Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Christopher, Martin, Just so you know, I am no Democrat and not even American for that matter. There -- that ought to fuel your engines some! That is not really the point. I just wanted to offer you and other people on this list some opportunities to access different sources of information regarding recent world events. You don't have to take up the offer. It does not surprise me to find out (I suspected so) that you aren't American - but, it does nothing to "fuel my engines", other than to say it may just BE the point. I have traveled the world. And it always puzzles me to find how so many countries enjoy the fruits of trade with America, yet don't bother knowing the people. We are a relatively young country, at times uncouth and rough - but we take baths. Not once, but countless times, the US has been called to help stop some form of tyranny or the other (the 2 World Wars, Korea, etc.). These same ungrateful countries, refuse to pay their share of the UN dues, debts to the US from the endless aid paid for by Americans. The 'information" you speak of is little more than rumor and drivel, in the same class as the Enquirer. We' re all free to get the amount of knowledge that we each need to live. Everybody is different on that score. But there are a number of enduring questions about 9-11 that are not answered by any big media outlet that I am aware of. Here are just a couple: why was there a meeting between Bin Laden and a CIA agent in Dubai in July 2001? The meeting was originally reported by a French newspaper and later denied by the State Department. But what wasn't reported in the US was that Le Figaro stood by their account after the US official denial and said that the information came from French intelligence. Given Bin Laden's past affiliation with the CIA, I think this is a cloud that hangs over a possible CIA link to Al Qaeda. And then there is the whole question of the slow response by the Air Force to defend Washington on 9-11. Why did it take over an hour to scramble jets from Andrews Air Force Base to intercept either Flight 93 or the plane that crashed into the Pentagon -- especially after the WTC had been hit and it was surmised that this was an attack? And why did these jets, once scrambled, fly so slowly (less than 1/4 of their top speed) that they could not intercept any of the hikacked aircraft? This whole question is far more complex than I can do it justice -- it's best if members go to the site I mentioned before with the Thompson timeline and check it for themselves. Yes, there is a possibility that there was a system-wide failure of NORAD and the Air Force to respond. But is that the only explanation? I don't buy it, if only because so many things had to have gone wrong for that outcome to occur. So I do think that the notion of a "stand down" order given to the Air force on 9-11 has to at least entertained more seriously. The problem is that there is no real discussion of these questions anywhere in the media. Where do you get this so-called information? if there was a meeting between bin Laden and some CIA agent (by the way, an "Agent" is someone of normally foreign-born status, working on behalf of the CIA, NOT an employee of the CIA), of course they would deny it. That doesn't in any way mean there was a connection to 9/11 events. You imply that the US government supported this event. Ridiculous! And where did you get the idea that the AF jets responding to the attacks flew at 1/4 speed? Iraq is a belligerent state in the region and Hussain runs a dictatorial police state. No news there. But they have very little capability to actually strike against other countries. Former US weapons inspector Scott Ritter has gone on record about this. And more importantly, there has been zero evidence of any Al Qaeda links with Iraq. For my money, it's about oil and creating a war atmosphere at home. The US has a long term plan for region that involves taking over several countries in order to secure oil supplies. They need some kind of pretext (weapons of mass destruction) in order to do this in some politically acceptable way of course, because statecraft and imperialism can no longer follow the old crude ways. But it's all the same game, only with a more sophisticated audience. Yes, I partially agree. Iraq IS for the moment PROBABLY unable to do any real harm. So was Hitler in the years before he invaded the Sudetenland, then Poland, etc... Despite the warning signals (a warning is the horn signaling you to leave BEFORE the tornado hits), he was allowed to build up his military because he "couldn't really do any harm". Well, guess what? He WAS able to do a great deal of harm - 6,000,000 Jews alone, countless soldiers form nearly every nation on the planet died because Hitler ad very little capability. You're right, the audience IS more sophisticated, and therefore even more certain of their surety. And altogether wrong. But here's the scary part - my point of view can only be proven correct, as it was in the late 30's, when Saddam IS finally able to launch a nerve gas missile or a nuclear bomb or some other such idiocy, and we find out suddenly, that he CAN cause some pretty sever harm. And I repeat, we don't NEED the oil. America your phone is ringing it is destiny calling Best Regards, Martin Michaels ----------------------- Sr. Consultant SBC-Ameritech 317-265-1143 mm6365 ------------------------------ Sr. Systems Analyst Nirvana Consulting 317-902-9432 gadgetcoder 'This work we do, It's not "rocket science"... It's much, MUCH harder.