Peter McKenna

At least there is one US journalist who can see clearly.

Blowback From Bear-Baiting

By Patrick J. Buchanan

15/08/08 "ICH " -- - Mikheil Saakashvili's decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia's invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser's decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser's blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili's blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili's army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and America's lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight -- Russia finished it. People who start wars don't get to decide how and when they end.

Russia's response was "disproportionate" and "brutal," wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more "disproportionate"?

Russia has invaded a sovereign country, railed Bush. But did not the United States bomb Serbia for 78 days and invade to force it to surrender a province, Kosovo, to which Serbia had a far greater historic claim than Georgia had to Abkhazia or South Ossetia, both of which prefer Moscow to Tbilisi?

Is not Western hypocrisy astonishing?

When the Soviet Union broke into 15 nations, we celebrated. When Slovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia, Montenegro and Kosovo broke from Serbia, we rejoiced. Why, then, the indignation when two provinces, whose peoples are ethnically separate from Georgians and who fought for their independence, should succeed in breaking away?

Are secessions and the dissolution of nations laudable only when they advance the agenda of the neocons, many of who viscerally detest Russia?

That Putin took the occasion of Saakashvili's provocative and stupid stunt to administer an extra dose of punishment is undeniable. But is not Russian anger understandable? For years the West has rubbed Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat and treated her like Weimar Germany.

When Moscow pulled the Red Army out of Europe, closed its bases in Cuba, dissolved the evil empire, let the Soviet Union break up into 15 states, and sought friendship and alliance with the United States, what did we do?

American carpetbaggers colluded with Muscovite Scalawags to loot the Russian nation. Breaking a pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, we moved our military alliance into Eastern Europe, then onto Russia's doorstep. Six Warsaw Pact nations and three former republics of the Soviet Union are now NATO members.

Bush, Cheney and McCain have pushed to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. This would require the United States to go to war with Russia over Stalin's birthplace and who has sovereignty over the Crimean Peninsula and Sebastopol, traditional home of Russia's Black Sea fleet.

When did these become U.S. vital interests, justifying war with Russia?

The United States unilaterally abrogated the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty because our technology was superior, then planned to site anti-missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic to defend against Iranian missiles, though Iran has no ICBMs and no atomic bombs. A Russian counter-offer to have us together put an anti-missile system in Azerbaijan was rejected out of hand.

We built a Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from Azerbaijan through Georgia to Turkey to cut Russia out. Then we helped dump over regimes friendly to Moscow with democratic "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, and tried to repeat it in Belarus.

Americans have many fine qualities. A capacity to see ourselves as others see us is not high among them.

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan, where Europe had opted out of the Cold War after Moscow installed those SS-20 missiles east of the Elbe. And Europe had abandoned NATO, told us to go home and become subservient to Moscow.

How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?

For a decade, some of us have warned about the folly of getting into Russia's space and getting into Russia's face. The chickens of democratic imperialism have now come home to roost -- in Tbilisi.

Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of Churchill, Hitler, and "The Unnecessary War": How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, "The Death of the West,", "The Great Betrayal," "A Republic, Not an Empire" and "Where the Right Went Wrong."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20522.htm

Maggie,

I disagree with this article almost entirely. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were already recognized internationally as part of Georgia, so keeping them as part of Georgia can't really be a Coup.

The reporting of Georgia's attacks on South Ossetia; as far as I can tell, when Russia advanced into the region, Georgia likely was honoring a French sponsored cease fire. The reports of Georgian atrocities in the South Ossetia/Tskhinvali region are likely the product of Russian propaganda. At least the source of this information can be traced back to Russian websites (look at Bolshoyforum.org) and I read at least one analysis that confirms this.

Based on the size of the Russian advance, and if you look at the reported timeline for the reported Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, the Russians had to be planning and mobilizing far in advance of any Georgian attacks. An incursion that size cannot be planned and mobilized inside of hours as this article would suggest.

