  |
 |
| |
|
|
|  Iraq Vets Break Silence on Devastating Realities of WarPosted on Jul 12, 2007
Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (Page 4) Patrols
Soldiers and marines who participated in neighborhood patrols said they often used the same tactics as convoys--speed, aggressive firing--to reduce the risk of being ambushed or falling victim to IEDs. Sgt. Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, who frequently took part in patrols, said his unit fired often and without much warning on Iraqi civilians in a desperate bid to ward off attacks.
“Every time we got on the highway,” he said, “we were firing warning shots, causing accidents all the time. Cars screeching to a stop, going into the other intersection.... The problem is, if you slow down at an intersection more than once, that’s where the next bomb is going to be because you know they watch. You know? And so if you slow down at the same choke point every time, guaranteed there’s going to be a bomb there next couple of days. So getting onto a freeway or highway is a choke point ‘cause you have to wait for traffic to stop. So you want to go as fast as you can, and that involves added risk to all the cars around you, all the civilian cars.
“The first Iraqi I saw killed was an Iraqi who got too close to our patrol,” he said. “We were coming up an on-ramp. And he was coming down the highway. And they fired warning shots and he just didn’t stop. He just merged right into the convoy and they opened up on him.”
This took place sometime in the spring of 2005 in Khadamiya, in the northwest corner of Baghdad, Sergeant Campbell said. His unit fired into the man’s car with a 240 Bravo, a heavy machine gun. “I heard three gunshots,” he said. “We get about halfway down the road and...the guy in the car got out and he’s covered in blood. And this is where...the impulse is just to keep going. There’s no way that this guy knows who we are. We’re just like every other patrol that goes up and down this road. I looked at my lieutenant and it wasn’t even a discussion. We turned around and we went back.
“So I’m treating the guy. He has three gunshot wounds to the chest. Blood everywhere. And he keeps going in and out of consciousness. And when he finally stops breathing, I have to give him CPR. I take my right hand, I lift up his chin and I take my left hand and grab the back of his head to position his head, and as I take my left hand, my hand actually goes into his cranium. So I’m actually holding this man’s brain in my hand. And what I realized was I had made a mistake. I had checked for exit wounds. But what I didn’t know was the Humvee behind me, after the car failed to stop after the first three rounds, had fired twenty, thirty rounds into the car. I never heard it.
“I heard three rounds, I saw three holes, no exit wounds,” he said. “I thought I knew what the situation was. So I didn’t even treat this guy’s injury to the head. Every medic I ever told is always like, Of course, I mean, the guy got shot in the head. There’s nothing you could have done. And I’m pretty sure--I mean, you can’t stop bleeding in the head like that. But this guy, I’m watching this guy, who I know we shot because he got too close. His car was clean. There was no--didn’t hear it, didn’t see us, whatever it was. Dies, you know, dying in my arms.”
While many veterans said the killing of civilians deeply disturbed them, they also said there was no other way to safely operate a patrol.
“You don’t want to shoot kids, I mean, no one does,” said Sergeant Campbell, as he began to describe an incident in the summer of 2005 recounted to him by several men in his unit. “But you have this: I remember my unit was coming along this elevated overpass. And this kid is in the trash pile below, pulls out an AK-47 and just decides he’s going to start shooting. And you gotta understand...when you have spent nine months in a war zone, where no one--every time you’ve been shot at, you’ve never seen the person shooting at you, and you could never shoot back. Here’s some guy, some 14-year-old kid with an AK-47, decides he’s going to start shooting at this convoy. It was the most obscene thing you’ve ever seen. Every person got out and opened fire on this kid. Using the biggest weapons we could find, we ripped him to shreds.” Sergeant Campbell was not present at the incident, which took place in Khadamiya, but he saw photographs and heard descriptions from several eyewitnesses in his unit.
“Everyone was so happy, like this release that they finally killed an insurgent,” he said. “Then when they got there, they realized it was just a little kid. And I know that really fucked up a lot of people in the head.... They’d show all the pictures and some people were really happy, like, Oh, look what we did. And other people were like, I don’t want to see that ever again.”
The killing of unarmed Iraqis was so common many of the troops said it became an accepted part of the daily landscape. “The ground forces were put in that position,” said First Lieut. Wade Zirkle of Shenandoah County, Virginia, who fought in Nasiriya and Falluja with the Second Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion from March to May 2003. “You got a guy trying to kill me but he’s firing from houses...with civilians around him, women and children. You know, what do you do? You don’t want to risk shooting at him and shooting children at the same time. But at the same time, you don’t want to die either.”
Sergeant Dougherty recounted an incident north of Nasiriya in December 2003, when her squad leader shot an Iraqi civilian in the back. The shooting was described to her by a woman in her unit who treated the injury. “It was just, like, the mentality of my squad leader was like, Oh, we have to kill them over here so I don’t have to kill them back in Colorado,” she said. “He just, like, seemed to view every Iraqi as like a potential terrorist.”
Several interviewees said that, on occasion, these killings were justified by framing innocents as terrorists, typically following incidents when American troops fired on crowds of unarmed Iraqis. The troops would detain those who survived, accusing them of being insurgents, and plant AK-47s next to the bodies of those they had killed to make it seem as if the civilian dead were combatants. “It would always be an AK because they have so many of these weapons lying around,” said Specialist Aoun. Cavalry scout Joe Hatcher, 26, of San Diego, said 9-millimeter handguns and even shovels--to make it look like the noncombatant was digging a hole to plant an IED--were used as well.
“Every good cop carries a throwaway,” said Hatcher, who served with the Fourth Cavalry Regiment, First Squadron, in Ad Dawar, halfway between Tikrit and Samarra, from February 2004 to March 2005. “If you kill someone and they’re unarmed, you just drop one on ‘em.” Those who survived such shootings then found themselves imprisoned as accused insurgents.
In the winter of 2004, Sergeant Campbell was driving near a particularly dangerous road in Abu Gharth, a town west of Baghdad, when he heard gunshots. Sergeant Campbell, who served as a medic in Abu Gharth with the 256th Infantry Brigade from November 2004 to October 2005, was told that Army snipers had fired fifty to sixty rounds at two insurgents who’d gotten out of their car to plant IEDs. One alleged insurgent was shot in the knees three or four times, treated and evacuated on a military helicopter, while the other man, who was treated for glass shards, was arrested and detained.
“I come to find out later that, while I was treating him, the snipers had planted--after they had searched and found nothing--they had planted bomb-making materials on the guy because they didn’t want to be investigated for the shoot,” Sergeant Campbell said. (He showed The Nation a photograph of one sniper with a radio in his pocket that he later planted as evidence.) “And to this day, I mean, I remember taking that guy to Abu Ghraib prison--the guy who didn’t get shot--and just saying ‘I’m sorry’ because there was not a damn thing I could do about it.... I mean, I guess I have a moral obligation to say something, but I would have been kicked out of the unit in a heartbeat. I would’ve been a traitor.”
