminish them at our own peril.
These people are not insane.
They are evil incarnate.
Charles
It didn't take Craig very long to prove your assertion, Charles. Just 37 minutes.
Life would be so much easier for the neocons if everyone was as naive as Craig.
-
To me, the bottom line -- and I use the term in its twin meanings -- is that an attack on Iran will happen if it has been deemed to be profitable and controllable.
Bush is irrelevant. Also, profitable and controllable.
Charles
You're probably right Charles, although I would add the caveat that it must also be politically justifiable. Any attack must have some plausible pretext to sell to the public. With Iran there's none. The IAEA has no unresolvable problem with Iran which justifies invasion, or even harsh sanctions. Nukes in Iran are still years away, assuming Iran still wants to build them.
Like Putin says, America has become a madman wielding a blade. A rabid dog.
-
The neo-cons are using the exact same language for a "pre-emptive strike on Iran" that they used for Iraq.
It is indeed terrifying. Because this time they are talking nuclear. Even Condi Rice, who was at least pretending to employ diplomacy, is jumping on the bandwagon.
The terrible fires we had in CA. all week were being called "terrorism" for a few days. Now just the word "arson' is being used.
When you have the likes of Bush using the words "world war three" one has to be most worried.
Dawn
Luckily, talking nuclear strike and doing it are two different things. But Bush is so stupid that maybe he thinks that bringing on a nuclear winter might be the answer to........global warming!
p.s. Those fires in California were a real shocker, Dawn. We get severe bushfires here in Australia every summer and its getting worse every year as the temperature increases and the rainfall decreases. Incredible that those fires were referred to as terrorism--the media's obsession was clearly on display.
-
Mark, the fear is, I think, that politicians always speak with forked tongues. They say one thing then do the other, lulling the public into a false sense of security and then hitting them hard and suddenly once their guard has been dropped. Since the whole gameplan is oil, then I can well see the UK dropping its knickers and laying back for England.
But you may well be right about Israel at least initially. But since I do believe it is the oil card that is being played here, then Israel styriking Iran's nuclear facilities is just a teaser. There will need to be regime change and troops on the ground to effect control of the Iranian oilfields which are amongst the largest in the world.
David
I agree that oil is part of the gameplan, but not the whole gameplan. Israel and its lobby groups are pushing hard for a strike on Iran, just as they did with Iraq. It was Israel who supplied the critical intelligence about Saddam's WMD's (incorrect intelligence, of course), in the days leading up to the invasion. And I can see the UK dropping its knickers just as readily for Israel.
If America seeks control of Iran via regime change, rather than their stated aim of merely disabling Iran's nuclear capabilities, then it really will be WW3. How stupid and dangerous would a ground invasion of Iran be? Iran's been making preparations. The casualties would be enormous and the invaders would find that unlike Iraq where Sunni and Shia are fighting each other as well as the US troops, the local resistance, entirely Shia, would focus solely on them.
They would also run up against strong opposition from Russia. Putin's latest warning, concerning America's proposal for stronger sanctions, describes the US as like 'a madman running around with a blade in one's hand'.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/st...3e4&k=59910
I agree with Putin.
-
Mark, in the list I posted, in my last post above, of items I thought were worth mentioning relevant to this thread, I omitted some important points. Forgive the oversight, but I think, and hope, you understand there is a great deal of data to sift and categorize, and some of it emerges and takes on proper relationship only after it has been compared to and correlated with other data from many diverse sources.
I'd like to correct the oversight now by amending and extending the list I posted before and adding a bit of discussion to it:
- Kennedy's head, throat, and upper torso were covered by his suit coat while he was being wheeled into Parkland, down the corridor, and into Trauma Room One.
- Nurse Diana Bowron, who was one of the personnel wheeling the cart, lied about the throat wound, claiming under oath in Warren Commission testimony that she never saw it until after Kennedy had been pronounced dead (when, of course, it had been obliterated by the tracheostomy), but claiming in a written statement and in an interview with Harrison Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while Kennedy was still in the car (even though he still had on his shirt and tie in the car).
- Nurse Diana Bowron was involved in removing Kennedy's shirt and tie inside Trauma Room One.
- John F. Kennedy's personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was inside Trauma Room One when Malcolm Perry arrived, meaning Burkley was there and had examined Kennedy before the tracheostomy was started by Perry.