I do agree that if Georgia was counting on any US military aid in this fighting then they are stupid. There is no way the U.S. would plant Army boots that close to Russian territory in a military conflict. That would invite disaster.

Inviting Georgia into NATO? First I don't see how the United States has postured to protect any vital US interests in the region, and I don't think there are any vital US interests in the region. NATO membership is supposed to protect member nations from the expansion of hegemonic neighbors and invasion, but NATO can (and sometimes does) become subservient to a US agenda. I agree with John that Georgia is probably a little too red-necked (i.e. shotgun diplomats) to become a NATO member.

The US has only been promoting Georgian autonomy (AFAI can tell) and independence, much the same as with Kosovo and their Declaration of Independence. This would of course annoy Russia, and in the long run would prevent Russian expansion, which would happen sooner or later, unless Georgia unequivically declares their independence. This is good for the US in the long run since it keeps Russia from ambitious land grabbing in the future. AFAIK, this is the extent of our involvement.

There is a lot of Russian propaganda flowing right now on the Georgian situation. There is not much (actually none that I can find) evidence that Georgia attacked South Ossetia to start this crisis. in fact they insist that they were honoring a French brokered cease fire when Russia attacked. Based on the timing and the scope of the Russian advance, this appears to be the truth.

Russia has pulled this before (especially when they were the Soviet Union). The current Russian Government is looking more and more totalitarian, and appear to be trying to improve the Russian sphere of influence to Soviet times.

The US supported Kosovo when they declared independence so we should support South Ossetia. We are also provding humanitarian aid to Georgia. Outside of that, I agree we should not be involving ourselves (other than to endorse Georgian independence) in the energy politics of the region.

There is a problem right now with determining what information concerning the Georgian-Russian crisis is true and what is propaganda.

I just tossed that out there as an example of one Rigbys powers of observation and deduction.....non existent.

Dear, dear, touch tetchy tonight, Mikey. No one to censor over at Lancer?

Always nice to meet someone with common sense.

Two hacks for a neocon puppet and war criminal met on a forum. One said to the other...

Hmm. Are you still in the UK public school system Paul?

You're language seems so familiar.

When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin?

When the US government drops the liability in Georgia, I suppose. Won't be long, I suspect. What do you reckon, false flag assassination blamed on the Russkies?

First of all, RE your response to Mike Wiliams', in the previous response, I was asking for your explanation as to your remark about not apologizing for War Criminals. Mike answered, but I was asking you.

Secondly, I suppose you're referencing Litvinenko? Maybe Anna Politkovskaya, or any of the dozen journalists the FSB murdered for practicing dissention?

Just how do you reckon the US is liable in Georgia? I admit if any warranty was given or implied to bolster Georgian aggression that would have been an error, but I seriously doubt that to be the case. My thinking is that the US has given Georgia its support in promoting independence from Russia, just as the US did for Kosovo. Our position has typically been to promote independence. I'm also fairly sure that in Russia's sphere of influence this must be pretty annoying. This patronage certainly wouldn't have pacified Russia, but then it also likely provided Russia pause, in lieu of running roughshod over Georgia, as is their wont.

Just what false flag are you referring to? I assume Litvinenko, since this is the assasination of greatest controversy, and Russophiles, like yourself, love to place the blame on old oligarchs, like Berezovsky. But the simple truth is that Litvinenko was killed with a radioisotope, Polonium 210, which is only produced in one, Russian, reactor, and can be traced (and proven, if you believe the British investigators) to a Russian enjoying the protection of the Russian Government and who has ties back to Moscow, as well. With very little guile, it seems Litvinenko's murder was a message from the FSB, that once in the FSB, always in the FSB, and regardless of his politcal status, Litvinenko was subject to censure from his old bosses. But maybe you were referring to someone else?

Anyway its a shame that propaganda must be waded through, hip deep, only to find no tangible facts at the end of the day anyway. So far it seems the Georgian situation doesn't benefit from unspun information. Flooding the net with information like that twelve year old's obvious BS surely doesn't help.

