Was 9/11 an Inside job?
Just let me say this on the subject of conspiracy theory. There have been so many cover-ups, so many lies, so many secrets coming from our government that's why it's easy to believe another conspiracy is possible.
This was interesting,
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/09/24 … nomic-war/From that article:
"Charges allege that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed in order to cover fiancial crimes."
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYKPeL13TxA
Ahhhh, people forget.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg_lQNv6onwMore curiosity:
"At least several HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS of gold missing from the WTC complex during the FALSE FLAG/INSIDE JOB of 9/11
Aren't Bin Laden and 'al CIA duh' shrewd? They not only could evade the ENTIRE intelligence apparatus of the Western world, cause havoc at NORAD so they wouldn't be able to protect the USA on 9/11, knew exactly where those blind radar spots that can't pick up errant jets and also knew where to steal several billion dollars worth of gold!!!November 2, 2001: Giuliani Reduces Number of Firefighters at Ground Zero, Following Recovery of Gold New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani angers firefighters when he decides to severely reduce the number of them that can search for remains at Ground Zero. Until now, up to 300 firefighters at a time have been involved in the search and recovery effort. Giuliani’s decision will mean no more than 25 at a time can do so in future.
So far, the bodies or remains of 101 firefighters have been recovered, out of the 343 who died at the World Trade Center on 9/11. According to the IAFF, the mayor refuses to even meet with local union presidents about the decision [to stop looking for FF remains AFTER the gold was found]."
*****
Another avenue to research, before the Cover-Up-Squad (Lieberman and Specter)implement the kill switch.
Global Analysis and Intelligence Report was reporting that the Fort Hood incident was associated with this stolen gold...apparently they stole it from China (Bush senior was involved), and replaced it with Tungsten bars!
According to this reports, the Fort Hood incident was an attrempt to re-steal the gold, which was hidden at Fort Hood, and as an added bonus, have another "crazy Muslim" to blame for terrorist activity.
Quite devious, if true.I saw a documentary on TV around the time of the anniversary of 9/11 that showed evidence that the conspiracy believers said didn't exist, and explanations that covered response, the building collapses.
I found the whole documentary to be moderate and believable.I find 9/11 Truth experts knowledgable and believable.
Military, intelligence, gvt employees, pilots, firemen, etc.Do you think George Bush was behind the whole fiasco?
In the Caspian Sea there were Halliburton and Bush senior oil investments. The pipeline through Afghanistan to those investments was what 911 was all about.
Have you read about the recent pipeline that was blown up?
What is that about??"Explosions on February 5 and April 27 closed the pipeline for weeks.
The pipeline is run by Gasco, Egypt’s gas transport company – a subsidiary of the national gas company EGAS.
No one claimed responsibility for Monday’s blast. Disgruntled Beduin in the area have been blamed for attacking the pipeline in the past, as have Islamist extremists opposed to Egypt’s 1979 peace treaty with Israel."
Apparently, Israel and Jordan had a really sweet deal going with Mubarak. Now that he's gone, I guess some want that sweet deal removed.
No, but he was a president that would let them do it.
That's why he HAD to be elected, by whatever means necessary.
And for god's sakes, what option did he have?
His father is a major domo in covert America!
You have been reading too much paranoia fiction. NORAD didn't stand down. You are advertizing your ignorance. NORAD tracks incoming threats. Planes were alerted and getting off the ground. Circumstances were too bizarre and notice too short for any contingency plan. Like it says somewhere in bible prophecy - evil men will conspire to attack when they realize, ". . . this is a land of unwalled cities. It is ours for the taking".
Here is a more interesting question. How many potential terrorists have forsaaken their originl purpose for coming here to be absorbed into the night scene culture or been incarcerated for domestic violence against the American women they duped to attain residence?Those planes were delayed 80 minutes or so before taking off...I know, cause they were taking off from Otis AFB, here on Cape Cod. Took them 80 minutes to get moving, afte the initial report that planes have been hi-jacked.
Richard Dickle-Butt Cheney was in charge of NORAD that morning....I wonder why?
Who is it made those short-selling moves on American Airines stock, and made a killing? (2 ways)
How come the people who took the 9/11 million dollar blood-money, had to sign a waiver agreeing not to go after the airlines?
Same security firm was in said airlines as was in building 7...
Paranoid? I beg your puddin!
More like connect- the- dots.
and speakin of "terrorists"...the Americans under Obama got a big 'un today! Anwar Alaki???
Where the acolades? Where the high-fivin yahoos?
Where the USA USA USA?
"The contract to run security at the WTC was designated to Kroll Associates after the 1993 wtc bombing. Kroll is otherwise known as "Wallstreets CIA".
Same security at Boston Logan Airport and Washington Dulles too, on that fateful day...just a coinky-dink?
Me thinks not.
Remember, those buildings were pulled. Need access. What better?? A security firm....how devious.
Same as the airports...what better way to let your patsies through? Run security!100% yes!!
All world's problems and terror come from USA.
Everyday, They kill childs, women in every point on our planet.It's not only USA.
In fact, I think we've been hi-jacked!!!"American neocons, closely aligned to Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud party, had already published their desire to see a “new Pearl Harbor” to catalyze American public opinion for an imperial “new American Century.” The document that contains the “new Pearl Harbor” line, Restructuring America’s Defenses, was accepted by an incoming Bush administration in 2000. In large part it was a repetition of ideas accepted by Israeli right-wingers in the 1996 document, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm."
--Cpt. Eric May
Brothers-In-Arms. awwwwwwwwww, aint they cute?
SANA, Yemen — Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate and was considered its most dangerous English-speaking propagandist and plotter, was killed in an American drone strike on his vehicle on Friday
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world … tw-nytimes
***
I expect to hear praise and accolades from the Right!"In this topsy-turvy post-9/11 new world order, the label “anti-Semite” is the price one pays for asserting that two plus two equals four. George Orwell, that most relevant of modern writers, predicted things would be like this. On the other hand, it is acceptable in fact, encouraged to assert that “Islamo-fascists” are capable of saying and doing all kinds of evil."
By Jove, I think he's got it!After ten years there's still this much debate on the subject.
The main thing that tricked me up the whole time was the fact that the planes were taken over by "terrorists wielding box knives". Having spent most of my working years in warehouses, I wondered how the heck this could have possibly worked out for them, surely people weren't actually THAT frightened by a box knife. Sure, you'll probably cut me up pretty good, but you aren't going to kill me with that thing before I get it from you. The second was the tower very obviously being imploded. (CNN said I was watching it "Live".) Maybe it was done for safety reasons; demolotion crews do strategic building implosions as common business practice, so if that's all it was- why not just say so? Why the lame cover story?
There are as many stories claiming to be the "whole truth and nothing but the truth", but they only leave more unanswered questions. Being a sensitive subject, I'm not going to say much more about it, if I do I will definitely offend someone- purely unintentionally I assure you.
With that being said, I will answer this question the same way the Wall Street financial district answered the question posed by Lehman Brothers' CFO on whether Repo105 accounting was illegal or not:
Yes, No, and Yes :-)- ahorsebackposted 13 years ago
0Conspiracy theorists should spend as much time looking at the severity of the trials of our own history , of this country America . As they do coming up with some of the fairy tales that they do spend time doing! As an educated ,reasoning , exploratory mind reads through this stuff ,I am actually reminded of grade school gossip and halloween ghost stories. I am reminded of high school horror stories ,you know the ones , the "hook"man on lovers lane , the headless gravedigger , and the swamp thing! Todays media , and the 15 or so intelligence services in America could NEVER keep the secrets under cover in regards to this kind of mass conspiracy! Sorry ...no believeeee!
Guess you forget..9/11 happened HERE.
WE pay a lot of money out to other countries. It IS our business.
Ummmm, did you know that Jacki-O thought Johnson was involved in her hubbie's murder?
How many years was THAT secret kept???
Member of 9/11 Commission Bob Kerry said Maybe in 30 years we will know the truth.
Just cause YOU believe the hype, doesn't mean everybody has to.
Oh, and our opinions are just as valid as yours.....19 men with box-cutters outsmarted all those intelligence agencies, along with the United States Military, huh?
I would laugh, but that would be as insulting as you dismissing those who don't bow to your views.
- ahorsebackposted 13 years ago0
I forgot nothing , not even to look through the viewfinder of reality! 9/11 did happen here , and it is those like yourself that forget to honor the real costs of such violent actions. American Lives. As well as those from 50 other countries ! But you go ahead and view it all through the rose colored glasses of the narcicistic [excuse my spelling] .Listening to Jackie O talk about LBJ honestly made me think of listening to Marylin Monroe wish John a happy birthday. And it was never kept "secret" ,conspiracies have been around since long before Nov.22 1962. John Kerry has never been all that close to "the truth" either , theres just as much vagueness about his service in Viet Nam!
Please go back through our pre 9/11 history and look at how many highjacked planes there were evrywhere , including the U.S..Oh, and Don't give so much credit to a pre 9/11 intelligence agencies. Guarding airlines and airports. It was pretty much NON-existant then. And 'Imploded' buildings ,right! But I know ......you'll be Baackkk!.....too many cartoons as a child for you guys!It's not John Kerry, it's Bob Kerry.....president of American University somewhere.
I see why something like 9/11 was an inside job would elude you.
You gotta pay attention.I keep hearing the same logic or thinking processes being used to explain why it couldn't possibly happen...that it would require too many people to keep a secret and that just wouldn't happen. Are you kidding me?
Let's forget 9/11 for just a few minutes and address the idea that large groups of people can't keep a secret. There have been many acts carried out against any number of groups which required high levels of secrecy in order to be successful. The American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution..all began because of people banding together in secrecy under a common cause, to plot and plan their moves. This was done during times when ease of communication as we know today, didn't exist. There were a great many more people needed simply for carrying messages.
The second commission investigating JFK's assassination concluded in 1978 that the evidence gave every indication of a conspiracy. Though only one man was killed, the planning and precision of timing required more than what it would take to fly 4 planes into 4 chosen buildings.