- Prior to and during the tracheostomy, while Burkley was present in the small Trauma Room One, there was a not insignificant amount of discussion amongst the doctors present about the throat wound.
- Admiral Burkley supplied the cortisteroids (hydrocortisone—specifically Sol U Cortef a.k.a. Solu Cortef) to be administered intravenously, telling the doctors that Kennedy had Addison's disease.
- Both Dr. Malcolm Perry—who destroyed all evidence of the throat wound—and Dr. Ronald Coy Jones lied about the source of the hydrocortisone, about the source of the information concerning the reason for its introduction, and about who determined that it should be administered, claiming it was Carrico's idea based on "general knowledge" that Kennedy had Addison's, when in fact the information and the Solu Cortef had been supplied in Trauma Room One by Burkley.
- Almost immediately after destroying the evidence of the throat wound, Malcolm Perry participated in a press conference in which he first planted the idea in the public mind that the throat wound was made by a bullet fired from the front.
- Admiral Burkley supervised the autopsy.
- Admiral Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, did not apprise any of the autopsy personnel of the throat wound that had been sliced through by Malcolm Perry, leaving the autopsy personnel with the impression throughout the autopsy that the damage to the throat was solely attributable to the tracheostomy.
- In stark contrast to the claims by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones regarding the hydrocortisone having been administered as a result of "common knowledge" about Kennedy having Addison's disease—a deficiency of the adrenal glands—Burkley, in supervising the autopsy, issued express orders not to include the adrenals in the autopsy, supposedly because of sensitivity for the family, to keep the issue of Kennedy's adrenal condition out of the press and public knowledge.
It's clear that Admiral Burkley knew full well of the throat wound, and of it having been destroyed by Perry, which means that Burkley willfully withheld this information throughout the autopsy that he supervised.
It is quite an irony that Burkley's own insistence on keeping the adrenals out of the autopsy completely proves the lie told by Malcolm Perry and Ronald Coy Jones about the hydrocortisone in order to obfuscate Burkley's presence in Trauma Room One at significantly relevant times prior to the tracheostomy.
A question I have not had time even to inquire into is what the adrenals in autopsy might have told about any possible toxicity.
Ashton
Ashton, that's an interesting (revised) list of items you posted. Why would Nurse Bowron give conflicting accounts of what she saw? And Burkley's actions concerning the throat wound would seem to indicate a desire to conceal the real nature of the that wound.
Could Admiral Burkley be implicated? Personal doctor for three Presidents. How does that square with his attempts to inform the HSCA that he had information which indicated Oswald did not act alone?
Burkley was also a link in the chain of possession concerning JFK's much discussed missing brain--or what was left of it. I'd like to know what the elder statesmen of the research community (no disrespect intended) think of this argument. Minus personal invective.
- Kennedy's head, throat, and upper torso were covered by his suit coat while he was being wheeled into Parkland, down the corridor, and into Trauma Room One.
-
A scientist, after working a lifetime, created a breakthrough in interspecies communication.
To demonstrate, he took a flea, said, "Fly, flea," and the flea flew.
"Fly, flea," and the flea flew, again and again.
Then the scientist surgically removed the wings from the flea.
He said, "Fly flea," but the flea didn't fly.
"Fly, flea."
Nothing.
So!
That night the scientist recorded his conclusion.
"When one removes the wings from a flea, it becomes deaf."
You're the best, Charles.
-
Ashton,
p.s. I submitted a very nice, though dated, photo of me standing on a slip at Lake Tahoe, circa late Nineties. If we're able to post, see if you can make out the Fredo assassination in the background. But that's for another thread.
Ah Fredo, you broke my heart.
-
Mark, interestingly, the current British TV drama series SPOOKS (BBC 1), with three parts braodcast to date, thus far revolves around the issue of the US seeking to pick a fight with Iran, and the dirty tricks it covertly engages in to ensure this sparks war.
At least the British public cannot claim to be entirely misinformed about the issue in the event that Brown (who refuses to rule out British involvement with the US in an attack on Iran (as of today at PMQ's in Parliament) proceeds with the usual back America-at-any-cost policy of successive British governments.
If the US does initiate a military attack for "regime change" ("that oil is ours boyo's") then Blighty will, I predict, drop its pants for President Merkin.
It's business as usual.
But sooner or later the deep-rooted upswell of public antogonism for backing the US, come what may and in all matters, is going to wreck political havoc here.