By the way, have you ever had the opportunity to know any Russians who left the Soviet Union seeking political asylum in the UK? Like back in the day under the Helsinki agreement? People like that can provide enormous insight into the mindset of organizations like the KGB, and its officers, like Putin, and the people he surounds himself with (now FSB).

The best to you,

Pete

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something.

The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera.

I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee.

This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

My favourite: in part 2, approximately 17 minutes from end, the enormous moving bridge!

http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications.

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590

I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

Great observation. I wonder why Rigby did not come to that conclusion?

Simple - I don't do apologias for war criminals.

Best to you, too, Mikey!

Well that clears that up! Any chance of explaining?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMVUKPDZw4

Oh yes, this is obviously the "Truth". The girl actually says, "I was running from Georgian Troops, not Russian Troops. I'd like to thank the Russian Troops...", her first and only point to straighten out any confusion as to who is doing what. No chance she was prepped for that.

I doubt if the truth will be understood for at least a couple of weeks. Russia has used the art of crisis creation to justify military action too many times in the past, and they are way too good at it. There is also no possible way that Russia hadn't planned for the mobilization and invasion of Georgia in advance of Georgia's "attack" on South Ossetia.

When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin?

Peter,

Great observation. I wonder why Rigby did not come to that conclusion?

Best to you Peter,

Mike

Thanks Mike,

I hope Mr. Rigby enlightens us accordingly.

Pete

You know Craig, I do not particularly care for some insinuations and accusations made about Len either, but you do realize that Len has never needed my help in defending himself?

Mark's posts stand on their own, but that is a different thread.

I also have strong opnions about that subject. The war on drugs is a self perpetuating enterprise and there is a hell of a lot of information to support that. The approach of the criminal justice system to illegal narcotics just hasn't worked and costs us a huge amount in taxes.

That being said, the accusation of illegal use isn't even relevant, besides being insulting.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nDMVUKPDZw4

Oh yes, this is obviously the "Truth". The girl actually says, "I was running from Georgian Troops, not Russian Troops. I'd like to thank the Russian Troops...", her first and only point to straighten out any confusion as to who is doing what. No chance she was prepped for that.

I doubt if the truth will be understood for at least a couple of weeks. Russia has used the art of crisis creation to justify military action too many times in the past, and they are way too good at it. There is also no possible way that Russia hadn't planned for the mobilization and invasion of Georgia in advance of Georgia's "attack" on South Ossetia.

When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin?

Charles

I've refrained from saying a great deal on this thread because I haven't had a strong opinion either way, and to be honest it makes me a tad uncomfortable discussing the motives or raison d'etre of other forum members.

After reading many of Len’s posts since I joined the forum, I feel Len’s a real guy, who makes mistakes (typos) pretty much consistently, and has been pretty consistent in his personality.

I make mistakes myself typing, since I have poor typing skills, and see some of this quality in Len’s posts.

A lot of what Len has posted I have sided with, not all, but a substantial portion. To be honest, I couldn’t take Len’s position in this forum because frankly, I don’t have the energy. Possibly, some may feel Len maintains a provocative stance due to his ability to maintain a fairly high energy level.

Maybe some don’t like dealing with Len due to his ability to maintain a pretty high energy level in a debate. This can be draining, which some may feel shunts them from the point or issue they were tangling with in the first place. I know I likely could not outlast Len in an intellectual contest of attrition.

If anyone has ever read transcripts of the first Continental Congresses, in the United States, undertaking the debates that they held would challenge the sanity of any man. Debates would change to argument, provocation, fisticuffs, even fights to the death. Great stuff.

I hope people do not feel it necessary to depart, but remain to engage in debate, where it erupts, for often the most thoughtful of points are made in the heat of a debate. I understand that some feel the forum is not an appropriate location for debate. I disagree with that.

Maybe some posts are not made to be debated. Then, don’t debate them. I would even go so far as to qualify them in that sense, if you like.