What's really going on with the denials that such a huge conspiracy couldn't be true, is that people have bought into the idea that good always triumphs evil. We are more accepting that a "small" conspiracy like Watergate can happen because we are able to accept that a very small group of men are "evil", and not the norm. Good triumphed because they got busted before damage could be truly done.
With something the size of 9/11, it is beyond what most people want to believe about the nature of human beings. We don't want to believe it can happen because it would make us vulnerable. It would mean that there are more than just a few "evil" people. It would mean that those who didn't catch on in time, were unable to prevent it, allowing evil to triumph over good.
We can accept that a man would murder his wife and child for insurance money, but we can't accept that a government official could murder his constituents for even more money or power. We can believe that 19 Muslims could carry out such a demanding conspiracy because there were only 19 of them, not 50 or 100. And because we were already primed to hate those from the Middle East. It was easy to believe they could do it.
Whether it's 5 people or 5,000 people involved, big secrets CAN be kept. It simply depends on the reward for keeping the secret and how badly do those conspiring want the reward. For the 1% who control all the wealth, who have many of their numbers in the official ranks of our government, the payoff of billions of profits from war and rising prices of just about everything else, the reward may have been great enough.
Whether or not 9/11 was an "inside job" isn't the issue, I'm speaking about. Everyone is free to form their own opinion. However, using an unfounded belief about peoples' abilities to keep secrets as a validation of your view is very faulty logic. History has shown us that large groups can and do keep big secrets from those they see as outside their circle, especially those who will be on the receiving end of their actions.What do ya mean we were already "primed" to hate people from the middle east?
I'd say we were already "alerted" perhaps that THEY might have hatred toward US, yes; but not the other way around. It always irritates me when people follow Obama's suggestions that WE somehow caused foreigners to hate us. I haven't seen him go on any "apology tour" and stand up for the U.S.A., which he should've done instead of apologizing to every other Nation. I call that hogwash of his unpatriotic from the get-go.You must learn some history.
You must accept that really rotten stuff has been done in our name.
You must see that it behooves us to apologize for murder and suffering, rather than act as if we can do anything we want, and no one can say Booh.
I'd say we were told for years that our one-sided stand against the Palestinians has been a major sore-spot.
Our incursion militarily into the Middle East is another.
Our support for the brutal dictators of Saudi Arabia another.
...just for starters. We can go back even further and see us removing democratically elected officials and replacing them with vicious dictators, imprisoning innocent people for nothing, torture, and in case you forgot those pictures and stories from Abu Gharib--I'm sure no one else has.
It was the height of patriotism to admit that we have faults. Otherwide, people might have the mistaken impression that the wrong we do is OK, and maybe we Americans really do think we can do anything we want...all over the world.
Law and human suffering be damned.
Not a very Christian POV...and these people in the middle east know Jesus pretty well--he was, after all, from there. Born in Palestine.
Which has been bombed to smithereens---by our ally! With OUR bombs! Now, how you THINK they should feel about us?You’re right lovemychris, we should be embarrassed to be Americans – embarrassed that we sat by and allowed our government and banking system become the evil monster that it is. We are partially to blame for the devastation that has been done inside and especially outside the US. We who have knowledge of what has happened have a duty to fix it.
I am currently in a Spanish speaking country where I’m labeled a Gringo. This term comes from them saying “Green go” meaning for the US army, in their green uniforms, to get the hell out of their country.
Most of the people here don’t hold it against me, and I am very grateful for that. They aren’t conditioned with hatred like Americans are for Muslims.How ironic. When a few Americans commit atrocities, the whole Nation is blamed for it. Even some other Americans blame all of America for it. But when people of another Nationality commit atrocities, America is called upon to not only tolerate, but to defend, that Nation. With great power comes great responsibility, yes; but it's really hogwash when liberalism is touted as judge and jury over common patriotic citizens.
By the way, Palestinians may have historically known who Jesus was, but that doesn't mean they honored nor honor Him as He should be honored. His own Country's treatment of Him reminds me of the way American liberals now treat American patriots."But when people of another Nationality commit atrocities, America is called upon to not only tolerate, but to defend, that Nation."
Defend, fund, and blindly follow!
That's what we do.
I'm sick of it. Time we cut off our dependant. Or the other way around, actually.
*****
The IDF bombed the oldest remaining Christian church. Just THINK what you would say had it been Iran!
Brenda Durham, on rare occasions a politician will make a statement that is true. When Obama says that we caused foreigners to hate us, he’s just echoing some public sentiment that had already been building. In this, he’s following the people, not the other way around – probably to improve his ratings.
Nope. What he's doing is perpetuating the liberal agenda, leading that and echoing the sentiments of the liberal minority in an effort to undermine the foundation of America. He told us that's what he wanted to do before he even got "elected". And those who don't give a care followed his lead immediately. Plus, those who straddled the middle were swayed by his charisma and influence; and many who knew he was wrong were bullied via manipulation from the Left and from him. That's how he got where he is. And that's also why America is falling---because it's bending over backwards to appease our enemies foreign and domestic. The same enemies who will laugh when we fall.
NO - America is falling because the rest of the world pretty much hates you, dislikes you or just finds you distasteful. When you run out of friends you only have those bullied nations left with those puppet dictators you have installed regardless of the wishes of the people.
Ah, are you confirming my point or what?
Is that how the average citizen of China looks at America?
Very interesting.Yes, very interesting, Brenda. So interesting that perhaps us hated Americans should stop buying anything made in China.
What do you think?Well, I'm not against trading with other Countries, but I do think we need to focus on our own domestic resources more, rebuild our own economy. And yes if that means to cut back on (or cancel) some of our foreign purchases, then all the better.
How about this?
"Israel may request an addition $20 billion in military aid from the United States in light of the unrest sweeping the Arab world, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told The Wall Street Journal in an interview published Monday."
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d … s-1.347866
****
They are right to be scared of freedom......and so should we be.
We and Israel have had a nice little ride on the backs of others.
So--what do you say?
20 billion more to Israel?
Or do we help US citizens?I'm not against trade with other countries, Brenda. I am against other countries or their citizens acting as if we're the bad guys.
As for your post, LMC, yes, we should sell Israel whatever they need to protect themselves. Why should we not help Israel? Let me guess, the Jews and Israel are on your long list of things you hate.So, you are for not raising taxes on the rich, but giving Israel 20 billion...who's going to pay for it?
While you are cutting spending for Americans...where is this 20 billion coming from?
Seniors, the middle class, or poor people??....certainly not Russsshhhhhhhh.Since the rich already pay most of the taxes in this country and the bottom 50% pay nothing, no I'm not for taxing the rich even more than they already are. These are the people who also supply jobs when they don't have a government trying to take all they have managed to create. You see, LMC, since I'm an American rather than a Socialist, I believe in Capitalism, not redistribution of wealth.
But you have no problem redistributing American tax dollars to Israel?
You're a hypocrit!
And you should get your facts right...anyone who has a job pays taxes. Anyone who buys anything pays taxes.
And the people who hoard their money pay least of all!
So--who will pay that 20 billion?????
and what MORE will you cut from Americans to do it?
And what is Barak so afraid of? Maybe he needs to suffer the consequences of his horrible actions, instead of being bailed out by us.
Maybe he will have to treat the Palestinians with dignity. Oh the Horror.
I know. I wasn't trying to say you're against foreign trade. Sorry if I made it sound so.
I agree with you! I'm tired of other Nations, and some Americans even, perpetuating the idea that we're the bad guy. It's hogwash.
And I notice there's been no response from recommend1 about whether he/she thinks most Chinese citizens hate us. I'd really like to find out the truth about that.
The choice is clear, and it's not really a choice as in division. We help Israel while also helping our own citizens. Our longtime tried-and-true friendship is valuable not only to each Nation, but to each person in each Nation. Are you unclear about who our friends are? When and if the time comes (which I doubt it will) that Israel betrays us, then we can reconsider our position. But not until then. What part of friendship based on common principles do you not understand?
20 billion......WHERE IS IT GOING TO COME FROM?
Why don't you tell Obama to pull it outta his hat. There must be plenty more in the same fund from which he's gonna shell out benefits and money to homosexual marriage partners in and out of the military & their adopted kids, to the AIDS campaign in Africa and elsewhere, to the green agenda like his backing of Solyndra, to the Muslim officials here in the U.S., to his job appointments to people like Van Jones, etc..
It's all going to come out of your pocket, LMC.
Obviously you'd be perfectly happy to see one great big smoking glowing hole where Israel is now.They have nukes...no one else does. They have the best military America can buy...no one else does.
They are no afraid of being hit, they are afraid of true democracy coming to the region...cause then they might have to actually become one!
That is my opinion.
Brenda, I came here to reply, but I see Terri Meredith has already said everything I was going to say, and much, much more. I'll second her 3 comments below. But, to your comment, mainly that the "we caused foreigners to hate us" sentiment was around long before Obama ever hit the mainstream news.
Brenda Durham: Let me make something very clear to you...I'm not an Obama follower, never was and never will be. Don't presume to think you know anything about where I got my ideas. I've been around long enough to remember all the bullsh*t we Americans have done since the 60's, to the other people in the world. When those towers fell, my first comment to my adult daughter was that if it truly was a terrorist action, it was our own fault because Americans have gotten too smug, too arrogant, and too selfish. We interfere in the lives of foreigners in order to promote our own agenda. None of our politicians ever have gotten us involved in simply doing the right thing unless they can spin it to our advantage. We've been pulled into the whole world's internal problems by politicians who are only looking to take over lucrative resources in specific countries.
These were thoughts I had in the 80's and 90's when no one even heard of Obama, so save your preaching. And these thoughts were also present all while I was a straight ticket Republican! I'm not interested in "appeasing the enemies". I'm interested in letting them alone altogether. They don't want our interference and we don't have a right to interfere.