David
David,
Yes, Gordon Brown's statements about Iran are a bit worrying but whether he goes along with Bush in a scheme as crazy as this remains to be seen. The leadership of Canada and France also seem to be at odds with public sentiment on this issue.
Here in Australia, there is an election campaign in progress (incumbent Bush poodle John Howard is trailing by 16 points on a two party preferred basis
), so he hasn't dared to insult the public's intelligence by echoing Bush's infant school reasoning when it comes to attacking Iran. Howard said yesterday that he favors negotiation with Iran. It will be interesting to see who supports Bush if he carries out his threats.
I think the most likely scenario is that if an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities does occur, it will be Israel who carries it out.
-
How about that George Bush.
In his recent speech to the National Defence University, he's now saying Iran will develop IBM's capable of reaching North America and Europe by 2015:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/916320.html
Oooh, so very scary. Let's hit 'em now!
What Bush wants the world to believe now is that those crazy Mullahs, consumed with a seething hatred for the west and its freedoms, are feverishly working to produce nuclear weapons of awesome capability (and a delivery system to match), while the West sleeps, oblivious to this horrific menace.
Once they have completed the evil task of creating these weapons, they will immediately launch a war they cannot hope to win and which would most assuredly wipe Iran off the map.
They hate our freedoms so much they will self-destruct in order to prove it. They have no friends or families, meaningful lives or fulfilling pursuits which make life worthwhile. No, no. They just want to destroy the West and I've already said why--they hate our freedom.
Are you with us now? 'Cause if not, you must love nukular ormed terists.
-
I'm suggesting the possibility that a device similar to the piercing needle I pictured above could have been employed, and in very short order indeed. I am suggesting that if some similar device had been used—either during the removal of the clothing, or even before it was removed, by sliding such a device between the shirt plackets under the tie—it would have produced a wound consistent with descriptions by all eyewitnesses.
I believe that if such a device had in fact been used, it most likely would have been employed to administer a large quantity of some kind of toxin that would have been completely unsuspected, yet known to be fatal, and for which there was no existing test for detection in a human.
You could be right. Having a backup contingency like this is logical because the planners could not be certain that a kill shot would be made.
Assuming toxin was administered, then the SS would be my chief suspect.
Possibly. In the realm of speculative thinking, I don't know how any such backup contingency could have been in place, though, no matter who was designated to administer a toxin, absent the certainty of almost immediate irradication of the puncture wound evidence by electively-placed tracheostomy—something that could not be accomplished by any Secret Service personnel.
On the subject of toxins, though, I have these pesky timeline entries that I've been needing to do something with, so I think I'll put them here. This first one has a personal note from me italicized, and I have added some bold emphasis:
Friday, 3 August 1962Louis Jolyon West, of the Depatment of Psychiatry, Neurology, and Behavioral Sciences, University of Oklahoma School of Medicine, shoots an elephant named Tusko, at the Lincoln Park Zoo in Oklahoma City, with a massive dose of LSD, equivalent to approximately 0.1 milligrams per killogram of weight.[For what reason, nobody ever has been able to make the slightest sense of. —A.G.]After about three minutesof trumpeting and running around the pen,the elephant collapsed"heavily onto his right side, defecated, and went into status epilepticus. The limbs on the left side were hyperextended and held stiffly out from the body; the limbs on the right side were drawn up in partial flexion; there were tremors throughout. The eyes were closed and showed a spasm of the orbicularis occuli; the eyeballs were turned sharply to the left, with markedly dilated pupils. The mouth was open, butbreathing was extremely labored and stertorous, giving the impression of high respiratory obstruction due to laryngeal spasm.The tongue, which had been bitten, was cyanotic. The picture was that of a tonic left-sided seizure in which mild clonic movements were present."Within one hour and 40 minutes of the LSD injectin, Tusko was dead.I'll point out in passing that this bizarre and murderous test by CIA's favorite lunatic psychiatrist was only a year and three months before the Kennedy assassination. (I probably shouldn't even mention in passing here that dear old "Jolly" West also later turns up connected to CIA's Remote Viewing program, which of course is heavily connected with Watergate, as anyone who has wandered through recent posts in the Watergate forum well knows, but it seems as though I did just mention it in passing anyway.)