Checkpoints
The US military checkpoints dotted across Iraq, according to twenty-six soldiers and marines who were stationed at them or supplied them--in locales as diverse as Tikrit, Baghdad, Karbala, Samarra, Mosul and Kirkuk--were often deadly for civilians. Unarmed Iraqis were mistaken for insurgents, and the rules of engagement were blurred. Troops, fearing suicide bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, often fired on civilian cars. Nine of those soldiers said they had seen civilians being shot at checkpoints. These incidents were so common that the military could not investigate each one, some veterans said.
“Most of the time, it’s a family,” said Sergeant Cannon, who served at half a dozen checkpoints in Tikrit. “Every now and then, there is a bomb, you know, that’s the scary part.”
There were some permanent checkpoints stationed across the country, but for unsuspecting civilians, “flash checkpoints” were far more dangerous, according to eight veterans who were involved in setting them up. These impromptu security perimeters, thrown up at a moment’s notice and quickly dismantled, were generally designed to catch insurgents in the act of trafficking weapons or explosives, people violating military-imposed curfews or suspects in bombings or drive-by shootings.
Iraqis had no way of knowing where these so-called “tactical control points” would crop up, interviewees said, so many would turn a corner at a high speed and became the unwitting targets of jumpy soldiers and marines.
“For me, it was really random,” said Lieutenant Van Engelen. “I just picked a spot on a map that I thought was a high-volume area that might catch some people. We just set something up for half an hour to an hour and then we’d move on.” There were no briefings before setting up checkpoints, he said.
Temporary checkpoints were safer for troops, according to the veterans, because they were less likely to serve as static targets for insurgents. “You do it real quick because you don’t always want to announce your presence,” said First Sgt. Perry Jefferies, 46, of Waco, Texas, who served with the Fourth Infantry Division from April to October 2003.
The temporary checkpoints themselves varied greatly. Lieutenant Van Engelen set up checkpoints using orange cones and fifty yards of concertina wire. He would assign a soldier to control the flow of traffic and direct drivers through the wire, while others searched vehicles, questioned drivers and asked for identification. He said signs in English and Arabic warned Iraqis to stop; at night, troops used lasers, glow sticks or tracer bullets to signal cars through. When those weren’t available, troops improvised by using flashlights sent them by family and friends back home.
“Baghdad is not well lit,” said Sergeant Flanders. “There’s not street lights everywhere. You can’t really tell what’s going on.”
Other troops, however, said they constructed tactical control points that were hardly visible to drivers. “We didn’t have cones, we didn’t have nothing,” recalled Sergeant Bocanegra, who said he served at more than ten checkpoints in Tikrit. “You literally put rocks on the side of the road and tell them to stop. And of course some cars are not going to see the rocks. I wouldn’t even see the rocks myself.”
According to Sergeant Flanders, the primary concern when assembling checkpoints was protecting the troops serving there. Humvees were positioned so that they could quickly drive away if necessary, and the heavy weapons mounted on them were placed “in the best possible position” to fire on vehicles that attempted to pass through the checkpoint without stopping. And the rules of engagement were often improvised, soldiers said.
“We were given a long list of that kind of stuff and, to be honest, a lot of the time we would look at it and throw it away,” said Staff Sgt. James Zuelow, 39, a National Guardsman from Juneau, Alaska, who served in Baghdad in the Third Battalion, 297th Infantry Regiment, for a year beginning in January 2005. “A lot of it was written at such a high level it didn’t apply.”
At checkpoints, troops had to make split-second decisions on when to use lethal force, and veterans said fear often clouded their judgment.
Sgt. Matt Mardan, 31, of Minneapolis, served as a Marine scout sniper outside Falluja in 2004 and 2005 with the Third Battalion, First Marines. “People think that’s dangerous, and it is,” he said. “But I would do that any day of the week rather than be a marine sitting on a fucking checkpoint looking at cars.”
No car that passes through a checkpoint is beyond suspicion, said Sergeant Dougherty. “You start looking at everyone as a criminal.... Is this the car that’s going to try to run into me? Is this the car that has explosives in it? Or is this just someone who’s confused?” The perpetual uncertainty, she said, is mentally exhausting and physically debilitating.
“In the moment, what’s passing through your head is, Is this person a threat? Do I shoot to stop or do I shoot to kill?” said Lieutenant Morgenstein, who served in Al Anbar.
Sergeant Mejía recounted an incident in Ramadi in July 2003 when an unarmed man drove with his young son too close to a checkpoint. The father was decapitated in front of the small, terrified boy by a member of Sergeant Mejía’s unit firing a heavy .50-caliber machine gun. By then, said Sergeant Mejía, who responded to the scene after the fact, “this sort of killing of civilians had long ceased to arouse much interest or even comment.” The next month, Sergeant Mejía returned stateside for a two-week rest and refused to go back, launching a public protest over the treatment of Iraqis. (He was charged with desertion, sentenced to one year in prison and given a bad-conduct discharge.)
During the summer of 2005, Sergeant Millard, who served as an assistant to a general in Tikrit, attended a briefing on a checkpoint shooting, at which his role was to flip PowerPoint slides.
“This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun,” he said. “This car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that’s a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged 4 and the daughter was aged 3. And they briefed this to the general. And they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, ‘If these fucking hajis learned to drive, this shit wouldn’t happen.’”
Whether or not commanding officers shared this attitude, interviewees said, troops were rarely held accountable for shooting civilians at checkpoints. Eight veterans described the prevailing attitude among them as “Better to be tried by twelve men than carried by six.” Since the number of troops tried for killing civilians is so scant, interviewees said, they would risk court-martial over the possibility of injury or death.
Rules of Engagement
Indeed, several troops said the rules of engagement were fluid and designed to insure their safety above all else. Some said they were simply told they were authorized to shoot if they felt threatened, and what constituted a risk to their safety was open to wide interpretation. “Basically it always came down to self-defense and better them than you,” said Sgt. Bobby Yen, 28, of Atherton, California, who covered a variety of Army activities in Baghdad and Mosul as part of the 222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment for one year beginning in November 2003.
“Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement,” Lieutenant Van Engelen confirmed. “Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat.”
Lack of a uniform policy from service to service, base to base and year to year forced troops to rely on their own judgment, Sergeant Jefferies explained. “We didn’t get straight-up rules,” he said. “You got things like, ‘Don’t be aggressive’ or ‘Try not to shoot if you don’t have to.’ Well, what does that mean?”
Prior to deployment, Sergeant Flanders said, troops were trained on the five S’s of escalation of force: Shout a warning, Shove (physically restrain), Show a weapon, Shoot non-lethal ammunition in a vehicle’s engine block or tires, and Shoot to kill. Some troops said they carried the rules in their pockets or helmets on a small laminated card. “The escalation-of-force methodology was meant to be a guide to determine course of actions you should attempt before you shoot,” he said. “ ’Shove’ might be a step that gets skipped in a given situation. In vehicles, at night, how does ‘Shout’ work? Each soldier is not only drilled on the five S’s but their inherent right for self-defense.”