Now as to your response about my comment in general...I notice you totally ignored the overall message and picked some minor detail to redirect attention. My message was about those who don't believe a large conspiracy could prevail because that many people can't keep a secret. It had absolutely nothing to do with Obama or politics, in general. It was simply a logical discussion based on historical evidence that shows people CAN and DO keep secrets which require the cooperation of the masses.
As for Liberal vs Conservatives...gimme a freaking break! That whole argument is getting really old to those of us who employ good old common sense. I don't care for Obama any more than I cared for the Bushes. They are all cut from the same cloth, except they use different tactics to achieve the same goals. What's undermining American patriotism is the fact that Americans are being led to fight amongst themselves. While our attention is directed at immature name calling, backbiting, and squabbling about which side is "right", our true enemies are practicing their "sleight of hand" to achieve their own agendas. Our "enemies" as you call them, are not just Liberal, or Conservative, or foreign. They are people from all walks of life who have attained enough money and power to orchestrate the complete manipulation of large groups of people. Absolutely some are Liberal, some are Conservative, and some are foreign but it's not any ONE of them.
Why was it that Arabia was under the rule of the British crown for so many years? Because there were too many individual warring factions within their own country. Until the leaders of all those factions were shown how to put aside their differences and band together in cooperation for their common cause, they remained under British domination. That's what is now taking place in the US. We are warring amongst ourselves. It's called "divide and conquer." If we don't get it together, and soon, we'll all be suffering the consequences brought on by the morons who can't see past their own noses.Sorry, but you lost your plausibility as soon as you said 911 was America's fault.
Don't feel alone. You're not alone. Even some Christians have tried to perpetuate the silly idea that 911 was America's fault. Shameful and deceptive talk.You know, if you walk up to someone and spit in their face, you're likely to get clobbered for it. And if they beat the crap out of you, you're going to be told by the courts that you are guilty of provoking the encounter. Translated: it's your own stupid fault. We have been spitting in the faces of too many people to play the innocence card.
I fail to see what Christians or non-Christians have to do with simple logic relating to human tendencies, which I was discussing in regards to the belief about secrets. But if you insist on bringing religion into the conversation, let me say this:
I'm assuming you think of yourself as a Christian, which somehow translates to being in a position to judge the world and all its inhabitants. You might want to go back and read your own book of rules. I believe there is reference to a little thing about your version of God reserving the right to pass judgment. So until you can model the role you claim to be representing, save it. I'm not impressed.
So, again, since you seem to be slow to comprehend anything beyond your narrow point of view...the discussion was regarding large groups of people being able to keep a secret. Either you have something on topic to contribute, or you don't. But, please, let's dispense with the rhetoric about Americans are sooooo honorable. Some are and some aren't. Whether or not terrorists committed 9/11 wasn't in my discussion. I initially asked to put that issue aside for the moment.
But since it IS the question posed by this forum, I'll acknowledge my true feelings on the matter. I believe there is a faction in this country that is entirely working towards an agenda which has absolutely nothing to do with American patriotism. They serve their masters of greed and power. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge that such people are a reality in life, are blind to the realities of human nature. It's the blind who are the true enemies of this country, because they are unwittingly working for that faction. Sounds like you might be one of them.
to most of your post.
As far as the last paragraph (aside from your personal assessment of me), I agree. But the segment is different from the one you're against. The blind liberal segment is the one that's bringing America down. And it's tiresome for all of us to be lumped into that segment. I don't blame all of America for their actions.There are just as many blind Conservatists as there are Liberals. They are both bringing America down. That's what I'm talking about when I say blind. It is extremely unrealistic to insist that only one group has the affliction of being blind. And it is just as tiresome for those of us who ask questions, to be lumped in with the "crazies" who are....shhh...CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! Yet, the extreme right does it all the time. And there's the key word...extreme.
Extremism leads to fanaticism, which in turn results in blindness. Both factions have become extreme. There is no balance, and the extremists are blind to the need for balance.
For both sides, it's a case of all or nothing, which in itself is a recipe for disaster. Until the extremists learn to strike a balance by working together to bring good ideas from both sides and form a plan, we will continue to sink. It's really quite simple to understand.
As far as my assessment of you: I was making an observation of what I perceive about your from your words and the ideas you present. Your rolling eyes is an example of arrogance rather than the humility that bold Christians are supposed to be exhibiting in their carriage. You mistake bold with arrogance. A bold Christian embraces and models the ideals within the doctrine at all times in the face of the world and all its trials. But it really doesn't matter to me, who or what you may or may not be as it has no bearing on my personal life. As I'm sure you don't really care whether I find your words as coming from a real Christian or not.
Terri, you’re right, many people can’t believe something that’s too far outside of their current belief system – no matter the weight of evidence. It depends on how open or closed their mind is.
Regarding big secrets that supposedly can’t be kept - nice examples. Also, what about the Masons or the CFR - much larger secrets kept for many generations, not just a few years.Truth: My feeling about many, many organizations which have a bit of mystery regarding their good or bad intentions, including the Masons, is that sometimes people get involved for all the right reasons. They believe the stated missions which often appeal to one's good character, and they become active, not realizing they may actually be "working for the Kremlin", so to speak. Whether or not the "initiates" go on to greater power within their organizations often depends on whether their true character reflects the true, possibly unstated mission. In other words, if the mission is really about taking over say, the world's banking systems, then those at the top would only tap the shoulders of those they believe would be acceptable of the agenda. Sometimes they tap the wrong shoulder and the tap-ee breaks away from the group in shock and dismay. That's how we find out some of the less than honorable agendas being perpetrated. The problem is that they are so few, and human beings simply don't like to acknowledge that their fellow human beings could be so duplicitous. It's very easy then, for those revealing secrets, to be crushed and left with tattered reputations. Their stories are dumped into an area called "conspiracy theories."
Yes, exactly. They start with good intentions, and they continue to use good intentions to attract new recruits. Even the legal system and law enforcement work this way. Thank goodness for those break-away tap-ee's.
Yes,and they even create their own conspiracy theories which really are just theories, in order to water down and help discredit their real conspiracies as just more theories.
If you like this forum post read my lastest blog on 9/11 and why it is an inside job. <snipped-no promotional links>
And how many times do I need to repeat this?
I am against Zionists, neo-cons and Likud. Am I not speaking clearly? Or are you un-able to understand?
I've only said it a thousand times.And I'm against lazy Americans who would rather go through life complaining and moaning about their lot in life rather than doing something constructive to change it.
I'm also against Americans that want to blame everything on someone other than who is actually to blame. This would certainly apply to the idiot in the White House.
I'm against anyone who perpetuates the definition of insane - doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result. This would apply to most Democrats.
I'm against those that want to taxes the ever lovin' hell out of the rich and corporations then turn around and do what they do best, bitch and moan because the people and companies their financially raping won't create more jobs. Again, the definition of insane comes to mind.
Now, do you believe Israel has the right to protect itself? If not, why not?20 Billion...in welfare....WHERE IS IT GOING TO COME FROM?
We could probably save $20 Billion a year by rejecting those on welfare that don't pass a drug test. There you go, LMC. Lets pass a law nationwide that requires a drug test before getting a welfare check.
Now, do you believe Israel has the right to protect itself? If not, why not?We protect Israel just fine. It's others who need protection from them!
and I find it highly ??? that you would take from Americans, who are suffering...to arm another nation.
Where is your loyalty?WHO needs protection from Israel? And don't tell me the Palestinians. They want their own country but they won't recognize Israel's right to exist. They even have in their charter the desire for the destruction of Israel.
Yes, we should support Israel.
Yes, we should do it with the welfare dollars we give people who are on it but can't pass a simple drug test!!!!!!!!
If a person is using welfare to buy drugs they should stripped of ALL that they receive from the government. And, yes, they should be REQUIRED to pass a drug test to get it!!!!!!!!
My loyalties do NOT lie with people who would use our tax dollars to buy drugs.I can agree with that. At least, about people who have a deliberate pattern of illegal drug use and aren't trying to quit. Also the people who are alcoholics and aren't trying to get help for it. And other people who use their benefits fraudulently. And the people who engage in dangerous unhealthy sexual practices on a habitual basis like sodomy. And the people who promote those habits. And etc.
hmm...
it can become a slippery slope, as you can see. Which is probably why the liberal agenda tries to legalize perversion and marijuana, so that those won't be included in the banned practices. There does need to be a point at which we can recognize the line between valid helping and tyranny.OK, so you are with Israel over America...got it.
Do you want Bibi as president too?
OK..so you are with Israel over America...got it.
Do you want Bibi as president too?As opposed to what we have now? Oh, hell, yes!!!!! I would take Bibi Netanyahu over Barack Obama any day of the week.
Here's some people of like mind:
"The anti-Muslim activist John Joseph Jay has issued a call for the mass murder of the leadership of both parties in Congress, the governors of seven states, and prominent academics, along with a demand to “burn all mosques. period.”
Jay is a founding board member anti-Muslim activist Pam Geller’s group American Freedom Defense Initiative. AFDI is the umbrella organization of the prominent Stop the Islamization Of America (SOIA). Jay’s signature can be seen below those of Geller and fellow arch anti-Muslim activist Robert Spencer on AFDI’s incorporation document (PDF), as Charles Johnson at LGF pointed out. The P.O. Box listed for Jay is also the same as Geller’s.
"now that the “arab spring” has brought enlightenment to the middle east, send all of the muslim immigrants back to their native countries, in boxes or tourist, their choice.
burn all the mosques. period.
In a post script, he adds that he wants to “burn the editors and contributors” to the Daily Kos, throw “the living governors of new york, california, ohio, illinois, washington, florida and massachusetts into the fiery pits… from which there is no escape,” and writes, “i’ll think of something suitable for hilary clinton"
*****
Ahhhhhh, such Love
No wonder we all get along so well!! ~joyful sounds of harmony~LMC, since you decided to post this SOAI crap in response to my post, I want you read this carefully.