Then, just a few months later, there is this equally bizarre event that took place on the first day of the year that Kennedy was assassinated, half a world away:
Tuesday, 1 January 1963Dr Gilbert Stanley Bogle and his lover Mrs Margaret Olive Chandler née Morphett—each married to other people, and both employees of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)—are found murdered in mysterious circumstances on the banks of the Lane Cove River in Sydney, Australia. There is no apparent cause of death. Their murder has never been solved, nor has the cause of death ever been determined with certainty. [NOTE: In 1989 heart tissues from both Bogle and Chandler had been preserved and new forensic techniques were applied to them. These techniques gave evidence of the presence of LSD. These techniques were not claimed as conclusive, but they were presented as evidence that Bogle and Chandler had used LSD and some authorities suggested that they died of an overdose.]There is a great deal of controversy-without-evidence concerning whether LSD can be fatal or not. Then again, no human volunteers have been found to try a dosage equal in ratio to the hit that sent Tusko on his one-way trip into psychedelia.
In any case, according to my best information there was no test for LSD in 1963.
Ashton
Interesting. I was unaware that traces of LSD could be detected in human tissue because I read some time ago that the active component of the drug actually exits the body via the pores of the skin before the celebrated hallucinagenic effects begin to occur--which led doctors to speculate that the drug itself is just a trigger which releases a chemical stored within the brain, similar to the way adrenaline is released into the bloodstream by external triggers. I don't know if a high dose of LSD would kill a person--I've never heard of a fatal overdose of this drug, although it would probably induce permanent psychosis. But I'm sorry to hear about poor Tusko.
I still find your scenario to be a plausible one, although I maintain that if a toxin was administerd in the way you describe, the SS, who were in control of the body from DP to Parkland, heads the list of likely suspects. What if the toxin was administered by the SS in the minute or so before JFK was wheeled into the Trauma Room and the doctors were persuaded by the wound (looking similar to a bullet entry wound) to perform the tracheotomy? Perhaps someone in the SS made the suggestion to the doctors. It's ripe for speculation but you passed the biggest hurdle--it's not impossible or implausible. The SBT is.
-
I'm suggesting the possibility that a device similar to the piercing needle I pictured above could have been employed, and in very short order indeed. I am suggesting that if some similar device had been used—either during the removal of the clothing, or even before it was removed, by sliding such a device between the shirt plackets under the tie—it would have produced a wound consistent with descriptions by all eyewitnesses.
I believe that if such a device had in fact been used, it most likely would have been employed to administer a large quantity of some kind of toxin that would have been completely unsuspected, yet known to be fatal, and for which there was no existing test for detection in a human.
You could be right. Having a backup contingency like this is logical because the planners could not be certain that a kill shot would be made.
Assuming toxin was administered, then the SS would be my chief suspect.
-
"The Democrats aren't as full-throated in opposition to all this as one would hope"
This is extremist in its understatement. The Democrats have so compromised themselves that they cannot play the necessary educative role of campaigns. Even at the rhetorical level, there is almost nothing there; the result is that the average voter will no longer be able to tell the difference between conservativism and incompetent conservativism. That is if you assume that they weren't being incompetent like a fox.
There is only one thing that can save conservativism-- the utter vacuum that is now the alternative. There is a reason that so many Bush pioneer fundraisers are donating to Hillary.
I don't think there's much difference between Republican and Democrat either. The Democrat's look pretty conservative to me. Universal healthcare is radical new territory for the US but is taken for granted in many western countries. So when Democrat candidates propose it, Americans might believe this is the start of a new and progressive era. Forget it. The problem lies in the system itself. The US political process is as hopelessly corrupted as the old Soviet system ever was, although the slick western media has prevented the bulk of the population from realising it.
The primary loyalty of both parties is not the flag, the people or the constitution but rather their political donors--without which they would cease to exist in their current form. The interests of powerful financial supporters are inviolate and as such are always given priority. Once these undertakings are made by the parties, the parties are then free to throw a few crumbs to the public. In many cases, the interests of the donor lobby and the interests of the public are diametrically opposed. How can it be in the public interest to spend $600-700 billion per year of public money on defence when no military threat exists? Or for the public to subsidise the pharmaceutical industry enriching itself at their expense? The corporate sector uses Congress to get what it wants and thus effectively disenfranchises the voters, to whom Governments are supposed to be primarily responsible. The media are part of the corporate sector.
-
Excellent thread.
So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?
This is one candidate:
Please keep in mind that John F. Kennedy was not DOA at Parkland Hospital. However grave the man's condition may have been when he arrived in Trauma Room One, it's rather relevant to note that the President of the United States was still alive.