Some interviewees said their commanders discouraged this system of escalation. “There’s no such thing as warning shots,” Specialist Resta said he was told during his predeployment training at Fort Bragg. “I even specifically remember being told that it was better to kill them than to have somebody wounded and still alive.”
Lieutenant Morgenstein said that when he arrived in Iraq in August 2004, the rules of engagement barred the use of warning shots. “We were trained that if someone is not armed, and they are not a threat, you never fire a warning shot because there is no need to shoot at all,” he said. “You signal to them with some other means than bullets. If they are armed and they are a threat, you never fire a warning shot because...that just gives them a chance to kill you. I don’t recall at this point if this was an ROE [rule of engagement] explicitly or simply part of our consistent training.” But later on, he said, “we were told the ROE was changed” and that warning shots were now explicitly allowed in certain circumstances.
Sergeant Westphal said that by the time he arrived in Iraq earlier in 2004, the rules of engagement for checkpoints were more refined--at least where he served with the Army in Tikrit. “If they didn’t stop, you were to fire a warning shot,” said Sergeant Westphal. “If they still continued to come, you were instructed to escalate and point your weapon at their car. And if they still didn’t stop, then, if you felt you were in danger and they were about to run your checkpoint or blow you up, you could engage.”
In his initial training, Lieutenant Morgenstein said, marines were cautioned against the use of warning shots because “others around you could be hurt by the stray bullet,” and in fact such incidents were not unusual. One evening in Baghdad, Sergeant Zuelow recalled, a van roared up to a checkpoint where another platoon in his company was stationed and a soldier fired a warning shot that bounced off the ground and killed the van’s passenger. “That was a big wake-up call,” he said, “and after that we discouraged warning shots of any kind.”
Many checkpoint incidents went unreported, a number of veterans indicated, and the civilians killed were not included in the overall casualty count. Yet judging by the number of checkpoint shootings described to The Nation by veterans we interviewed, such shootings appear to be quite common.
Sergeant Flatt recounted one incident in Mosul in January 2005 when an elderly couple zipped past a checkpoint. “The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint, or not even a checkpoint at all, and probably didn’t even see the soldiers,” he said. “The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them day after day.”
In another incident, a man was driving his wife and three children in a pickup truck on a major highway north of the Euphrates, near Ramadi, on a rainy day in February or March 2005. When the man failed to stop at a checkpoint, a marine in a light-armored vehicle fired on the car, killing the wife and critically wounding the son. According to Lieutenant Morgenstein, a civil affairs officer, a JAG official gave the family condolences and about $3,000 in compensation. “I mean, it’s a terrible thing because there’s no way to pay money to replace a family member,” said Lieutenant Morgenstein, who was sometimes charged with apologizing to families for accidental deaths and offering them such compensation, called “condolence payments” or “solatia.” “But it’s an attempt to compensate for some of the costs of the funeral and all the expenses. It’s an attempt to make a good-faith offering in a sign of regret and to say, you know, We didn’t want this to happen. This is by accident.” According to a May report from the Government Accountability Office, the Defense Department issued nearly $31 million in solatia and condolence payments between 2003 and 2006 to civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan who were “killed, injured or incur[red] property damage as a result of U.S. or coalition forces’ actions during combat.” The study characterizes the payments as “expressions of sympathy or remorse...but not an admission of legal liability or fault.” In Iraq, according to the report, civilians are paid up to $2,500 for death, as much as $1,500 for serious injuries and $200 or more for minor injuries.
On one occasion, in Ramadi in late 2004, a man happened to drive down a road with his family minutes after a suicide bomber had hit a barrier during a cordon-and-search operation, Lieutenant Morgenstein said. The car’s brakes failed and marines fired. The wife and her two children managed to escape from the car, but the man was fatally hit. The family was mistakenly told that he had survived, so Lieutenant Morgenstein had to set the record straight. “I’ve never done this before,” he said. “I had to go tell this woman that her husband was actually dead. We gave her money, we gave her, like, ten crates of water, we gave the kids, I remember, maybe it was soccer balls and toys. We just didn’t really know what else to do.”
One such incident, which took place in Falluja in March 2003 and was reported on at the time by the BBC, even involved a group of plainclothes Iraqi policemen. Sergeant Mejía was told about the event by several soldiers who witnessed it.
The police officers were riding in a white pickup truck, chasing a BMW that had raced through a checkpoint. “The guy that the cops were chasing got through and I guess the soldiers got scared or nervous, so when the pickup truck came they opened fire on it,” Sergeant Mejía said. “The Iraqi police tried to cease fire, but when the soldiers would not stop they defended themselves and there was a firefight between the soldiers and the cops. Not a single soldier was killed, but eight cops were.”
1
2
3
4
5
NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Flynt to Capitol Hill Hypocrites: 'Payback's a Bitch' Next item: Still Queasy After All These Years Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Welcome to the Third World, America
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
By John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 28, 2007 at 6:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
(Still no response)
There is probably more evidence for 911 than there was for the Reichstag stunt. It is all historical and it is plenty enough to have a full investigation.
1. Rise of the Neocon supremicist movement at the U. of Chicago and Cornell.
2. Subversive nature of this movement
3. Plan for the New American Century as a subversive movement.
4. Rise of the Bush crime family syndicate.
5. Neocon headquarters in the pentagon and collusion with selected air force officers and the Israeli government.
6. Treason Act ready before 911.
7. Anthrax stunt against Democratic leaders.
8. Murder of Wellstone family.
6. Iraq war con.
You don’t have to know anything about the pentagon or skyscrapers to launch a real investigation. There is even more evidence in the cover ups.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 28, 2007 at 12:55 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ernest Canning on 7/27 at 7:04 pm
(752 comments total)
ITW, who said I didnt want to read your post? I read it. I was not impressed by it. I think Dr. Joness scientific explanations are superior. No need to get emotional because I wasnt impressed by your post.
EC: Don’t worry, I won’t. I didn’t expect to change your mind. I have not seen compelling evidence to change my view of it, and I’ve seen a lot of easily discounted nonsense passed off as proof.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 27, 2007 at 9:47 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There are many Jews with honor. They are no better or worse than anyone else, except tradition makes it so.
Report thisBy cann4ing, July 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm #
ITW, who said I didn’t want to read your post? I read it. I was not impressed by it. I think Dr. Jones’s scientific explanations are superior. No need to get emotional because I wasn’t impressed by your post.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 27, 2007 at 6:40 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
ohn Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/27 at 1:17 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
I still think you are a liar and that fly under nothing but a false flag.
********
Yeah, your feeble bigoted mind’s made up and you don’t want to get your ignorance tainted with facts.
I think YOU were shit out by the Great Pumpkin into a toxic waste heap full of dioxin because he didn’t want to bring your filth to all the little boys and girls on Halloween.
And I have just as much evidence for what I think as you have for what you think.
Only what I think is more interesting, creative, and just plain funny.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 27, 2007 at 1:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I still think you are a liar and that fly under nothing but a false flag.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 27, 2007 at 11:20 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/27 at 10:23 am
(Unregistered commenter)
All neocons are liars. You are a neocon. Therefore you are a liar.