The smart people here probably know Socrates and Hegel better than I and would agree that truth often requires debate. I felt this forum carried that spirit to a degree and that John felt that way. Some of the debates I have read on this forum were insightful, in ways that evolved out of the dialectic, and not the rhetoric.

I also would have great difficulty in having much regard for unchallenged theory or rhetoric. I think most people feel that way.

I’m just throwing my two cents in on this issue, FWIW.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/russia-re...8139076806.html

Russian warplanes bombed Georgian targets yesterday, the Tbilisi government said, after Georgian forces surrounded and shelled the capital of the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime:

http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0

Calling the attack on Gori a “Georgian War Crime” is ridiculous.

I didn't. Your point is ridiculous. Malign, quite possibly bonkers, but ridiculous.

Obviously, all of the links identified in your hyperlink, providing references for the identification of atrocities, use the internet address-suffix “RU” which is of Russian origin. This information is blatant propaganda.

The South Ossetian capital and surrounding towns/villages weren't attacked by the Georgian war criminals, backed by NATO and the US? Really?

Is this truly the best you could come up with?

Paul

TBILISI, Georgia (AP) – “The foreign minister of Russia said Thursday that Georgia could "forget about" getting back its two breakaway provinces, and the former Soviet republic remained on edge as Russia sent tank columns to search out and destroy Georgian military equipment…… The Georgian ambassador to the United States, H.E. Vasil Sikharulidze, said Russia was employing "scorched-earth" tactics - destroying Georgian commercial and military infrastructure and burning down religious sites beyond the conflict area of South Ossetia. “What defenses does Georgia have? Because of the cease-fire agreement, which Russia has not honored, Georgian troops are being moved to organize a defensive line 10 kilometers (six miles) away from Tbilisi," he said.

Georgia also accused Russia of using short-range missiles in Poti and Gori, showing reporters purported images of shrapnel. There was no immediate response from Russia.

Russian and Georgian troops briefly patrolled Gori, but relations between the two sides broke down and the Georgians left. At least 20 explosions were heard later near Gori, along with small-arms fire.

It was not clear whether it was renewed fighting or the disposal of ordnance from a nearby Georgian military base. Russia said its troops were there to establish contact with the civilian administration and take over abandoned military depots.

Gori, battered by Russian bombing over the week, lies on Georgia's main east-west road only 60 miles west of Tbilisi. AP Television News footage showed Russian troops in and near Gori, and Georgia said it was checking the area for mines.

An AP Television News crew heard explosions at a military base in the western city of Senaki and were told by officials from both Russia and Georgia that the Russians were destroying ordnance. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles and troops later set up for the night under camouflage on the main road from Senaki north to Zugdidi.

The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment.

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment.

Another APTN camera crew saw Russian soldiers and military vehicles parked inside the Georgian government's elegant gated residence in the western town of Zugdidi. Some of the Russian soldiers wore blue peacekeeping helmets, others wore green camouflage helmets, all were heavily armed. Other Russian troops patrolled the city.

Note that at that time Russian troops were occupying Georgian territory, do you dispute this?

GORI, Georgia, Aug 9 (Reuters) – “Russian warplanes carried out up to five bombing raids on Saturday around the Georgian town of Gori close to the embattled breakaway region of South Ossetia, a Reuters reporter at the scene said.”

In the link you posted “Bolshoyforum” every source link referenced originated in Russia. Your links state that the Georgian “surprise” attack on Tskinvali began at approximately midnight on 8/8/08. The earliest posts in the link are dated August 11, after Russia attacked Gori and other towns in Georgia. You’ll note that at least one of the sites you linked reference atrocities in Gori, identifying they were faked.

By the way, South Ossetia was part of Georgia until Russia announced that it wasn’t anymore. If you believe Georgia, Russia failed to honor the cease fire. This puts Russian military on Georgian soil either at approximately the same time or before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali.

So the site you labeled as “The aftermath and the consequences of the Georgian War Crime”, as far as I can tell is Russian propaganda, released after Russia invaded Georgia. It is not even well disguised propaganda.