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Dear MArtin I for one appreciate your posts and your point of view. I look forward to them and actually enjoy seeing the different points of view. I like the way you offer information to support your views rather than emotional antagonism. Astrologically, I do not see how a Vedic astrologer could find Hussein benign. cynthia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Cynthia - I don't see how ANYONE could Hussein benign. Oil or no oil, he needs his claws clipped at the least. Best Regards, Martin Michaels ----------------------- Sr. Consultant SBC-Ameritech 317-265-1143 mm6365 ------------------------------ Sr. Systems Analyst Nirvana Consulting 317-902-9432 gadgetcoder 'This work we do, It's not "rocket science"... It's much, MUCH harder.' > > cynthia novak [cynthianovak] > Monday, October 21, 2002 8:58 PM > gjlist > Re: [GJ] Bush/Saddam, etc. > > > Dear MArtin > I for one appreciate your posts and your point of view. I > look forward to > them and actually enjoy seeing the different points of view. > I like the way > you offer information to support your views rather than emotional > antagonism. > > Astrologically, I do not see how a Vedic astrologer could find Hussein > benign. > cynthia > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Cynthia and Martin, I don't think there is much argument from anybody that Saddam is a bad person, astrology or not. Surely one doesn't go around threatening people because they have Mars Rahu conjunctions! There are lots of nasty dictators in the world that the US doesn't bother with. So is Saddam really such a threat to the US? Beats me -- the only two times he invaded another country, he ASKED the US if it was OK. Doesn't sound like the behaviour of a Hitler-like madman. He invaded Iran 20 years ago and was given extensive support by the US. In fact, the US helped him set up his chemical and biological weapons programs. That's because the US regarded Iran as a bigger threat. You see, your country likes to the rest of the world as pawns in its ultimate power games. He invaded Kuwait after requesting permission from the US. This is where the US pulled a fast one. They tricked him by giving the OK but in effect they wanted him out. So he invaded Kuwait and crossed that famous line in the sand and the Empire got their justice done. Not too many people know that Saddam was on the CIA payroll for over 20 years. He was part of the insurgent movement that overthrew the democratically elected government in Iraq back in the 50s. So all these guys are blowback -- former employees of the Holy Realm of the Eagle that have got better ideas than to sit on Uncle Sam's knee. Das, I know we're drifting into the non-astrological world here, but I feel there are real implications for doing charts. We need to know what is really going on before he can understand horoscopes of countries or their leaders. So the 9-11 attacks need to assessed for the degree to which they might have been an "inside job" -- and not simply an attack. Here I would suggest that an out and out attack would have more 6th house flavour. The possibility of a conspiracy implies the 8th house and the nodes, as well as Neptune and Pluto. More on this as it occurs to me. On the what really happened on 9-11 question, the excerpts from the timeline I posted come from a number of different sources, including jet pilots, newspapers, and television broadcasts. I know there is zero chance of convincing either of you of the possibility that your government might be concealing the truth from you (here's another one, was flight 93 shot down? Contradictory evidence exists on that one too. Go to http://www.flight93crash.com), but I post my opinions to let others in the silent majority know that reality is more like a prism than a window. What you see depends on what side you are looking through. The truth (!) is that there is likely no amount of evidence that one could give that would convince you that Saddam was not a real threat, or that Bush is conducting the war to help his oil sponsors, or that elements in USA had something to gain from 9-11 and indeed they allowed it happen. Hmm. Sounds like the same attitude one gets from the Skeptical Inquirer types who debunk astrology! One knows that there is certainly no amount of evidence we could give them that might make them accept that there is something to astrology after all. Some things just aren't open to reason. best wishes, Chris ---------- > MICHAELS, MARTIN (AIT) <mm6365 > 'gjlist' > RE: [GJ] Bush/Saddam, etc. > Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:41 AM > > Cynthia - > > I don't see how ANYONE could Hussein benign. Oil or no oil, he needs > his claws clipped at the least. > > Best Regards, > Martin Michaels > ----------------------- > Sr. Consultant > SBC-Ameritech > 317-265-1143 > mm6365 > ------------------------------ > Sr. Systems Analyst > Nirvana Consulting > 317-902-9432 > gadgetcoder > > 'This work we do, > It's not "rocket science"... > It's much, MUCH harder.' > > > > > > cynthia novak [cynthianovak] > > Monday, October 21, 2002 8:58 PM > > gjlist > > Re: [GJ] Bush/Saddam, etc. > > > > > > Dear MArtin > > I for one appreciate your posts and your point of view. I > > look forward to > > them and actually enjoy seeing the different points of view. > > I like the way > > you offer information to support your views rather than emotional > > antagonism. > > > > Astrologically, I do not see how a Vedic astrologer could find Hussein > > benign. > > cynthia > > > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > > : gjlist- > > > > > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > > > > > > > > Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat Sat > : gjlist- > > > > Your use of is subject to > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.