You may not like me nor my views but don't even try lumping me in with crazies such as these. None of my remarks here or anywhere else has advocated the death of any public official or religious leader of any faith.
As for Muslims, I've made it perfectly clear here as well that I believe all Americans have the right to worship as they see fit or not at all. As long as they don't come at me with a sword in an effort to make me convert, they'll be just fine.Muslims with swords?? In 2011.....uh huh, no, you aren't biased at all
and I'm really glad to hear you don't condone that Geller crap.
The Norway shooter was a fan of hers....
She and Jay are the kind of Zionists I am talking about: Enemies of humanity. IMOYes, I would have to say I'm VERY biased against people who would cut my head off for not converting to their faith. Wouldn't you be?
In 2011? Do you have any idea who Daniel Pearl was?Yeah, and I didn't watch that clip Savage was distributing over the internet.
That whole thing was phony, if you ask me.
and your using it to smear all Muslims is as bad as you saying I use Bibi to smear all Jewish people.
Zionist does not a Jew make.
Cutting heads with swords does not a Muslim make.
Zionist=Bad
Cutting heads with swords=BadLMC, you're hopeless. I wasn't smearing anyone. Just pointing out the facts.
- Longhunterposted 13 years ago0
LMC, I have no problem helping Israel, Haiti, or any other country as long as they don't have a dictator or an anti-American view on things.
Simply put, if they've trashed this country or want to blow us or Israel up, they should be told to kiss our collective red-blooded American butts.Well, here's the rub: I believe Israel has trashed America.....not the citizens, but it's leaders and their hired guns.
so you can imagine...I want 0 American tax dollars going to more weaponry for Likud Party.
- Longhunterposted 13 years ago0
LMC, do you believe Israel has the right to protect itself? If not, why not?
Israel could blow the world up 5 times over.....when does it reach over-kill?
You didn't answer the question.
Do you believe Israel has the right to protect itself?Well, all people have the right to protect themselves......but,I don't believe people have the right to mistreat people, whose land they occupy.
And from what I see, it's rocks against rockets...not much of a fight.I'll have to compliment you on your somewhat skillful side step of the actual question. I'll let it drop as I have a feeling you wouldn't have a problem if every last Israeli was push into the sea.
You wrote: And from what I see, it's rocks against rockets...not much of a fight.
If I find myself in a situation where someone pulls a knife on me, I'm not going to pull the pocket knife I carry and fight it out. As a handgun carry permit holder, I'm going to draw my 9mm and shoot the SOB then call the police. Not much of a fight but the one who started it and wanted to kill me is dead. Sounds even to me.
This whole discussion of whether Israel has a right to defend themselves is almost laughable. People, you have got to read your history books.
Let's go back to WWII. Before then, there was no Israel. First of all, there's no such thing as a Jewish race. Jewish is simply a term that describes those who follow the religion of Judaism. Because of Hitler's far reaching twisted propaganda, the whole world began to think of Jews as a race rather than followers of a religion. Prior to WWII, the Jewish people had no individual country. Just as Christians or Buddists don't have their very own country. When the war was over, the winning powers had a problem.
So many families had been displaced from across all of Europe. Their homes had been destroyed by the war machine. Their belongings had been confiscated by Hitler and his regime. No one wanted to take these people into their own countries. No one wanted to be responsible to care for them, to foot the bill for helping them to become established in a new country. So what did they do?
They all voted to take away land that belonged to another people altogether and give it to the homeless. I didn't see Americans annexing Texas to give to them. I didn't see Great Britain chopping off a chunk. No, it was much easier to let them have their "promised" land that belonged to someone else.
And let's keep in mind that the "promised land" was something covered in the Jewish religious doctrine, a doctrine that other religions didn't necessarily hold with.
Any one of you would be just as angry as the Palestinians if a group of government leaders notified you that the homes you maintained on land that your forebears had owned for decades/centuries, land that you paid taxes for and cared for and defended, was suddenly going to be handed over to a couple of homeless people. You'd fight tooth and nail to preserve your right to keep your land. And if you lost the battle, you would have animosity toward those who came and occupied that land. You'd do everything in your power to drive them off what you'd feel was still your land.
You'd be equally ticked off if you now found yourself surrounded by these homeless on all sides and you were now supposed to align yourself with a whole new loyalty and nationality? How about all those whose land was confiscated, who found themselves now homeless and had to leave the land their families had tended for centuries?
If you want to kid yourselves into believing that we Americans, as well as all the other countries who voted to create a Jewish State, were doing so because it was the right thing to do, then go ahead and stick your head in the sand. It wasn't done because it was the "right thing to do". It was done to avoid responsibility, to dispense with the problem at someone else's expense.Wow. Way ta try to avoid any validation of Scripture, both historically and spiritually. Well done (for liberalism).
I don't need to validate scripture. This is a topic dealing with an event and the politics surrounding that event.
Quite frankly, I won't validate words written by men a couple of hundred years ago, who used religion as a form of government. Nor will I embrace ideas set forth by rulers who lived during a time where oppression of women was the accepted model for daily living (King James version). If you really wanted to know about the early beliefs of the church you embrace, why not read some of the texts that were written much closer to the supposed time of Jesus's death? There were 150 of them uncovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. Oh, wait. Of course you wouldn't read them. They were outlawed by men 325 years later by another ruler...Constantine! Sorry, I lost my head for a minute.
My Higher Power is loving and kind and cares for all the people of the world. That power does not condone, nor order murder and mayhem in its name, nor does it condone any behaviors which cause intentional infliction of pain. It is not a power that condones warring on others or condescension of my fellow human beings. But, hey, you go right ahead and believe whatever it is that gives you peace of mind.I don't need your permission to believe the Truth, but how kind of you to offer it.
The truth as dictated by antiquated men...are you really a woman? But, any way...you're welcome.
Indeed I am a woman. I've had kids and grandkids. Are you saying you find it hard to believe I'm a woman because I believe in the Bible which was written by men's hands?
Antiquated is a good word the way I see it, because it doesn't always mean useless; it means old-fashioned. God is the Ancient of Days. Tried-and-true principles may be deemed "antiquated", but I in turn recognize the rebellion against those principles as "antiquated" since there's nothing new under the sun really. Rebellion and disbelief are as old as the hills; nothing new there.What I have trouble believing is that any adult with common sense would fail to see that prevailing social attitudes of an era would have a direct bearing on written ideals. Even my father-in-law, who was a United Methodist minister, elected to the cabinet of the church, understood these things. He and I had some very long discussions about doctrine and how it came to be, as well as from whom some interpretations have found their way into accepted beliefs. Unless you are able to read the ancient texts in their original form...Aramaic and Coptic languages...there is a lot of the actual messages lost in translation. There are several words in those languages, as well as in ancient Hebrew, which the English language has no word to describe in the same manner. Therefore, translation muddies the message.
Modern day Christianity has no resemblance to the Christianity of old. If you bothered to study and seek the history through the ancient written works, you would find many jewels of wisdom that are NOT about warring or forcing the Christian faith on people, but about leading them to it through using their lives as the living testimony. In fact, the earlier works written during the apostalic age had a different meaning altogether for having a "personal relationship" with God. It totally went against allowing mere mortals to speak for God. In other words, if one has a personal relationship, is accepting and aware, he doesn't need any other human to tell him God's meaning, since God will reveal himself to the seeker in all His Truth. That was what was meant by faith. Believing that messages received were messages bestowed on one because of his worthiness in God's eyes. There also was no mention of a Satan or demons in the sense that Christians now perceive the meaning. Those early works were outlawed. Why? Because it took control away from men who used the religion to their own ends of control and manipulation. The threat of Satan is used to keep people from forming those personal relationships which would obstruct mortals from controlling other Christians. Today, if someone says they've received a message or seen something out of the ordinary, right away they are warned not to be deceived as it's probably Satan in disguise. The newer Christian doctrine teaches people they are unworthy of God's attention, that only those men of "Holy annointment" are fit to receive and interpret. Such a neat and tidy method of controlling the masses. Fear tactics. Well, isn't that all warm and cozy? I much prefer my brand of faith over one of fear, arrogance and judgment.
This really is not the place to be discussing religious doctrine. So, if you wish to pursue the discussion, email me.Umm... I think you're thinking I'm of the Catholic beliefs...? Because you mentioned the concept of only certain people being worthy of Holy anointment?
I'm not Catholic.
Nor do I think only preachers and Pastors can receive and interpret.
Thanks for the e-mail invitation. But I was just replying to your question of whether I'm a woman or not! hahano, I didn't think you were a Catholic, though the Catholic church was the very first formal Christian sect so of course, would be the most ancient. All the rest were just off-shoots taking place over the centuries. I was asking if you're a woman to be silly.......because so much of the wording of scripture is designed to deny women's rights.
I understand all that, Terri. But now that they've been there for over 50 years and established a country, are we to just leave them to be killed by the Arab countries that neighbor them?
If the Palestinians are so important, then why doesn't a country so vast as Saudi Arabia carve out a portion of it's land just south of Jordan for them? Why? Because they don't want the Palestinians either.In a word...yes. They wanted to be there. It's supposedly their "Land of Milk and Honey." Let them fight for it if they want it. I see no reason to expect me to foot the bill for their fight, especially since it's just not my battle. I don't aim to make it my battle. On a smaller scale, if I happen to see two people fighting, I'd call in the police to put a stop before someone got hurt. That's what police are for. On the larger scale...I didn't ask to become a police force for the world. I don't want the job. And I don't want to pay for it. I'd like to keep a bit of my money so that I can continue to enjoy the fruits of my labors. Frankly, I'm sick of paying for other people and their stupid battles over religion.
As for Saudi Arabia...why should they? Why should they try to make right the wrongs perpetrated by the governments who caused the original confiscation? Once again, there's another example of an American believing someone else should take on the responsibility for troubles we've helped to promote. Of course they don't want the Palestinians. The Palestinians have their own country and it's up to them to fight for themselves to win back that which was taken from them.I just find it odd that you ask if the Palestinians are so important, they are human beings as important and as equal as all men and women. The fact is they are sharing territory with Israelis and Netenyahu should be figuring out a way to carve the land between them all for the sake of peace. Not allowing settlers to build on disputed land.