You say that towns in South Ossetia were “Attacked by the Georgian war criminals backed by the US and the UN”. What does that mean? The US and the UN paid them or provoked them to attack secessionists in their own country? You must be joking. Explain please exactly how the US and the UN backed Georgia in fighting rebel factions in their own country. I don’t think so.

I’m not denying Georgia may have committed atrocities. To be honest I don’t know. But I do know one thing, you don’t know either. Representing the information the way you did is propagandist.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/russia-re...8139076806.html

Russian warplanes bombed Georgian targets yesterday, the Tbilisi government said, after Georgian forces surrounded and shelled the capital of the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime:

http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0

Calling the attack on Gori a “Georgian War Crime” is ridiculous. Obviously, all of the links identified in your hyperlink, providing references for the identification of atrocities, use the internet address-suffix “RU” which is of Russian origin. This information is blatant propaganda. Every news site I have seen reports that the bombardment and subsequent attacks on Gori are of Russian origin. Those atrocities were the responsibility of Moscow.

NPR, as well as other independent news outlets have reported that the incident was set off by South Ossetia's (also Abkhazia) appealing to Russia to help them secede from Georgia, which was likely provoked by Russia, since the US has been patronizing Georgia.

Russia had already been making military incursions into Georgia, therefore their influence in South Ossetia is suspect. They have been observed to exert diplomatic extortion of one sort or another to former Soviet Bloc nations such as the Ukraine and Georgia to exert their influence.

When Estonia removed a statue of Stalin, Russia launched a cyber-attack that shut them down.

It should be obvious who attacked Gori. The power base in Moscow is composed of Ex-KGB or FSB (Putin was a KGB Colonel), and they are now trying to re-assert their regional influence.

The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.

Jack

Jack

I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508

Pete

I believe I responded to your posting. I did not know you consider yourself an UNTRUTHER.

I always thought you were just a contrarian.

Jack

No response was made to my posting so I was feeling a bit left out. (especially considering The Areonautical guy also identified them as brake assemblies.

What's the difference betwen contrariain and untruther? I'm not particular. and do not take a contrarian position just to create dichotomy.

if not an inconveneince can you explain to me the diffeerence?

Thanks

The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.

Jack

Jack

I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508

Pete

Maybe I am not considered to be from of the ranks of "untruthers". I assure you that I do not subscribe to most of the 9/11 "truth" movement theories (although I do have reservations aboout the official positions as well). Does this qualify me as an "untruther"?

The UNTRUTHERS are strangely quiet on the photos of the landing gear.

Jack

Jack

I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508

Pete

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

I did not claim it is molten metal. In fact I do not think it is. Why are you misquoting me?

Some people, including NIST, said it was molten metal....not me.

Jack

I took your statement implicitly. Apologies

Here is another puzzling one. Two different views of the same alleged event...

"molten metal"...pouring from two different places in two different rows of

windows. Could this event really happen? How can "molten metal" flow from

the top of a window? Makes no sense to me. UNTRUTHERS will have an

explanation maybe.

Jack

(Yes...there is another discrepancy I did not point out, but I did notice it.)

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid?

Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel?

If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

Here is a good one. The UNTRUTHERS will scramble trying to excuse this one.

There are numerous photos of an "airplane tire" on a sidewalk near some

scaffolding. Here are two. Though similar, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. Though

the wheels look similar THEY ARE NOT THE SAME! I cannot explain this as

being a true depiction of this alleged scene. But I'm sure the UNTRUTHERS can.

Jack

I am not familiar with the landing gear design (and these appear to be wheels from a landing gear), but the items within the red circles looks to me like brake assemblies (IMO). In one picture it apears that the brake element is withdrawn from the drum and in the other picture the end of the brake assembly (the drum) is visible (IMO). The strange looking metal tangs may be heat exchangers to allow air cooling over the brake drum end when the brakes are applied.