Your logic is impeccable. But, of course, your premise is absurd.
I am no neocon, no fan of neocons, and accept nothing they put forth as valid.
As I said you just keep throwing lis and shit at the wall to see what sticks. But it’s splattering all over you.
You don’t know shit from shinola about me, but since I KNOW you are an ignorant idiot and show it all the time, you say whatever you can invent. You don’t even show any imagination.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 27, 2007 at 10:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
All neocons are liars. You are a neocon. Therefore you are a liar.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 27, 2007 at 8:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
ohn Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/26 at 10:23 am
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no right to exist for any nation. Israels right to exist rests upon 150 nuclear weapons. I suppose you have dual citizenship, which means that you support Israel first and the United States second. Youve made your choice.
******
I guess you figure if you throw enough shit at a wall something will stick? So you just make up any lies you want and toss them out there.
I am NOT a dual citizen, nor an Israeli. I simply do not see any viable evidence that the destruction of Israel (and the subsequent murder or fleeing of 5.5 million) people can possibly be in the best interests of the USA or the Middle East.
I know that’s hard to see for you red-neck Jew-hating bigots who cut your teeth believe Jews have horns and are responsible for every evil in the world, from 9/11 to Hurricane Katrina, to the Tsunami in Asia a few years ago.
I can’t help your WILLFUL ignorance. Only you can. But I can label your bullshit as such.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 26, 2007 at 4:24 pm #
#89737 by John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/26 at 10:23 am
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no right to exist for any nation. Israels right to exist rests upon 150 nuclear weapons. I suppose you have dual citizenship, which means that you support Israel first and the United States second. Youve made your choice.
=====================================================
A choice clearly illustrated with the responses given by ITW to date. Time and again we see the same pattern. When given a choice the answer is favor of the Jewish state by Jewish Americans, over the interest of the United States, the country that bore them. The current policies of the United States favor Israel and are partial to one side--so much so we have attacked and invaded Israel’s enemies. First Iraq and soon will be Iran.
This during a time when Israel practices APARTHEID with Arabs in their own homeland, caging them by the hundreds of thousands in a place called GAZA and the WEST BANK.
Then people here ask..."why do they hate us”?
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 26, 2007 at 10:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is no right to exist for any nation. Israel’s right to exist rests upon 150 nuclear weapons. I suppose you have dual citizenship, which means that you support Israel first and the United States second. You’ve made your choice.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 26, 2007 at 6:10 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
EC:
You don’t want to read what I post? Fine, nobody’s holding you at your keyboard at gunpoint.
You want to live in your pipe dreams that make no sense about “Jewish” conspiracies to alienate the BEST friend Israel has, well, that’s your problem.
I’ve lived to see PLENTY of them, all bogus and I’ve studied even more. From Joe Hill’s conviction, to the Palmer raids, to Sacco&Vanzetti;, to Charles Beard’s scurrilous implication that FDR was behind Pearl Harbor, to the assassinations of the 60’s, to Flight 800, Foster’s suicide and now, 9/11.
All bogus conspiracy theories. Joe Hill was killed for being IWW, Period.
Building 7 COULDN’T possibly have collapsed? Well, the buffs said Oswald COULDN’T have fired the shots--Oliver Stone made a big movie saying that.
All garbage. Oswald fired the shots--the early interpretation of the evidence, particularly the timing was all wrong. When the timing was fixed, all the anomalies vanished.
I’m intellectually dishonest? Because I KNOW BS when I see it (and smell it)? Because I trust FIRST my own analysis and brainpower, not the analysis of “authorities” solely because they have a title?
The evidence of “demolition” at the WTC just doesn’t wash and I’ve laid out the reasons why. YOU brushed them aside because in your reductionist thinking they contradict what you “know” to be true:
That a team of dedicated terrorists managed to bring down the WTC by a method even Tom Clancy knew--and DESCRIBED in “Debt of Honor”.
Occam’s Razor, Baby, Occam’s Razor.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 26, 2007 at 5:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/25 at 9:57 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not a Jew-hating, Israel despising Fascist. You are, or you wouldnt use such insults as your standard fair. As far as Im concerned you are a vicious neo-con and a traitor. (No, I didnt read all your posts. Should I. People like you always return to the same old vomit.)
*****
Ludicrous. I’m Jewish. I defend Israel’s right to exist. I’m a Democrat.
Your assertions are so, well, weird, that you make GodSend look sane.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 25, 2007 at 9:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I am not a Jew-hating, Israel despising Fascist. You are, or you wouldn’t use such insults as your standard fair. As far as I’m concerned you are a vicious neo-con and a traitor. (No, I didn’t read all your posts. Should I. People like you always return to the same old vomit.)
Report thisBy cann4ing, July 25, 2007 at 8:49 pm #
No ITW, you feign politeness then return to your intellectual dishonesty. I have witnessed it too many times, and, frankly I’m tired of it. As I said in the previous post, I find the scientific explanations of a physicist like Dr. Steven E. Jones far more convincing. You can use the usual slander, “tin-hat conspiracy theorist,” as dismissive denigration all you want. The fact is that there are competing “theories” as to the source of the collapse of all three buildings. There is the “official theory” that the collapse was caused by fire--one that does not appear to square with basic science, and which bears a heavy burden of proof given than no high rise building in human history ever collapsed due to fire prior to 9/11. Then there are the unofficial “theories.”
Of all the explanations offered, Dr. Jones’s appears to be on the most solid, scientific footing. There is not one word in your argumentative posts that convinces me that the “official theories” are even credible.
Insult, yell and scream all you want. As I stated before, I am interested in the science, not in your political opinions. While I would be the first to join with you in rejecting the paranoid rantings of some posters that 9/11 is a Zionist plot, I suspect that your vociferous refusal to accept the science behind the issue of controlled demolition is in part motivated by your need to deny anything could connect this episode to one or more Zionists, though, from my perspective, if there was complicity, I suspect it had everything to do with Cheney’s insatiable lust for power, period!
Finally, your comment about the height of WTC 1 & 2 is intriguing and one worthy of a further open and full investigation. It may well explain why the squibs shooting out at higher levels (e.g. high level demolition) would have been needed in addition to the numerous explosions eye witnesses claim they heard occurring in the basements of the twin towers. It would also serve to explain the variation between the method of collapse of WTC 1 & 2 vs. WTC 7, though all three buildings collapsed into their own footprints, and although the ultra-high temperatures remained in the rubble for such an extended period, which is precisely what occurs when thermite is used in demolition.
As to WTC 7, the evidence is beyond overwhelming. The collapse was precisely what you see in controlled demolition. Controlled demolition is consistent with Larry Silverstein’s statement that they were given orders to “pull-it” and with Guiliani’s televised statement made on 9/11 to the effect that FEMA gave him 10-15 minutes advance notice that the building was going to collapse.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/25 at 10:42 am
(Unregistered commenter)
I think that inherit the wind uses insults to make people angry and then in all the confusion he offers weak arguments. You can tell that something is fishy because he uses the prescribed Republican insults and slanders in order to get things rolling. I think he fears that Israel was involved in 911, and so he wants to keep everyones attention on minutiae.