Terri, when I suggested the Saudis give the Palestinians some of their land, I was being, for the lack of a better word, a smartass. Simply put, the Saudis don't want them anymore than anyone else. And, yes, I know the land given to the Israelis was once the Palestinians.
The biggest problem with Israeli situation, IMHO, is we stuck our nose in where it shouldn't have been back when Israel was first established.
Hollie, I find it hard to place any importance on any group of people who send their sons and, more recently, daughters to martyr themselves and, in the process, kill innocent women and children.
The problem is we're trying to help a group of countries find peace and coexist with each other when a good portion of them still live as barbarians from the 12th century. Peace in the Middle East isn't going to happen in any of our lifetimes. It's sad to say but perhaps we should just pull out and let them kill each other as they have done and will continue to do for centuries, long after we're gone.The Israelis justify the occupation and settlements on the West Bank as the spoils of the 1967 war. While this is not a good strategy to peace it is to serve up notice that the Israelis are serious about attacks on them and are unwilling to negotiate for their gain and the Palestinians loss. There is a stategic military advantage to occupying this land as it is a high point the Palestinians could lob shells and bombs at the Israelis from.
On another note the Israelis seem hell bent on taking over the region and with our help. We supply over 6 billion dollars a year in support of Israel and that does not even include the private donations from the American Jewish community. The American Jewish community also holds the purse strings for many of the political campaigns in this country which buys support for Israel.
Many argue that the land occupied by Israel is their birthright as stated in the Old Testament and that we (US) are merely helping them gain back that which was lost to them through no fault of their own. It is funny however that the Israelis lost it to wars and conflicts over the centuries and it is now that we are setting it straight. Who will set it straight for the Palestinians now that they have been pushed out the same way?Longhunter: From one smartass to another...
Absolutely we stuck our nose in where it didn't belong. I think most Americans also believe that. The trouble is that our government doesn't ever like to admit to making mistakes...There's this perverse need to justify even the unjustifiable. Some people have called me rather unkind names when they hear my view about the creation of Israel. The truth is that while I feel a tremendous sense of sadness over what was suffered during the Holocaust, I don't find that a viable reason to disenfranchise another people in their place. I also do not feel it is my job to interfere in another country's troubles. That may sound unkind, but it's common sense to know what spreading ourselves too thin can do to our own financial position. If we let them fight it out amongst themselves, allow them to finance their own operations, maybe they'll eventually run out of money. If no one has money to purchase the weapons, eventually they will either resort to finding a peaceful solution, or they will resort to knives and clubs. Either way, we aren't going to be the harbingers of peace.
Rhamson: $6 billion is a lot of moula. Imagine what we could do with it to help our own countrymen. As for setting wrongs to right regarding ancestral lands...I'm of Native American extraction. My ancestors, the Cherokee, owned much of the land in this country. We want it back as do the Sioux, the Blackfoot, the Apache, the Commanche... Think we'll get it? ; ) Seriously, you have a firm grasp of the situation. And it clearly isn't something we should be involved with. Heck, they have a crook for a Prime Minister. How many times has this guy been in and out of politics? When I read about his history he starts resembling some of our American politicians. That's a scary thought. His record paints a fairly clear picture of what he's all about...and it ain't about doing good works. No peace to be found there."My ancestors, the Cherokee, owned much of the land in this country. We want it back as do the Sioux, the Blackfoot, the Apache, the Commanche... Think we'll get it? ; ) "
No your people did not OWN anything terri. Your people simply occupied land. Over many centuries American Indians pushed other Indian tribes off land (as the Sioux did when the were pushed out of the Minnesota territory in the 1850s). It was squatters rights in America ... until someone bigger forced you to leave. There were no laws with the Indians. It was right by might. When the European people came to America, they quickly learned - the hard way - of the brutal savageness the Indians were capable of . John Smith (Jamestown) recorded an incident in his journal of his party being abducted by an Indian tribe. The Indians deemed them enemies simply because of the color of their skin. They condemned all the white men to death. And how ws that death sentence to be carried out? The Indian way: inhumane savagery. The whole party of men were to be literally SKINNED alive, starting with the tips of their fingers. Smith escaped this fate by claiming he was a King - the Chief. It was Indian custom not to kill a King / head-man/ Chief / whatever.
Americans had always tried to live peaceably with the Indians. It was always the Indians who used savage brutality to try to persuade the white man not to encroach on what they (Indians) regarded as "their land."
Had the Indians not been so primitive ... they would hv understood the way of the white man i.e. his utterly slavery to the written word. Indians were given almost all of the land in the Louisiana Territory under the Fort Laramie. Indians primitive and savage ways allowed the Americans to cancel that treaty.
terri; "We want it back as do the Sioux, the Blackfoot, the Apache, the Commanche."
Gee, and I thought every "group" in America wants to co-exist in an amalgamated happy human family?You wrote: The Indians deemed them enemies simply because of the color of their skin. They condemned all the white men to death. And how ws that death sentence to be carried out? The Indian way: inhumane savagery.
Inhuman savagery? Really? Might I ask what would you call the white man giving the tribes small pox-infected blankets in an effort to kill off the Indians? Is that acceptable to you? Pay back, shall we say?
I find it interesting that you've decided to play the race card on the Indians of the year 1607. Ridiculous but interesting. It says a lot about you and your mindset of a lot of subjects."I find it interesting that you've decided to play the race card "
Nice try. longhunter. Guilt tripping me is useless. I'm wise to all the gimmicks. As for your small-pox claim, this is yet another unproven insert into American history which is a lie and a blatant attempt to try to demonize white Christian people. You must hv found that claim in , let me guess here, wikipedia. Right? Never happened.
American history is being re-written, and the malicious desire is to make white Christians the most wicked , most obnoxious, and most sadistic people on god's earth. No other people on earth has sat back and just taken it, the maligning and demonization of their history , their religion and culture, as white Christian people have been doing over the last 40 years. I find it cowardly to make unsubstantiated mean-spirited claims against a people.You must be reading Beck's version of American History. I read a little bit of it but it became a bit like propoganda and I had to put it down. Talk about rewriting history!
"Well, I just.....I just......I just think Barak Obama has a deep seated hatred of white people. I think he's a racist."
Chapter 27: When America voted in a racist president...and he was black!
from: 'Beckles the Clown, History of America: My Way'Since this is a conspiracy thread, I will just mention that everytime I come to HP and comment, I lose my internet connnection.
Given that there is a powerful "clique" on here, who get people banned, and get scores lowered, I'm wondering if they are messing with my internet as well...
It would not be the first time. And that is why I have my suspicions.
Now I am in "safe mode"......but if it crashes, I will be highly suspicious and I have my suspicions on just whom it might be.
Just very odd, that's all...and I know the net has been a target lately.
Lieberman/Specter...the kill switch.
Not Wikipedia!!! I don't use it because of its unreliability. I did, however, find this below. Granted, it's called Nativeweb.org so you'll disregard it immediately.
For your info, S Leretseh, I'm a white Christian (Baptist) who's chosen not to turn a blind eye to what was done to the Indians for the sake of some pompous religious BS you're shoveling. Save it as it won't fly with me.
http://www.nativeweb.org/pages/legal/am … _jeff.html
Smallpox blankets
Despite his fame, Jeffrey Amherst's name became tarnished by stories of smallpox-infected blankets used as germ warfare against American Indians. These stories are reported, for example, in Carl Waldman's Atlas of the North American Indian [NY: Facts on File, 1985]. Waldman writes, in reference to a siege of Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) by Chief Pontiac's forces during the summer of 1763:
... Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort -- an early example of biological warfare -- which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer. [p. 108]
Some people have doubted these stories; other people, believing the stories, nevertheless assert that the infected blankets were not intentionally distributed to the Indians, or that Lord Jeff himself is not to blame for the germ warfare tactic.
Historian Francis Parkman, in his book The Conspiracy of Pontiac and the Indian War after the Conquest of Canada [Boston: Little, Brown, 1886] refers to a postscript in an earlier letter from Amherst to Bouquet wondering whether smallpox could not be spread among the Indians:
Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians? We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them. [Vol. II, p. 39 (6th edition)]
I have not found this letter, but there is a letter from Bouquet to Amherst, dated 23 June 1763, [189k] three weeks before the discussion of blankets to the Indians, stating that Captain Ecuyer at Fort Pitt (to which Bouquet would be heading with reinforcements) has reported smallpox in the Fort. This indicates at least that the writers knew the plan could be carried out.
It is curious that the specific plans to spread smallpox were relegated to postscripts. I leave it to the reader to ponder the significance of this.
Several other letters from the summer of 1763 show the smallpox idea was not an anomaly. The letters are filled with comments that indicate a genocidal intent, with phrases such as:
* "...that Vermine ... have forfeited all claim to the rights of humanity" (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [149k]
* "I would rather chuse the liberty to kill any Savage...." (Bouquet to Amherst, 25 June) [121k]
* "...Measures to be taken as would Bring about the Total Extirpation of those Indian Nations" (Amherst to Sir William Johnson, Superintendent of the Northern Indian Department, 9 July) [229k]
* "...their Total Extirpation is scarce sufficient Attonement...." (Amherst to George Croghan, Deputy Agent for Indian Affairs, 7 August) [145k]
* "...put a most Effectual Stop to their very Being" (Amherst to Johnson, 27 August [292k]; emphasis in original).
Amherst's correspondence during this time includes many letters on routine matters, such as officers who are sick or want to be relieved of duty; accounts of provisions on hand, costs for supplies, number of people garrisoned; negotiations with provincial governors (the army is upset with the Pennsylvania assembly, for example, for refusing to draft men for service); and so on. None of these other letters show a deranged mind or an obsession with cruelty. Amherst's venom was strictly reserved for Indians.