It appears like two different wheels, maybe two halves of a wheel set. At least it appears that way, although there may some explanantion for the differences I am not aware of.

Again I am no expert on airplane landing gear so this is only an opinion. Someone with more expertise should be able to offer a better explanation.

None of the preposterous claims of the government, govenment-grovelling-media, 911-government-controlled-commission, NIST-governmental-arm-investigation or anything other of the official conspiracy version have held up to any logical or rational examination. (despite the some, as in the story of the Emperor's New Clothes, who claimed to see some 'logic'/clothes there). Read Debunking 911 Debunking to see the entire official story demolished with controlled logic. That a court in the US threw-out a lawsuit of this type is hardly surprising and hardly a condemnation of its merits. Many actual perpetrators/conspirators of politically 'sensitive' civil rights or political figures; scandals or black operations were at first [some to this day] not prosecuted, cases thrown out of court and other misprisons of Justice. I'd glady name several that went on to success later. Some demanding success have not yet.  Political forces can and do influence the Courts - more so the now packed Courts of the U.S. Justice is hard one, if at all in them - often by multiple attempts. There has been a constant pattern on the part of apologists for the official version to take as holy grail the statements and pronouncements of those that support the official version and to attempt to denegrate those witnesses who saw, heard, experienced something at odds with it - or that make a logical person question it. The same was/is true of Dallas and so many other charged events. One must entertain and vet the information and motive of all witnesses and investigators fairly and as impartially as is humanly possible. Most who you see as the luney opposition only want to know the true events. The government and their lackies, it seems, would like the matter to be felt to be 'settled'. It is not. The official version has more holes and illogic [even impossible physically and 'facts' [sic] in direct opposition with other 'facts'] than one can count. Character assassination of those who question (or saw/heard/experienced something other than the official version) will get those who do it nowhere and no 'points'. The truth will out, as they say despite the pigheadedness of the official sychophants. Your gloating will be short-lived IMO and eventually egg on your and the 'official's' faces. I hope to see Bush/Chaney and many others eventually tried by International Tribunal (if we can't in the US) for their crimes in 911 and related sequellae.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Peter,

Have you read the case submtted by Judy Wood et al?

It was an appeal. The case really had no merit. Reading it, it seems to me that the plaintiffs did not even try to create a logical argument.

I could reiterate the appeal and its claims and argue the court's decision point by point, but anyone should be able to read it and reach a smimilar conclusion.

I am not sure of the reasoning behind the submission of the appeal. Possibly just to go on record as having appealed, but the arguments do not reiterate the sweeping claims of the 9/11 anti-official theory as you have summarized above. The appeal is almost mocking in its language.

As to your claims that none of the official story can stand up to any sort of scrutiny doesn't really apply. The appeal doesn't really attempt to counter anything (not n substance anyway, also your indictment, anove, only really stands as a claim in diametric opposition to the official story). In other words, this appeal just seems to square off, saying we're right and you're wrong.

Reading the appeal, IMO, there was no merit, no sustance, and the argument was frivolous.

I don't know why the appeal was written in this way.

Quote "A piece of historical revisionism worthy of inclusion in a Soviet-era encyclopedia: Hussein was a creature of the CIA, and it was the US which both instigated his invasion of Iran and furnished him with the weaponry. Just another Langley mass murderer, in other words.

"

That Saddam committed atrocities against the Kurds is hardly historical revisionism

Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror.

Documentation of the atrocities Saddam committed are legion, including the UN, human rights watch, and his trial, to name just a few sources. Saddam even published his intent on using plutonium processed from the Osirak reactor to manufacture a nuclear weapon to be used against Israel. Saddam published this after Iran attempted to destroy the reactor to persuade Iran that a nuclear weapon wouldn't be used against them. These tactics were not the product of the CIA. That he had a cozy relationship with the CIA at one time is not being debated.

Would you kindly point out where exactly in the post an historical revision(ism) was submitted?