Actually, I don’t think you’ve really read my posts. Otherwise you’d KNOW I have opposed the war in Iraq since BEFORE it began. You’d know I cannot stand 99% of the Republican Party and want George W. Bush and Richard Cheney impeached, ousted then tried and convicted on charges of treason. You’d know I think Jimmy Carter was the wisest, most honest and most-far-seeing President since FDR--he was just lousy at Washington politics.
You’d know I want us OUT of Iraq and to BACK OFF on Iran. You’d know I DESPISE the fact the Bush BLEW an unbelievable opportunity to make peace with Iran after 9/11.
I have been called every kind of name by you Jew-hating Israel-despising fascists who want me to SHUT UP so you can enjoy your circle-jerk and get all horny for the idea of somebody dropping a mega-ton hydrogen bomb on Israel--because you are all such “humanists”.
I’m not afraid that Jews were behind 9/11. I’m afraid that fanatics like you will manufacture phony evidence to “prove” it--not enough to get convictions, but just enough to start what you really want: another purging of Jews--this time from America.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 25, 2007 at 10:42 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think that “inherit the wind” uses insults to make people angry and then in all the confusion he offers weak arguments. You can tell that something is fishy because he uses the prescribed Republican insults and slanders in order to get things rolling. I think he fears that Israel was involved in 911, and so he wants to keep everyone’s attention on minutiae.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 25, 2007 at 4:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Ernest Canning on 7/24 at 9:34 pm
(695 comments total)
Whom, which is more reliable the science of a renouned physicist, Dr. Steven E. Jones, reflected in powerful and convincing academic papers and presentations or ITW and his NOVA program? Hmmm, thats a tough one. And your explanation, ITW, for the symetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own footprint in the span of 6.6 seconds; WTC 7 which was not struck by a plane, is precisely what, ITW?
As you have repeated done with respect to other topics, your intellectual dishonesty is transparent and there for all to see.
***********
EC: I have TRIED to be polite to you, but you just keep coming back with insults and slander.
The physics of the collapse of the Twin Towers is not as complicated as you tin-foil hat conspiracy buffs try to make out.
If your analysis of the collapse of the twin towers is fundamentally WRONG (and it is) then the collapse of bldng 7 is no longer a valid component of your conspiracy theory.
See, you all have your logic backwards--the collapse of 7 being harder to explain does NOT indicate that the towers didn’t collapse as described--that’s typical ex post fact bad reasoning.
You have to first PROVE that the towers could not have collapsed as described, which I find ludicrous. The contained fire from jet fuel easily burns hot enough to burn the temper out of steel--you don’t need to melt the steel at all. Once the temper is gone, it’s not steel anymore, but soft iron, incapable of supporting the floors above. ALL the floors above fall like a giant sledge on the floor below, far exceeding its load limits.
Don’t believe me? Any carpenter with a hammer and a nail KNOWS you can’t just lean on the nail with the hammerhead and drive it--you have to SWING the hammer to develop kinetic energy. Simple, high school physics on how acceleration amplifies force.
So once the floors above drive down like a pile driver, the floor below collapses and now the ADDITIONAL weight is joined to hit the floor below, which collapse quicker and quicker. This isn’t hard to understand.
I also find the “demolition” theory absurd. Why? Several OBVIOUS reasons.
1)Because when buildings are demolished they are far, far smaller than the WTC. NOBODY has ever brought down a skyscraper of this order of magnitude.
2) EVERY film I’ve ever seen of a controlled demoltion, the building was ALWAYS wider than it is tall--occasionally you get fairly tall buildings but NEVER anything where the height is so much greater than the width.
3) (I think of this as the idiot argument--only an idiot would deny it) Placing charges to demolish and implode a building is not only a highly skilled profession, it is an INCREDIBLY time-consuming activity.
It can take MONTHS to plan and locate charges to bring down a fairly small structure.
During those months the demolition engineers REQUIRE complete and total access to the structure.
Most of the internals of the building must be removed in advance.
Charges are placed on each and every floor at key structural elements and timed to go off sequentially from top to bottom (there’s an order from inside to outside but that’s beyond my knowledge).
So the “demolition” argument requires lots of demolition engineers--LOTS of them--and nobody noticing.
They have to poke into EVERY nook and cranny in the buildings--and nobody notices.
They have to place THOUSANDS of charges--and nobody notices.
They have to run HUNDREDS of miles of wire--and nobody notices.
They have to test their connections and timing--and nobody notices.
They have to violate EVERY guiding principle of demolition safety--and nobody notices
They have break ALL these rules on a type and size of structure that NOBODY has ever demolished before.
They have to keep it all secret--despite the guys in hard hats, the explosive placements, the wiring, etc.
NOW you see why the demolition fantasy is pure crap.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 24, 2007 at 9:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Crooks cherry pick the facts, use gobbledeegook and gibberish, and act triumphal. Republicans are schooled in crookery because no one stands up to them, hoping they will just go away. For most lazy cowards, Hitler has to slap them in the face before they realize the danger. Republicans belong in Leavenworth.
Report thisBy cann4ing, July 24, 2007 at 9:34 pm #
Whom, which is more reliable the science of a renouned physicist, Dr. Steven E. Jones, reflected in powerful and convincing academic papers and presentations or ITW and his NOVA program? Hmmm, that’s a tough one. And your explanation, ITW, for the symetrical collapse of WTC 7 into its own footprint in the span of 6.6 seconds; WTC 7 which was “not” struck by a plane, is precisely what, ITW?
As you have repeated done with respect to other topics, your intellectual dishonesty is transparent and there for all to see.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 24, 2007 at 11:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
You don’t have to know all the details of the murder weapon (airplanes or explosives) to know that a murder is suspected. Usually murders are inside jobs. The external evidence is overwhelming of a conspiracy involving Israel, Pakistan, the GOP, etc.
Who benefited from 911? What is the psychopathic character of the Bush crime syndicate?
Still no real investigation. The bogus investigations after one year and one half speak volumes. All the other coverups speak volumes.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 24, 2007 at 3:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
cyrena on 7/23 at 3:26 pm
(488 comments total)
#88797 by Inherit The Wind on 7/23 at 4:14 am
You didnt read my post Wind, because of your illness. I said, that while the airplanes obviously hit the towers, (we saw THAT much with our own eyes) the airplanes DID NOT, (and I will repeat this again) the airplanes ARE NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC. The towers fell in their tracks, because of all the explosives that had been placed on site.
Im not gonna have this conversation with you again. The AIRPLANES that we ALL saw crash into the towers, DID NOT bring them down.
Do ya get that?
*********
Sure did. And I got that you just contradicted what you said in post 88763, which was:
.I repeat, those airplanes DID NOT bring down ANY of the buildings at the WTC on 9-11. They may or may not have crashed into those towers,
**************
“May or may not have crashed into those towers”? Now you are changing your tune. I keep saying this:
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINIONS BUT YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN FACTS!