I'm not trying to guilt trip anyone, S Leretseh. Just pointing out you don't know what you're talking about. Not as a white man/woman. Not as a Christian. As an individual."Granted, it's called Nativeweb.org so you'll disregard it immediately."
Darn right I will. Longhunter, white people feared small pox to! All whites were NOT immune. There is not ONE shred of concrete evidence that there was any type of existing effort to give small pox to the Indians. If I'm wrong, produce that evidence, or stop maligning your people. Longhunter , maligning your people not only makes you look extremely silly, but also continues to whet the appetite of those (all those groups out there) who know very well the way to destroy a people is make them (white Christian people) , and everyone else, believe white Christian people are the product of the devil. Goebbels "propaganda" demonized the Jews in this very same way. Are you so blind to history that you don't know this? There is a very well organized effort to demonize white Christian people. Stop cooperating with the play-book of the demonizers!S Leretseh wrote: stop maligning your people
My PEOPLE are Americans. Some are white. Some are black. Some are Christians and I even know a few atheists and Jews. My step dad is Jewish. I use to be married to a woman who was part Cherokee. Let me guess, S Leretseh, that makes me a squaw man and my two oldest children are half breeds in your eyes. Right?
Since when does being white and/or Christian make us always right? What are you, some sort of white supremacist?
I would say you are the only one looking silly here, S Leretseh, but, after reading your post above, I've determined your nothing more than a white supremacist racist.
That doesn't make you silly, just ignorant.
Let me guess, also, if a person isn't white and Christian, you don't like them. Is that how you think?"My PEOPLE are Americans"
An American does NOT identify a people dude! It is nothing more than a political expression. Just to bring u up to speed.
Also, if one defends Jews they are Jewish supremacist/ racist? Someone defends blacks, they are black supremacist / racists? Your argument makes no sense. However, You hv revealed longhunter that you hv an agenda. No matter what I say, you will resort to childish insinuations. I will continue to defend white Christian people, their culture and their history. Using pavlov dog words (racists, white supremacist , etc) , trying to mk me SUBMIT to you, won't work . I said you look silly. I now know you hv a very definite agenda to continue a campaign of hate toward ONE group, and ONLY ONE group. If I'm wrong, then point me to a post of yours that you hold another people accountable for wrong doings?
"Let me guess, also, if a person isn't white and Christian, you don't like them. Is that how you think?"
And where did I imply THAT?! You sir are deliberately maligning and demonizing a group. I hv NEVER done that! You hv an agenda and u just revealed it! You are trying to stir up HATE against ONE group of people.
What I find surprising in your answer is your willingness to point to the Indians as having initiated the violence and that the violence was extreme savagery. What part of the violence was acceptable? The rules of warfare are not to only mete out what you receive but return as much terror that the other side will only refrain because of their fear of tremendous reprisal.
The English learned this many years ago when disembowelment was the punishment for treason and heresy. But I guess that was not savagery because it was by a white man on a white man.
The funny thing is that the settlers in Jamestown found that they could not domesticate the indians in the area and soon imported slaves from Africa in 1660 after many attempts at civilizing the indians.
I think the Indians of the time were fearful of the white man when they caught onto the aggressive plans they had for the settlement and Jolly Old England. Not to worry Columbus had the same problems in the Carribean.There is some dimness in your wit old boy. I think you are viewing the world @ss-backwards through the wrong end of a microscope. The Indians helped the settlers through their first hard winter, saving them from certain starvation - their reward was to be massacred by the fearful first settlers. And you complain because these guys learned a lesson
Well, SLoretseh, It would seem to me that you don't understand a joke...there was a wink and a smile following that statement. As for Indians being so brutal, let me give you a history lesson. My maiden name is Degler. Go look it up for Berks County Pennsylvania. And while you're at it, look up the Degler chest. My family settled in PA in 1738. John Degler was a smart and pious man. In fact, all the Deglers were such and they didn't treat the natives as savages or as something to be feared. My ancestors traded with the natives and shared meals with them. They befriended them. Those early Indians tried to live in peace with all of the German settlers in the area. But the continued push of Europeans into what was Indian land caused resentment and animosity. The Indians had been pushed back over the Blue Mountains. It had been understood that from the mountains and west were held by the natives, but European greed got the best of the situation. Because they knew they were guilty of trying to take even more land, they became so fearful of the repercussion, they began to threaten any natives who ventured near their homesteads until finally one stupid settler shot an Indian and killed him. All the unrest that was already taking place in other parts of eastern PA, now came to Berks County. The Indians considered the shooting an act of war, so they fought back and worked to drive the Europeans from their land.
Many of my gggggggrandfather's neighbors were killed or kidnapped. They even ransacked my grandfather's home, breaking open the family chest that had been brought in the move from Alsace. My grandfather and family were not home. Later, those same Indians returned in a fit of shame for the damage they had done against their friend. They repaired the broken chest and carved symbols of fish, crossed canoe paddles, and a heart. They represented the shared food, communion. They represented the friendship between the Indians and the Deglers. They represented a promise of peace. That chest is in a museum now, and the homestead still stands.
The Indians were not savages until they were forced into the role. As for squatters rights??? Says who? The Europeans? The Indians didn't believe in sole ownership but in sharing. They believed the land was provided that they might find sustainance in its bounty. They did not believe anyone else had a right to ownership either. They believed in sharing. It was the greedy Europeans who didn't honor that belief. They came uninvited to another man's homeland and took what they wanted. And squatters? Maybe much later in the west, but in the early days of Pennsylvania settlement, it was the King of England who granted William Penn the ownership of land that wasn't his to give. Penn, in turn, gave away land to those who agreed to settle it and share their bounty drawn from the land. There was no compensation offered to the natives for loss of their hunting grounds.
As for co-existing in an amalgamated happy family??? you can exist, of course, but with ideas like yours, you surely wouldn't be welcome in MY family.“The Indians had been pushed back over the Blue Mountains. It had been understood that from the mountains and west were held by the natives, but European greed got the best of the situation”
WRONG. Not GREED. Human nature was the deciding factor. Indians had to find a way to work with the Europeans. They failed virtually every time. Europeans wanted to work the land and make it provide for them and their people. Indians wanted the lands for happy hunting grounds. Indians wanted land only where there were hunting capabilities. Europeans also used the land for its animal food source ; and no question Indians saw a threat to their livelihoods here. Europeans adapted and resorted to farming and raising cattle to feed themselves and their people when the animal population was depleted. Indians refused to adapt (or couldn’t) . This was NOT the fault of the Europeans.
Have you ever even bothered d to read the Fort Laramie Treaty? In this treaty (1850) is a great deal of land given to the Indians (over 5000 sq acres for every adult male Indian!) , a guarantee to train them to forge metal tools, a gift of blankets so they wouldn’t freeze during winter months , training in how to plant and raise crops, among many other things promised by the American gov’t to try to better the lives of the Indians. This treaty does not square with your desire to demonize white Christians. Then there was the effort of the Carlisle Indian school. In this effort, terri, did you know that all the Indian tribes of the Great Plains gave all their young children to the white people, so the white people could attempt to train them to better the lives of the Indians. I wrote a hub about this effort). Again, the Indians willing to give ALL their children to the white man just does not square with your assertion that white Christian people are a pack of evil doers.
The rest of your post, terri , is anecdotal. And as for me sitting at your table... , I am very choosy about who/whom I sit with.So you're saying that if you came to my country and moved into my house it would be up to me to adapt to your ways rather than you adapt to mine!
What arrogance.And a large scoop of ignorance to go along with it, John. I'm beginning to wonder if S Leretseh isn't more than a little bigoted in his views of people who aren't white and Christian.
I think that is a fairly safe conclusion.
S Loretseh: Oh, please! Are you really trying to convince us that white settlers and the American government were interested in doing what was best for the natives? You really are intent on rewriting history to match your own twisted views if you think the Carlisle Indian School is an example of great works. You need to get your history straight before you start writing absolute lies and trash.
While there were a few Indians that were swayed to give up their children in the interest of educating them to the white man's ways, MOST refused and fought the notion, ignoring even the mandatory education laws instituted which governed ALL children. Their reason? They didn't want their children to be taught the white man's way, because they didn't want their children to lose their culture.
In fact, most Indians didn't really have a problem with education...it was the idea of removing the children from their homes they found unnecessary. If education was really the issue, there was no need to remove them from the influences of their home life and traditions. Schools could have been established right on the reservations. When the Indians refused to send their children to white schools off the reservation, the military came in and took them at gun point.
You use the Carlisle school as an example. You need to look into the background of its founder, one Capt. Richard Henry Pratt. This guy was military. The idea of "assimilating" the Indian nations was begun with an experiment led by Capt. Pratt on Commanche and Cheyenne POW's under his command in Florida. He cut their hair, put them in military uniforms, taught them military discipline, replaced their native beliefs with Christianity, and gave them an American education. He was then granted Federal monies to found the Carlisle Indian School in order to continue doing the same with Indian children. The idea of assimilation was aimed at "killing the Indian and saving the man," by Richard Pratt's own words.
I don't need you to tell me about the Carlisle school, as Carlisle was my home for a dozen years. I am well aware of the school and the history surrounding it. For one thing, it was a military barracks, burned during the Civil War by the Confederate General Jeb Stuart. After the Indian school closed in 1918, it reverted back to barracks and is now the Army War College.
That the school was a military installation clearly shows exactly what the agenda was in regard to "educating" Indian children. Five years after the founding of the school, the Commissioner on Indian Affairs Thomas Morgan stated, “the Indians are not only becoming Americanized, but they are by this process of education gradually being absorbed, losing their identity as Indians, and becoming an indistinguishable part of the great body politic.”