I am not debating the motives of those who made the investment, but that an embargo would hurt the Zimbabwean people far more than the government, or Mugabe; in fact, by virtue of a history of the effectiveness of embargoes in general (take Myanmar for a particular example), they are ineffective.

The premise behind an embargo is to cause sufficient suffering among the populace that they are forced to take control of their country by force from the targeted government. Ultimately and typically, emgargoes are not effective and cause great suffering to the people of the targeted countries. The damage is typically done not to the despots, but to the innocent people.

Regardless of the motives of these investors (and I agree they seem quite a bit less than altruistic), some benefit would be felt by the Zimbabwean people. Where a country's populace is in dire need, any investment, even those made by greedy politicians manipulating the situation for their own benefit, is better than none at all.

Are you advocating a boycott of Zimbabwe?

A dark moment in UN history...

THE UN security council failed to agree on declaring Zimbabwe's run-off election illegitimate today in the face of South African opposition. Instead, it merely issued an oral statement of regret over the one-candidate presidential vote.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23936674-401,00.html

This basically reveals the impotence of the UN and the UN security council. Zimbabwe is becoming another Mynamar, where a despotic regime can mismanage its country and futrher its own ends at the expense of its populace.

Even more alarming is the influence exerted by South Africa, a Russian puppet, in rendering the UN seucirty council impotent. South Africa would seem like the last nation to allow such behavior. It seems guarenteed that the African Union will also refuse to censure Mugabe.

South Africa is apparently under Russia's sphere of influence and another in a long line of nations who averts their eyes from political oppression, allowing despots to enjoy immunity in preying upon their own populace and in commiting criminal acts of oppression.

This particular act of negligence is largely due to Russia's permenant membership as one of the five permenant members of the UN security council. This seat provides Russia with Veto power over any UN security council act but also allows their tacit endorsement of oppression, the very type of oppression they themselves practice.

The UN was supposed to recognize a greater responsibility shared in raising the awareness of political oppression and particularly in improving conditions in Africa, the poorest continent on earth. Such was the philosophy behind the "responsibility to protect" doctrine.

Inch by inch they gain foothold. In the end those with little will have nothing and the despots will govern by fear and intimidation.

"The world stood up and got the bastard. But the bitch that bore the bastard is in heat again." - Berthold Brecht 1945.

All I ever see are claims against the US government, claims of secret societies or New World Orders, calls for people to throw off chains of supposed oppression by the US (and on far lesser occasions, the UK).

Does no-one care about Zimbabwe? Why aren't Forum members voicing concerns that the western world is not doing anything (or much) to stop a dictator, whether that action be political, economic, or military?

A lessor situation occurs in Fiji, where a military junta rules. Is this fair to the Indian population? Are they being treated justly?

Why aren't Forum members (specifically those who spend the majority of their time here making posts) making people aware of these situations, instead of concentrating on anti-US comments? Do they not care? Are they biased?

I thought this an important subject.

Also, the subject of Myanmar and the criminal behavior of the Myanmar government, and the role of the UN and its "responsibility to protect" doctrine.

While the West worries about its fuel supply, two thirds of the world has a problem finding its next meal and worry about whether their children can survive into adulthood.

Is there a warped perspective in the world today with respect to its real problems?

The "Truth Movement" (AKA People Who Disagree With The Findings Of The 9/11 Commission And Believe Official Collusion)...

(emphasis added by Drago

"Truthers" --- are most accurately defined, in the context of 9/11, as "People Who, in Informed, Intelligent, Courageous Manners, Take Legitimate Issue with the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of the Attacks on 9/11/01."

Charles,

While this is likely a description of the majority within this group, I have personally encountered some "truthers" whose tactics were not even good enough to be defined as 'Ill-mannered'. On one occasion, when I attempted to enter into a civil discussion with a few 'leaflet handlers' on a street corner, as soon as they determined that I was not going to fall into compliant agreement with their 'point of view', they immediately resorted to ad homs and one guy even threatened me physically.