Fact: A commercial jet liner loaded with passengers crashed into each of the WTC towers on 9/11/2001. Disputing that one fact alone is a mark of insanity.
All you tin-foil-hat types should look at the NOVA episode on the towers’ collapse. All the phony reasons why the planes couldn’t have brought down the towers were disproven years ago.
Meanwhile, I’m spending my time on something far more real and less magical than your ludicrous fantasies. Of course, I mean the latest Harry Potter book.
At least THERE the magic makes sense and follows a consistent internal logic. But, then again, Ms. Rowling never expected anyone to actually BELIEVE she was writing anything but entertaining make-believe.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 23, 2007 at 9:26 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There is probably more evidence for 911 than there was for the Reichstag stunt. It is all historical and it is plenty enough to have a full investigation.
1. Rise of the Neocon supremicist movement at the U. of Chicago and Cornell.
2. Subversive nature of this movement
3. Plan for the New American Century as a subversive movement.
4. Rise of the Bush crime family syndicate.
5. Neocon headquarters in the pentagon and collusion with selected air force officers and the Israeli government.
6. Treason Act ready before 911.
7. Anthrax stunt against Democratic leaders.
8. Murder of Wellstone family.
6. I’m sure there is plenty more.
7. Treason
Report thisBy cann4ing, July 23, 2007 at 5:47 pm #
ITW, when it comes to 9/11 I am more interested in what the science shows than what the politicians claim.
The 10/8/06 paper by Dr. Steven E. Jones, a Physicist and Archemetrist, entitled “Why Indeed did the WTC Buildings Collpase?” examines thirteen separate areas which “challenge government reports and investigate[s] the controlled demolition hypothesis”
“1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
“2. Observed Tempeeratures around 1000 degreeC and Sulfidation in WTC 7
“3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
“4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires [none since either]
“5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
“6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
“7. Eyewitness Acounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
“8 Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris--plumes from the Towers
“9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
“10 Controlled Demolition ‘Implosions” Require Skill
“11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800 degrees C Needed…
“12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
“13. NIST’s Failure to Show Visualizations.”
http://wtc7.net/articles/stevenjones_b7.html
WTC 7, by the way, was “not” struck by a plane. Housing offices of several U.S. intelligence agencies, it was one of the most secure in the nation, rendering it highly unlikely al Qaeda could have planted explosives. On 9/11 it collapsed into its own footprint in the span of 6.6 seconds. A video of its collapse is virtually identical to numerous available videos of buildings involved in controlled demolition.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 23, 2007 at 3:26 pm #
#88797 by Inherit The Wind on 7/23 at 4:14 am
You didn’t read my post Wind, because of your illness. I said, that while the airplanes obviously hit the towers, (we saw THAT much with our own eyes) the airplanes DID NOT, (and I will repeat this again) the airplanes ARE NOT responsible for the collapse of the WTC. The towers fell in their tracks, because of all the explosives that had been placed on site.
I’m not gonna have this conversation with you again. The AIRPLANES that we ALL saw crash into the towers, DID NOT bring them down.
Do ya get that?
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 23, 2007 at 2:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The one thing that makes Republicans and Nazis most alike is their criminal philosophy which allows them to insult others at will, while ignoring ideas and facts.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 23, 2007 at 4:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Cyrena:
Chico Marx said it best: “Who you gonna believe: Me or your own eyes?”
I have friends who SAW the second plane hit the south tower. They didn’t allegedly see a plane. They didn’t see an “alleged” plane--they SAW THE F***ing PLANE CRASH OVER THEIR HEADS, you IDIOT! Got that? The only people who DOUBT there were planes are psychos like you who simply cannot believe that such a simple, elegant, brutal attack could have occurred and that the wonderful, peaceful Islamic jihadists could have been behind it!
Nor do they believe the VERY simple physics that brought down the towers. Only conspiracy theorists psychos like you buy into the “other” cause nonsense.
Cyrena’s definition of “crazy”: Disagreeing with her and NEVER giving in to her crap and never “going away”. See, because Cyrena wants me to shut up and go away, and HAS POSTED THAT, she now says I must be crazy because...I won’t!
Get a life, lady!
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 23, 2007 at 1:16 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
As a citizen, everyone has the right to believe and say whatever they want. I think that factions within Israel and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and the U.S were involved in planning and executing 911. Proof? None. But, all the 911 coverups suggest conspiracy. Who benefited? Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the Bushies. Common sense and experience are all we have as citizens. I have an Israeli/US friend who agrees.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 22, 2007 at 9:31 pm #
Comment#88633 by Inherit The Wind on 7/22 at 5:11 am
Besides, theres that wonderful fact that jet fuel only burns at 500 deg F, not enough to soften steel. Im sure youre citing that bullshit as well (jet fuel burns at least 3x hotter than that in open air, and even hotter in enclosed spaces--EASILY hot enough to catastrophic weaken steel by burning out the temper)
Wind, in all of this blather, about jet fuel burn rates, (and Im more than a little bit familiar with jet fuel burn rates, and pretty much everything else that goes with operation a commercial airline operation) how does it lead you to consistently make accusations that I have claimed that the Zionists are behind the 9-11 operation? I have never suggested such a thing, because its never been proven, and as 911truthdog recently posted, WE DONT KNOW who arranged 9-11. Cheney knows, and Im sure there are a few others of his intimate circle that know as well. But beyond that, we dont.
Meantime, heres a news flash .none of your calculations on jet fuel burn rates are worth a damn, because those airplanes did NOT .I repeat, those airplanes DID NOT bring down ANY of the buildings at the WTC on 9-11. They may or may not have crashed into those towers, but let me repeat this for you .THAT DID NOT cause those buildings to turn to dust in less than an hour. Those WTC was blown up with explosives. How they got there, I do not know. The airplanes did not bring those towers down.
Writethat 5000 times, THE AIRPLANES DID NOT BRING DOWN THE WTC.
That should keep you busy for a while.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 22, 2007 at 9:05 pm #
#88636 by Inherit The Wind on 7/22 at 5:21 am
You’re a sickie Wind. And, prior to now, I’d never considered reporting you to the administrators. I’d also never had any reason to know for sure, if you were a man or a woman. Quite frankly, I’d been cutting you some slack, because your postings ring of possible menopausal symptoms. So no, with a handle like ITW, there was no reason to assume that you wouldnt be a woman, though I certainly understand that you could be a man as well. Thing is, I dont much give a shit.
I DO know that youre sick, and that you need some help, and I will of course retain the posting, in the event that I decide to report you. I havent yet, but youre working your way there. Someone in authority should at least be aware of your presence. We live in dangerous times now .the war on terror and all And quite frankly, you sound like you are an explosion waiting to happen.
So yeah, Im posting this to put you on notice. More of this kind of stuff will get you the kind of attention that you are presumably seeking. But, its a cut off your nose to spite your face action, which is ultimately very stupid. You should think before you post anything else. It could come back to haunt you.