You speak of the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1850. As usual, treaties were made to be broken. Their only purpose was for setting up the Indians for even more subjugation. When you're spouting off about treaties, please don't forget to mention following acts which only served to negate those treaties. Take a look at the Dawes Act of 1887. It terminated the communal land holdings on reservations and distributed the land to individual Indians who were to use it in the same manner as white settlers used their land. After 25 years of farming such individual allotments, the individuals would own the land and then the government took all "surplus" land for sale to settlers. The Act destroyed the very cultural traditions of Native Americans in an attempt to turn them into farmers, because they wouldn't need so much land. This opened millions of acres to white settlers. The result was that the Indians lost 2/3 of their land. So really???? You want us to be convinced the American government was looking out for the Red Man?
Your defense of your statements has been based on the idea that it wasn't greed but human nature that was the deciding factor. Are you stuck on stupid, or what? Greed is a factor of human nature. In fact, human nature is very much about personal survival first and foremost. Because of that, we humans have many base instincts that are not necessarily good for our fellow man. However, being CIVILIZED is what allows us to overcome our basic human natures in the interest of doing what is best on a humanitarian level for all people. White settlers were only "civilized" among their own people. It was the GREED in their human natures that prompted them to take the actions taken against the Native Americans. They wanted land, they took it. If there was resistance, they killed for it. Plain and simple. Stop trying to dress it up as some noble act to be commended. And frankly I don't care if those perpetrating the act were white Christian males, or purple people eaters. It was wrong and inhumane.
Terri, I appologize for not mentioning the plight of the Native Americans that were striped of their land with the expansion of the country into the wilderness. Andrew Jackson with his horrible treatment of the Native American is even looked at as a hero in many areas of the country.
America is famous or should I say infamous for its meddling in other countries affairs and peoples. Look at the African American enslavement that was overlooked for almost 100 years while the elite ran their business' and commerce on their backs.
The overthrow of foreign governments such as Russia 1945-1989, Iran 1953, Tibet 1950's, Guatemala 1954, Cuba 1959, The Congo 1960, Iraq 1963, Brazil 1964, Ghana 1966, Iraq 1968, Chile 1973, Afghanistan 1973-1974, Iraq 1973-1975, Argentina 1976, Afghanistan 1978-1980's, Iran 1980, Nicaraqua 1981, El Salvador 1980-1992, Cambodia 1980-1985, Angola 1980's, Phillipines 1986, Iraq 1992-1995, Guatamala 1993, Serbia 2000, Venezuela 2002, Haiti 2004, Somalia 2006-2007, Iraq 2001-present have always been in our covert cross hairs and usually not under our control. Displacing people for our own "Intrerests" as the politicians like to say are not of the highest moral caliber.
America looks to profit from just about every operation carried out and does little to help those that are obviously the victims of genocide and famine. Just look at Darfur in the Sudan and Somalia where we left in disgrace. Why should the world expect any different from us now.
America is famous for the little messes we stir up and leave the inhabitants to clean up on their own.
"they are human beings as important and as equal as all men and women."
Some people do not feel that way. Many of The Settlers, for one.
- ahorsebackposted 13 years ago0
9/11 an inside job , where's your common sense people. Number one , Put yourself in the building ! You're a fireman , cop , port authority guard. Elevator operator, shoe shine boy .....Did anyone in the building report explosive divices , see plastique explosives or make .....One! ...One! Radio call about anything strange ? No . Two ,...Can you even begin to understand the energy involved in collapsing buildings. The "pancake " theories of engineered construction or destruction ! Take one floor out of a 100 floor building......and drop it and all the other floors above it onto the next one below. Poof! But no, not in the small immaginative minds of the conspiracy nuts! No , we see little green men , sasquach's , we see UFO's , we see headless horsemen , and tell host stories around the campfires! Thats what real and intelligent American people do today!
I hate to say it, ahorseback, but you're using logic where logic doesn't exist.
ahorseback, here is some of my common sense. It would take a team of installers many months to wire those buildings with explosives (~110 stories x 2, 1 acre per floor), maybe under the guise of computer upgrades and other such maintenance. Obviously the explosives would have to be placed out of sight. The thermite would go directly on the steel beams, which are out of sight. No one would see them. Those who were in the building to witness any explosives going off were obviously demolished along with the building.
- ahorsebackposted 13 years ago0
Longhunter , You know .....I think you may have a huge point there my friend! I suppose Im foolish for trying to change the hearts and minds here on the twilight zone of conspiracy plaugued forum posts.! And I know , I know , its always the same storytellers!.....:-}
Teri, actually Catholicism as we know it today start well after Biblical Christianity began. The Catholic Church's teaching (often in contradiction to scripture) were adopted decades and even centuries after Biblical Christianity began.
Where in the New Testament do you find a denial of women's rights? The very fact that the Marys testimony of the empty grave was given credence was a tribute to women's rights and value, as it was not generally accepted in that time.1 Tim 2:8-11 Pretty much says that men are to lead while women are to be modest and learn in silence and submission in order to prove their godliness.
Timothy and other scripture also says that women are not to usurp the authority of men, they can not teach or preach in mixed company because it would be usurping authority. Women are also instructed to find their fulfillment in taking care of the home and children. And while she is supposed to be the ruler of her home, only so under the leadership of her husband. Since scripture also says a woman is to be obedient to her own husband, she really can't work outside the home..else she would be under the authority of another man or woman which is not permitted. It's also considered improper for a woman to speak in church. She is advised to ask her husband at home if there's something she wants to understand better.
Need I go on? I can if you need me to. Your comment about Mary's testimony says it all. Wow! They actually believed her, wasn't she granted some special treatment!
I was not speaking of today's Catholic Church. I specifically said it was the first of the many sects. The term catholic simply means universal. The early Christian followers called their faith catholic because it embraced a wide scope, it was all-embracing. This term was used up through the second century.
What's interesting and what you are referring to, is the existence of the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Church, etc. These faiths both believe they are the only original and universal church.
During the apostalic age, there were 11 apostles all teaching their version/understanding of Jesus' teachings to their own followers. (Judas was already dead) What resulted was many different beliefs, some that were in contradiction to others. Christians began killing Christians over who was right and who were the blasphemers. The first Council of Nicaea took place in 325 AD. That's when Constantine invited all the bishops of the many sects to come together to hammer out some agreements that are much too involved for me to get into here. I do want to make note that it was also decided at that council as to when exactly Easter should be celebrated. Very interesting that no one had even an agreement about that prior to getting together.
The end result of these bishops (men) getting together was that a great number of written essays from the first 100 to 150 years following the supposed date of Jesus' death, were outlawed. Teaching from them was forbade and against church law. Constantine sent out an order for all such texts to be destroyed. It was basically the world's very first book burning.
If one really wishes to understand the real messages of the early Christian faith, he must read the texts that were uncovered in 1945. There are many many interesting gospels in the collection. They simply don't agree with the twisted messages of today's accepted scripture.
Did you know that in the early centuries AD women were bishops and priests? It was outlawed along with most of the female gospels, like the Gospel of Mary Magdalen. The majority of self-proclaimed Christians don't even know that such a gospel exists, nor do they know about the Gospel of Thomas, or of Truth, or of Sophia...
An opinion has no meaning to anyone if you just hide behind a fake name and profile pic!
Ugg... I thought the Custer outcome was well overdue and am saddened by what I have seen since.. in regard to the 2nd level of land acquisition by the US Government and those who lease the mining/drilling/fracking 'Rights' from them.
@OP good on you for asking questions.
Maybe work on your timing a bit more though.
What is also questionable is: How did the 'spooks' who occupied Tower 7 know to evacuate that building a few days before 9/11?
Weren't the same crew of 'spooks' involved in El Salvador and Libya?
+ Re GWB's alibi... The body language of GWB on the morning of 9/11 clearly shows that he was NOT at a PreSchool to aid in their education!
Like many of us in the world (outside of the US)... We were saddened by the extreme loss of life... and our good thoughts go out for the families.- Longhunterposted 13 years ago0
S Leretseh,
The only agenda I have is that of an American that's Christian first and just happens to be white. Who I am is not based on my skin color but rather my character. I don't base what I think of someone on anything other than how they treat me and my family.
I don't see every other race other than whites as a threat like you do.
I'm not trying to get you to do anything other than get you to admit what you really are for all the world to see and the statement below says it all.
You wrote: I will continue to defend white Christian people, their culture and their history.
How? By maligning every other race out there?
I'm not the one saying "I will continue to defend white Christian people, their culture and their history."
I'm white and Christian and I don't want nor need to be defended by the sorry likes of you on anything. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only white and/or Christian who feels that way.
We're not all bigots, S Leretseh."By maligning every other race out there?"
Cheap demagoguery. Your lack of intellectual ethics exhausts me dude. One cheap shot after another. I hv never maligned any group.
"I don't see every other race other than whites as a threat like you do."
Implying now I'm delusionally paranoid? And you claim you don't want me to SUBMIT to you? ! You're throwing everything in aren't you... LOL WEAK
BTW, I have supported with vigor many other groups/races/ethnic groups when someone attempts to unfairly malign them -- many, many times. As for you, longone, I challenged you show ONE post of yours where u hold another American domestic male group (other than white Christians) accountable for their actions. Point me to just ONE.I don't feel the need to hold "another American domestic male group accountable for their actions", s Leretseh, as I'm not a paranoid bigot like you.
When a bigot questions my "intellectual ethics," I simply laugh at their ignorance. Yes, S Leretseh, I'm laughing at you - the great white defender of the white, Christian race. Problem is we don't need to be defended.
As a white man, I don't feel threatened by another race. As a Christian, my faith teaches me I'm protected by God. If I need protection for any other reason, I legally carry a 9mm. So you see, S Leretseh, the last thing I need or want is people like you protecting me.
Now, what, pray tell, makes you think the white Christian man needs protecting and what makes you think you are the CHOSEN ONE? Other than your overwhelming bigotry, what makes you think we need protecting?