Let me say it again: the President of the United States arrived at Parkland Hospital still alive.
That would be a trifle inconvenient for the perpetrators if there were, in fact, a conspiracy afoot to assassinate the man and pin it on a Communist patsy, who, even as the President arrived at the hospital, was being run to ground and framed for the murder of a Dallas cop, wouldn't you agree?
And why did the WC consider it so important that they found it necessary to construct the SBT to accomodate it--thus permanently destroying any vestige of credibility they may have had.If it was necessary to make a hole in the throat of the President of the United States and then immediately eradicate the evidence of it before anyone could get a very good or close look at it, it nonetheless was necessary to "explain" it somehow as part of the shooting once anyone had seen it at all.
Ashton
Of course. Makes sense.
Interesting idea Ashton but I have a slight problem with one of the assertions you made in support of it. JFK may have been alive--technically--when admitted to Parkland but I doubt there would have been a realistic chance of recovery, given his wounds.
Are you suggesting a poison dart may have been used or a piercing needle? If the latter, then why? Is there a weapon which can propel such a projectile? A needle has no ballistics. How could it otherwise be inserted?
-
Excellent thread.
So I have to ask the obvious question. If, as Ashton argues, it was not a bullet wound at all, then what the hell was it?
And why did the WC consider it so important that they found it necessary to construct the SBT to accomodate it--thus permanently destroying any vestige of credibility they may have had.
-
So I ask you this, Andy: Which team scored the only try of the match?
I knew you wouldn't let me down
Correct!
Australia.
Mark, as General Melchet said in Blackadder, "IF NOTHING ELSE, A COMPLETE REFUSAL TO EXCEPT THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION WILL SEE US THROUGH."
I wouldn't want to be accused of refusing to 'except' the facts.
Rest assured Stapleton that droves of teachers will be henceforth scrutinising all your postings for spelling accuracy
You have also reinforced my long held opinion that Australians are in general bloody awful losers. This is probably what makes your small country disproportionably good at all sports but also spectacularly bad at sportsmanship.
Why would teachers be better at spelling than any number of other professional people? I've known a few who were average spellers at best. Of course, I make plenty of spelling mistakes myself.
Back to the Rugby. I think the Proteas will win but I wish England rots of ruck. The game is a mess, though. A player grabs the ball and streaks downfield--he gets tackled--15 players pile on top of him and it becomes an unseemly, amorphous rabble--no-one knows where the ball is (it's in there somewhere)--suddenly a red faced referee appears and blows his whistle for a penalty. The transgression? Why, some poor sap in the middle of the ruck had his foot in the wrong place or something. Another 3 pointer is kicked and once again arbitrary penalties determine the winner.
For this reason, I hope you'll support my campaign to have the sport banned after this World Cup. What has mankind done to deserve such a sport? Think of your fellow human beings.
Tough but fair.
-
I think by the response that Apollo falls into the "conspiracy" section (even though I disagree with that assessment).
How about we just play this by ear, and post there if desired?
Thanks to Mark for starting this thread. (And Stephen who started a similar thread a while ago).
I can fully understand Peter's comments that this is indeed a conspiracy. In an ideal world we should have a discussion about the conspiracy on this forum, and a discussion about global melting (sic) on the other forum. I think Peter also has a point however - this forum tends to generate most traffic. It may die out on the other thread.
To be honest I wish I had more to contribute to such an important debate. Living on the coast as I do I stand to be affected by rising sea levels as much as the next person.
Peter, please feel free to post away either on this or the other forum (when I can find the damned thing) - I'm sure there will be plenty of people lurking who'll be interested in your views regardless of whether they chip in or not. The photo with the glacires was interesting, do you have a larger version, with a full explanation of what is happenening?
As for major glaciers receding at 15km per year? Is this true? Surely not? Why haven't I heard of this on the BBC News, yet hear plenty of discussion of whether the Chancellor's decision to increase Inheritance Tax was purely down to political manoeuvring? Very disturbing, especially if this is representative rather than anomalous.
I'm buying a caravan in the hills just in case.
Thanks Dave. This issue is going to push itself into prominence, although it's clear the mainstream media are reluctant to give it their full attention. There's no money in it for them--unlike the big bucks they make out of pushing the threat of terrorism. In this, as with many other controversial issues, the mainstream media is not our friend and thus must be bypassed. Those who rely solely on the mainstream media are years behind the curve anyway. From the alternet, "Consumption of corporate media causes ignorance, paranoia and rage".