Not all of these people are 'Courageously mannered'. When Bill Maher refused to enter into an impromptu discussion of '9/11 truth' on his cable show he was subjected to loud and threatening derision (heard on the show being screamed by some rowdy audience members).

Maybe the "truthers", like any group, has its share of the ill mannered. On the other side of the coin, I have also seen many "truthers" act with zen like restraint in the face of an assault of derision.

The "Truth Movement" (AKA People Who Disagree With The Findings Of The 9/11 Commission And Believe Official Collusion)...

(emphasis added by Drago

I'm afraid, Evan, that you've lured me out of retirement yet again.

Your definition of "Truth Movement" is so flawed, so at variance with fact, and so cripplingly superficial as to provoke suspicions of disingenuousness.

I dare you even to define "official" in any reasonable way within this context. Do you mean "governmental?" If so, are you referencing elected and/or appointed uber-government personnel, or would you direct our attention to those who operate at what Peter Dale Scott would term the "deep political" levels?

By extension, would you describe those of us who recognize conspiracy in the death of JFK to be historical fact as "People Who Disagree with the Findings of the Warren Commission and Believe Official Collusion?"

Do you really want to do this, Evan?

"Truthers" -- the most condescending, manipulative, confrontational, designed-to-demean epithet to come down the pike since "conspiracy buff" -- are most accurately defined, in the context of 9/11, as "People Who, in Informed, Intelligent, Courageous Manners, Take Legitimate Issue with the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of the Attacks on 9/11/01."

Period.

Count me among their number.

Would some of my comrades indict "Bush" and "Cheney" as 9/11 perps? Certainly.

Do not count me among their number.

Am I any less a "Truther?"

One need not assign blame to recognize, analyze, and present proof of and detail criminal activity.

One need not name the gunmen in Dealey Plaza to prove that there were multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza.

One need not name the 9/11 conspirators to prove that the acts were carried out in such manners as to demonstrate the non-viability of the official U.S. government conspiracy theory.

Your unreasonable and all-too-common definition of "Truthers" promotes confusion and derision. I suspect that, in doing so, it is living up to the expectations of its designers.

The term, “Truthers”, seems to have originated as an abbreviation for those seeking (insert Wildcard) truth in relation to the events of 9/11/2001. That the term has not only stuck, but used prodigiously by critics of the “truth” movement, is testament to the needs of these self-same critics for; mythologizing, obfuscation, and application of irony, to define these movements and parcel them away.

Personally I am not a subscriber to any of the 9/11 “truth” movements. But the inertia these organizations have gained should signify, to even the most virulent critic, the deep seated unhappiness the citizenry has with the current establishment infrastructure and with their own government.

A contemporary social scientist and Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, American Mark Fenster has written books on the role of conspiracy theory in today’s society. In “Conspiracy Theory –Secrecy and power in American Culture”, ‘Fenster shows that conspiracy theories play an important role in U.S. democracy. Examining how and why they circulate through mass culture, he contends, helps us better understand society as a whole. Ranging from The Da Vinci Code to the intellectual history of Richard Hofstadter, he argues that dismissing conspiracy theories as pathological or marginal flattens contemporary politics and culture because they are—contrary to popular portrayal—an intense articulation of populism and, at their essence, are strident calls for a better, more transparent government’ (University of Minnesota Press).

One review of sums it up: “Fenster makes a powerful argument for regarding conspiracism as an integral product of the political system, reflecting inadequacies the establishment itself is blind to and expressing strong desires for the realization of frustrated ideals. Conspiracy Theories is a fascinating look at an important, little-studied topic. Informative and thought-provoking.” —Philadelphia City Paper

Of all the critics of the establishment’s portrayal of the events of 9/11, I find Dr. Judy Wood’s position to be the most tenuous. I have read her lawsuit and find the merits of her case ridiculous in the extreme.

But as Marshall McCluhan said “The Medium is the Message”. The message is that we have a less than transparent government in (it’s bordering on the opaque) and we the US citizens have almost no idea what our government is doing anymore. From that point of view, IMO, the term “Truther” is as apt as any.