Report thisBy M, July 22, 2007 at 8:37 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Everyone is hand in hand in this. Those who already have antisemitic tendencies or who feel alienated economically are blaming ‘the Jews’ but it’s much, much bigger than that. Basically, the Nazis (and lots of them were brought in to work for the CIA after WW2) hate Jews and want to get rid of them. Top-level Zionists do pretty well out of an atmosphere of antisemitism too and they want all Jews, identified or assimilated, to move to Israel because they have a longstanding wish to reestablish the Davidic kingdom (with themselves as the royalty of course). Saudi Arabian royalty wants the US to occupy Iraq to take the pressure off them because of the bases in Saudi Arabia and because Islamists threaten their own power structure. And all these guys, including the Italian mafia/Catholic church, HATE the ‘left’ (i.e anyone who talks about mushy things like equality, workers rights, public education etc etc). So they came up with this brilliant plan (as brilliant as thugs can devise) to achieve total domination. It doesn’t particularly matter to them if everyone suspects it’s an inside job because, if anything, it increases the fear and paranoia that they want to bring about. It’s a pretty depressing scenario. And it’s the ordinary Jew/Christian/Muslim who invariably suffers. Most Jews really are loyal to the country they reside in, many have assimilated to avoid being identified as ‘Jewish’ (e.g converted, taken up non Jewish names etc) but in the end, it’s going to make no difference. The charges of double loyalty invariably surface (with some justification), ordinary Jews face pogroms and getting kicked out again and again. Nazis are happy, Zionists are happy, mafia are happy. Cheap labor becomes abundant again. Life goes on and it happens all over again some time down the line. Ordo ab Chao.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 22, 2007 at 7:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I think you have it backwards Mordecai....YOU are the one trying to silence US.
Are you going to respond to the article I posted or will you just ignore it?
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/564047.html
*****
This is not a hard one to figure out, Schultz: Even the dummies and morons on the Republican side of the aisle have a far better grasp of what is in America’s interest than you ever will. They, at least, aren’t so riddled with hatred for all Jews that they can’t see straight, the way you are.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 22, 2007 at 7:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Children. Children.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 22, 2007 at 5:51 pm #
#88636 by Inherit The Wind on 7/22 at 5:21 am
(Unregistered commenter)
Cyrena and the 1Sgt:
Is there ANYTHING you two WONT say to try to silence me?
===================================================
I think you have it backwards Mordecai....YOU are the one trying to silence US.
Are you going to respond to the article I posted or will you just ignore it?
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/564047.html
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 22, 2007 at 5:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Cyrena and the 1Sgt:
Is there ANYTHING you two WON’T say to try to silence me?
Are you SO terrified of having your drug-addled fantasies questioned and held up to scrutiny that you will do or say ANYTHING to shut me up and shut me off?
Why don’t you go whining to the administrators to cut me off:
“ITW is SO unfair!!! He uses logic and facts against us!!!! Boo-Hoo-hoo. And no matter WHAT insults we hurl or invent about him, he keeps coming back!!! WAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! IT’S NOT FAIR!!!”
Maybe that will work.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 22, 2007 at 5:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
But, we can count on ITW, to always appear, anytime there is a possibility of capturing an innocent and apolitical reader, and turning them into a facist zionist.
The only thing I cant understand, is why ITW doesnt just MOVE to Israel, where all Jews, the world over, are welcome as citizens. And, as long as she stays on her side of the wall theres nothing to fear.
No, I dont expect that to happen, but it just seems like shed be so much happier there, and besides...theyve got all of that medical technology that she could benefit from.
****************
Oh, Horrors! I made a typo! That clearly means I MUST be a Zionist Fascist! But what about you? You can’t even keep the basic grammar of genders straight! You keep adding an ‘s’ in front of “he” when referring to me. If a typo makes me such a bad person, what does THAT make YOU????
I’ll tell you what it makes you: Infantile and unable to cope with getting what you pompously dish out.
Because I don’t subscribe to your nutty-ultra-left-wing tin-foil hat conspiracy fantasies that are now IDENTICAL to the nutty-ultra-right-wing-tin-foil hat crew, that means I have to hate America? Absurd!
And you assholes keep trying to say that. Sorry. I’m an American first. And will be unless you and George Bush get your wish and stifle all dissent and turn us into the fascist state you love. It is my FERVENT desire to prevent him AND you from gutting the American Constitution for political expediency.
Since you think the Arab Moslem nations are such bastions of freedom and liberal openmindedness, and you think (under your foil hat) that America is magically, demonically “possessed” by Jews, why don’t YOU move to one of those Utopias? I’m sure you’ll be happier as you freely wear your head scarf and burkha. You’re free to wear and free not to wear it--if you don’t mind being called a whore, being arrested, beaten and cursed.
Cyrena: You’ll never be a scholar. You buy into the tin-foil hat conspiracy fantasies that Arabs are too stupid to conceive and execute as elegant a plan as 9/11. Sure, no 767 hit WTC South. My friend who was standing under it really just saw a pigeon bang into the building, right? (BTW, he ran out of Bld 7 after North was hit).
Besides, there’s that wonderful fact that jet fuel only burns at 500 deg F, not enough to soften steel. I’m sure you’re citing that bullshit as well (jet fuel burns at least 3x hotter than that in open air, and even hotter in enclosed spaces--EASILY hot enough to catastrophic weaken steel by burning out the temper)
But, since you no scholar, you’ll never let facts clutter up YOUR “truth"--which is the Arab propaganda that “those evil Jews” were behind 9/11.
I’ll bet you still believe that crap that Oswald couldn’t have gotten the shots off that killed JFK. And I’ll bet you still believe in the “magic dancing bullet” as proof there was a conspiracy.
Scholar = Skeptic. Scholar ^= Cynic.
I may not be a pretty boy, but I’ll tell you what: At 210+lbs, shaving every day (face, not legs) I’d make a damn ugly woman. I think I’ll let John Travolta do that, instead.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 22, 2007 at 4:50 am #
During the time Israel was BOMBING and destroying Lebanon with American made weapons, most of them supplied FREE OF CHARGE.(last year)
U.S. House backs Israel 410-8
http://www.startribune.com/587/story/564047.html
WASHINGTON—The House, displaying a foreign affairs solidarity lacking on issues like Iraq, voted overwhelmingly today to support Israel in its confrontation with Hezbollah guerrillas.
The nonbinding resolution is similar to one the Senate passed Tuesday. It harshly condemns Israel’s enemies and says Syria and Iran should be held accountable for providing Hezbollah with money and missile technology used to attack Israel.
Yet as Republican and Democratic leaders rally behind the measure in rare bipartisan fashion, a handful of lawmakers have quietly expressed reservations that the resolution was too much the result of a powerful lobbying force and attempts to court Jewish voters.
“This is the usual problem with any resolution that talks about Israel there are a lot of closet naysayers up there (in Congress), but they don’t want to be a target of the lobby” of Israel, said Eugene H. Bird, president of the Council for the National Interest, a group that harshly condemns Israel’s military campaign.