There's plenty of info available in the alternative media but like many others I'm just a beginner so it's going to be a tough job sorting out the reality from the panic. This is issue has frightening ramifications, but it is one which can cause people to overreact if not fully informed. That's why the Forum's collective knowledge should be utilised. I think climate change deserves a subforum of its own, at least. I intend to post quite a bit on it.
There's many things I don't fully understand--like the assertion that rainfall will greatly increase in the higher latitudes and decrease in the tropic and temperate zones. The scientists themselves are not in agreement, so finding the truth won't be easy. However, they all agree on the fact that global warming will cause the polar caps to melt and sea levels to rise. Rising sea levels have not been experienced in modern history so people may be reluctant to accept that this may happen in their lifetime, or their children's at the very least.
-
As we have finally got around to discussing this fairly serious matter (thanks to Mark Stapleton) I thought I would revive this old thread from January, as I never really finished it. your thoughts on any of the above would be welcome.
Steve, I think the global warming issue is an issue many hope will go away--or not affect this generation at least. I think they're wrong.
The west is fearful of the economic dislocation which would result from the dramatic cuts in carbon emmissions required to halt the slide. Some say the developing countries have to play a role and it's hard to argue considering China's rapidly increasing use of fossil fuels.
There's no choice, really. Climate change, rising sea levels and extreme weather events can potentially dislocate the global economy as effectively as economic factors.
-
So I ask you this, Andy: Which team scored the only try of the match?
I knew you wouldn't let me down
Correct!
Australia.
Mark, as General Melchet said in Blackadder, "IF NOTHING ELSE, A COMPLETE REFUSAL TO EXCEPT THE FACTS OF THE SITUATION WILL SEE US THROUGH."
I wouldn't want to be accused of refusing to 'except' the facts.
I'm glad we lost--now the public here won't have to endure countless commentators eulogizing the team and proclaiming the sport is played in heaven. (if it is, how bad can the other place be?)
-
Do you think it might be worthwhile asking John and Andy to create a subforum or two here? I'm think Political Discussion (rather than conspiracy) and Chat.
There is a Government & Politics subforum, but it is primarily aimed at the teachers of those subjects rather than people who might like to discuss it in general.
They might not be appropriate on this board, but I thought it might be worth asking.
That's an excellent suggestion, Evan.
-
Peter,
You're obviously well qualified to speak on this. The impending climate crisis should get more space on the Forum, imo.
Things are much worse than most people think. At 15 kilometres of melt per day and a rapidly accelerating rate, it's hard to see the Ilulissat glacier lasting beyond Christmas. And scientists have suggested the Gulf of Mexico has already become a hurricane factory due to the discovery that many parts of the Gulf have an average temperature exceeding 30C degrees. The exponential rate of global ice melt can only make it even warmer and this will happen much sooner than previously thought.
It's not surprising the Bush Administration merely pays lip service to these problems. The welfare of future generations does not concern them ( future generations of their elite group is their exclusive concern).
), so he hasn't dared to insult the public's intelligence by echoing Bush's infant school reasoning when it comes to attacking Iran. Howard said yesterday that he favors negotiation with Iran.
Is Bush planning an attack on Iran in March?
in Political Conspiracies
Posted
I've seen people try to shift the goalposts after the event, but this is ridiculous. You made the foolish claim that Iran is the most powerful country in the Middle East but now you wish to discount military might as a factor in your claim. I can empathise with your embarrasment--I've made a few wrong claims myself but then I try to correct my errors for the record.
If you wish to claim that Iran occupies a part of the Middle East which is strategically significant, I would agree. The Straits of Hormuz are the critical sea lanes for the transportation of Middle Eastern oil. This is one of the main reasons why attacking Iran would be so stupid and reckless, but the US and Israel don't seem to care about that. They seem determined to control the entire region, regardless of the consequences for the rest of the world. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.
I'm getting a bit tired of your baiting me with this line about 'evil Joos'. This discussion concerns Iran and its Middle Eastern neighbours, Israel included. Israel is the regional superpower, which I pointed out in response to your erroneous claim about Iran. Do I need your permission before I mention Israel by name? I thought you would have had more courage than to hide behind that pathetic little canard, but perhaps I was wrong.
Finally, you are right when you say that Iran dominates the world stage right now.
Who put them there?