====================================================
Tell us more about the current “beneficial” relationship, ITW. A relationship in which the representatives of the country are afraid to object to KILLING and destruction by Israel, on a scale second only to the United States.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 22, 2007 at 4:23 am #
#88614 by cyrena on 7/22 at 1:03 am
(452 comments total)
Well 1Sgt:
From the latest comment by Inherit, its pretty clear she didnt get it again.
===================================================
I think everyone else did, and that’s what counts.
This is the behavior you get from Israel activists, be they Americans or foreigners.
When you confront them with their own illogical statement, they cannot respond to it or they twist what was actually said/implied.
Report thisBy cyrena, July 22, 2007 at 1:03 am #
Well 1Sgt:
From the latest comment by Inherit, it’s pretty clear she didn’t get it again. When you said that our relationship with Israel is really NOT to our benefit, and could in fact bring ultimate harm to the innocents of Israel as well, she kicked in with this…
...."You have a truly sick definition of being an American, since it seems to necessitate the destruction of Israle and the slaughter, as you put it, of many innocent people there.>
See what I mean? Nobody (including you) said that being an American necessitates the destruction of Israel, (which ITW mispelled...but she’s forgiven). And, that’s the way it always is with her. Same with lilmamzer.
Absolutely ANY criticism of our dysfunctional relationship with Israel is going to immediately initiate the accusation that you/I/we/anybody, wants to DESTROY Israel. And, since we have heard nothing but this from these posters, (be they one and the same or not)it’s not going to change. Especially if you see that he/she can continue the above statement, with something like this:
..."I see no reason the relationship with Israel cannot and is not mutually beneficial to both nations.”....
Now, assuming that ITW really believes the above, (and...that is what she wrote) we have to assume that she is simply the psychologically dysfunctional person that she is, because no rational person can ever believe this. Obviously, our relationship with Israel has cost us not only BILLIONS of tax payer dollars, for which we have NEVER received the slightest bit of ANYTHING, (I’m still waiting to find out how Israel benefits US, but ITW has never been able to give us any examples of this, or what we might be receiving, for all of this money.)
So, in ITW, you’re dealing with a literate person of book knowlege, who is in denial, and lacking any common sense for how to utilize her literacy. Rather, she uses $100.00 words in place of the less expensive ones, because you can bury bullshit in those, slightly better than you can with everyday straightforward language.
So, when you explain that in the end, Israel puts her own people in as much danger as our leadership puts US, in defying the entire international community, and behaving as a rouge state. In the end, it means isolation, (as opposed to physical destruction) of Israel, and that’s the part that she doesn’t get. She doesn’t get that in this very demonic relationship between the US leadership and Israel...the evil twins joined at the hip...there can only be animosity and hatred toward US, because we have been so supportive of the crimes of Israel.
She’ll never get it...just as a handful of others on this post will never get it. Most of them don’t bother to try to defend these bogus position, and don’t come back.
But, we can count on ITW, to always appear, anytime there is a possibility of capturing an innocent and apolitical reader, and turning them into a facist zionist.
The only thing I can’t understand, is why ITW doesn’t just MOVE to Israel, where all Jews, the world over, are welcome as citizens. And, as long as she stays on her side of the “wall” there’s nothing to fear.
No, I don’t expect that to happen, but it just seems like she’d be so much happier there, and besides...they’ve got all of that medical technology that she could benefit from.
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 21, 2007 at 5:22 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
If you are indeed an AMERICAN, you sure dont value the citizenship you have here. If you did, you would see, very clearly, the relationship we currently have with Israel is not to the benefit of the United States and may very well mean the end of Israel, unfortunately, for many innocent people there.
You have a truly sick definition of being an American, since it seems to necessitate the destruction of Israle and the slaughter, as you put it, “of many innocent people there.”
I see no reason the relationship with Israel cannot and is not mutually beneficial to both nations.
The last time our survival DEMANDED the eradication of another nation was the American Civil War and the “nation” that destruction was the CSA. Even WWII didn’t destroy Germany, Japan, or Italy.
The only “reason” to destroy Israel is to appease Arab nations so they’ll sell us oil at gouging prices.
I don’t challenge your right to your opinion, no matter how stupid and truly bizarre it it. I DO challenge your “right” to call for the purging of all Jews in the US Govt, while hiding behind the transparent shield of calling them “zionists”. I DO challenge your right to use false information and call it facts.
And I sure as HELL challenge your right to call me un-American because I don’t ascribe to and actively challenge your lunatic tin-foil hat ideas about “secret invaders” and some magical satanic control of our government by Jews.
Maybe there’s a Roswell forum you can join. Oh, wait--Truthdig is rapidly turning into one.
Just a hint-- I don’t think it matters if the tinfoil is wrinkled or smooth--I think what matters is that you and GodSend are dangerously nuts.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 21, 2007 at 4:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Zionists are crooks just like Jesuits and Funda-Nazis are crooks. A crook believes in using force (insults) or fraud (lies) in order to overcome or neutralize his opposition. They are basically intellectually and morally dishonest and that gives them a temporary advantage.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 21, 2007 at 2:44 pm #
#88460 by Inherit The Wind on 7/21 at 3:59 am
(Unregistered commenter)
All I am is an American citizen DARING to express an opinion thats different than yours. That, to you, obviously is the definition of a crook.
==================================================
If you are indeed an AMERICAN, you sure don’t value the citizenship you have here. If you did, you would see, very clearly, the relationship we currently have with Israel is not to the benefit of the United States and may very well mean the end of Israel, unfortunately, for many innocent people there.
Report thisBy the 1Sgt, July 21, 2007 at 2:35 pm #
#88460 by Inherit The Wind on 7/21 at 3:59 am
(Unregistered commenter)
Thinking that way is UN-AMERICAN! DISSENT and disagreement ARE the American Way!
=================================================
EXCEPT if the disagreement and dissent refers to or involves the United States “special” relationship is unusually has with Israel, correct?
Then, this very AMERICAN characteristic is NAZI and ANTI SEMETIC.
Is that RIGHT?
Report thisBy Inherit The Wind, July 21, 2007 at 3:59 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming on 7/19 at 5:12 pm
(Unregistered commenter)
“Inherit the Wind is a crook. I hope he stays close where we can keep an eye on him and learn from his tricks. That way he cant corrupt so many other sites.
**************
I’m a crook am I? Just what laws have I broken? Can you cite ONE criminal statute at a federal, state or local level you even THINK I broke? Can you show ANY evidence of it? The answer is NO!
All I am is an American citizen DARING to express an opinion that’s different than yours. That, to you, obviously is the definition of a crook.
Thinking that way is UN-AMERICAN! DISSENT and disagreement ARE the American Way!
You are such a lying asshole you don’t even know the definition of “crook”. You are just another neo-nazi propagandist throwing out any shit to can just to see if it sticks.
Try this: Until you ACTUALLY have an argument to post (even a bad, fallacious one) don’t post.
Report thisBy John Hanks, Laramie, Wyoming, July 20, 2007 at 5:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
With a huge lobby force of 2000:
4. The Unopposed War Lobby
by James Petras
The Zionist