Take your time now. We'll wait for you to put on your pointed white hat and adjust the eye holes just right.long, I guess u just kinda missed, or dismissed, my comment about defending many racial/ethnic groups, where I see that that groups is being unfairly maligned. I do not exclusively defend white Christian people. I am an intellectually honest person who applies the same standards to everyone. I don't single out ONE group for character assassination. Where I know someone is wrong, or I see a continued pattern of hate coming from them directed only toward only ONE group, I will call them out on it. U are outed little one... You also are obviously a self-loather. No use getting angry at me. Nothing I can do about that. Seek help. As for your intellectual dishonesty, nothing I can do about that either.
If you defend "many racial/ethnic groups," why did you feel the need to lash out at me for defending Indians even after I showed you proof the blanket incident did happen? Just because you didn't like to proof doesn't mean it isn't true.
If you defend "many racial/ethnic groups," why did you attack me for not holding "another American domestic male group accountable for their actions"?
If you defend "many racial/ethnic groups," why did you write "I will continue to defend white Christian people, their culture and their history."
Be careful your feet don't slip off the peddles while your backing up. And it's not I that needs help. You're the only bigot in this conversation. You're the one with delusions of grandeur as the Great White Protector. Not I."defending Indians"
That implies that I was attacking them. I wasn't.
" showed you proof the blanket incident did happen"
No you did not show proof. You gave anecdotal evidence and hearsay. That sir is NOT proof.
"I will continue to defend white Christian people, their culture and their history."
I stand by that comment. I will defend any group regardless of race, creed or color. I hv never singled out ONE group to malign them. To hold them accountable for their actions, yes, but I always offer a plethora of evidence. I NEVER use anecdotal evidence and hearsay to malign a person or group. I find that to be intellectually dishonest.It's funny how when the evidence doesn't agree with use stance on things it's "anecdotal evidence and hearsay." Typical bigot.
Face it, S Leretesh, you're a racist. You seem like an intelligent guy but it's masked and useless because of your hate for people who aren't white and Christian. Things is I'm white and Christian and I'm ashamed to say you're a part of my group.
You're a sad shell of what you could be and I'm not the only one that sees it. Educate and be honest with yourself, S Leretseh, outside the racist box in which you've compromised your intellect."I'm ashamed to say you're a part of my group."
Who said I'm part of your group? Where did I ever say I'm white and Christian? I am pointing out a clear and obvious campaign of hate ,lies and historical distortions all designed and calculated to diminish, malign and/or demonize ONE male group. You should be ashamed of what you're doing. LOOK at America today! What has it accomplished altering historical facts, or creating "facts" to create victim status for all groups who seek it, and in so doing using white Christian people as the fall guys?
"Face it, S Leretesh, you're a racist. "
Nice try. Again, pavlov dog nonsense. I won't SUBMIT to you dude because u use that intellectually childish tactic. Doesn't work on me. I tell the truth. I also do not try to use anecdotal evidence or hearsay to malign or demonize a people.You're right. I assumed you were white and Christian. If you're not a part of that demographic, great! I won't be associated with your sick thoughts and ideas. And, if you're not, defend some other group. Us white, Christian males don't need your BS defense.
I don't want you to submit, S Leretseh. I just want you to crawl back under the rock you came out from under. You're a sick individual.
I bet you really believe that as well!
If you are so even handed why are so many of your posted laced with hatred for the black man?"laced with hatred for the black man"
Care to be specific holdenI do, and not only with regards to your posts, but your profile, where you state that it became and I'm paraphrasing here ' a demand of the black race to integrate with the whites.' Why shouldn't a black man have the right to enjoy the same rights as a white man and be fully integrated into any society??
"Why shouldn't a black man have the right to enjoy the same rights as a white man and be fully integrated into any society"
Very good question. Fist, the statement you attribute to me is not representative of hate. Second, my response is that in all of human history , without one exception that I could find, dictates that a male group who claims itself to be oppressed or brutally treated under the hegemony of another male group, has ALWAYS sought separation and self-determination (if they could get it). The black race did the complete opposite. Why?
Now let's get to "the same rights as the white man."
The black males HAD the same rights (1865 to 1964). The Black man was FREE, free to build his own cities, own towns, own industries, or colonize a place in all the vast unsettled lands in the USA - if he felt himself so oppressed. Colonization or building an urban center would allow him the opportunity to create his own political environment(s) as well. The Mormons did it. The black race , if they so desired , as free people, could have done all I just mentioned. They chose, on their own volition, integration. This "right" to integrate had no historic basis to it. No people had EVER done it - no template existed how to accomplish it. It also had no Constitutional basis to it. Hence, the necessity to create the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act . There was also the Plessy decision which gave legal codification to separation. The 1964 Civil Rights Act ended this. White people did not wrong the black man. When integrations laws were passed, white people, across-the-board, followed the new laws.
"be fully integrated into any society"
Any subordinate people can make this demand. It still requires the dominate male group to submit to it. White Christian people submitted ... because the black race - apparently - demanded across-the-board integration. They wanted it, they got it. There was , again, no Constitutional right to it and no precedent to it. However, just because black males received their integration demand - the first male group in all of human history to receive such a right - doesn't mean that they, as a group, should not be held accountable for their performance and / or behavior as a group within the new compulsory integration system. If blacks are to become a dependent people on the backs of another people, I would say that is a grossly unfair development for the group forced to bear the responsibility to provide for them. If blacks are to attack and / or commit waves of violence against white people, I would say that also calls into questioning the legitimacy of the - unprecedented in human history - integration system. Both conditions I've mentioned here, there is a plethora of evidence to show they are becoming a reality. A right of one people to integrate does not supersede the right of another people to achieve safety, security and self-reliance as a people.
Leretseh, just read the subsequent posts in this thread, you ooze hatred and misunderstanding.
I thought as much, it's taken you approximately 40 minutes to defend your position, hopelessly I might add. You can write as many paragraphs as you please in response to one short question. You can even separate the question into two halves. But the question remains the same. You are unable to find a reasonable, coherent answer. Your response is fluff and nonsense, the ramblings of a racist . The worst type of racist I might add, because you try to justify your position by suggesting that you have defended minority groups, that you are not a hater. You're either dishonest with yourself, or you know intrinsically that your views are fueled by hate and completely unacceptable.
BTW, there are many female minority groups that claim to have been subjected to oppression and brutality 'under the hegemony and brutality of both female and male groups' So, when you reply, try to respond in a way that is relevant to 'today.' You clearly did not comprehend what I meant by ' Why shouldn't a black man have the right to enjoy the same rights as a white man and be fully integrated into any society.' So I'll put it another way , 'Why should a black man or woman be segregated and forced to live in a society that excludes white men and women?' Think about that one, all night long, and I'll respond tomorrow.Now let's get to "the same rights as the white man."
The black males HAD the same rights (1865 to 1964).
-----
Did you miss that? I have said nothing racist. and nothing hateful. I hv laid it out for you dearie according to the prevailing attitudes that existed at the time in which the civil rights (integration) debates were occurring. As for women, where did that come from? Sorry, but you won't draw me into this one baby.Unusual to see such an outright ridiculous statement in these threads, which are full of stupid statements. Black males had the same rights as white men - You seriously need to read some history that is not filtered through your white christian, backwoods, 'lets-make-em-stupid' school ! After the laws that supposedly set black men free came the 'hunt-down-a-black-man' vigilante gangs who re-captured and 'indentured' the freed black slaves, hanging, burning and boiling any who stood up with their so-called rights. Wow man !!!!! You really should go back and do basic history.
Recommend1, just where did you get this American history form? WOW!!! Tripe. Lies. Outrageous generalizations. Exaggerations to point of ridiculous.
"let's make them stupid schools"? You got to be kidding me?! I'v e got a hub dude on the numerous "great " higher learning schools created by white Christians for blacks. Read it & learn something.So - you are yet another apologist history re-writer !!!! I guess Hitler did not kill all those Jews either ? that was just a black plot huh ? And of course the Japanese did not invade China and commit numerous atrocities there either huh ?? !
Put your ridiculous KKK bedsheet away and stop bothering innocent folks with your drivel.This post is just utter stupidity. You should be embarrassed dude.
I will never be embarrassed pointing out stupidity anywhere. I will not be embarrassed to talk out when people post racist or homophobic or other general hate filled drivel. Get used to it.
There is no way it is. After 10 years, there would have been evidence. Someone would have came to the public for money. This was a terrible tragedy. No funny stuff.
@thelyricwriter check out my blog, yes this is a tragedy but it was a planned one. http://jjin26.hubpages.com/hub/911-Truth
It's kind of funny to see the anger at Leretseh......
The people defending Israel's policy with Palestine are doing the same!
It is the EXACT same thing.
White Europeans/Americans deciding they want something from the "lesser" brown people. So they take it.
No matter the justifcations--you can always find those.
It's very interesting that the Israeli-Firsters don't see the parrallels.S Leretseh, "The Black males had the same right (1865 to 1964)" How can An American White male claim to be intellectually honest and made such a statement. I also ask you to be honest with yourself. S Leretseh I wrote a hub "An Underclass view of American Slavery", please read and comment on what I wrote honestly. This is not a test, Iam interested in your thought process and your ability process what happened between 1600 to 1964. I would like you to be intellectually honest with me and comment negative or positive.
October 10, 2011
9/11 Oddities that the 'Official' Story Can't Explain Away
http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspo … -cant.htmlHas anyone read this? Insiders doubt CIA's official story? Published yesterday in Salon. http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insider … singleton/
Interesting.Tenet! He's the one who got the medal from Bush! The one whom Bush *allegedly* told: "Just get me the gd proof!"
Then ole Crazy Curveball gave it to him......Able Danger! It was ignored....for good reason. From the POV of the perps.
Geeeeez. Deja Vu! Good article!I've never been settled accepting that CIA missed the two hijackers who flew into the Pentagon. How were they NOT missed when they arrived in south CA? I read articles about it a number of years ago and wondered how they could not have been on radar. Obviously, they were..
We'll never know the full truth.And why lie, if your story is true!
Bob Kerry says in 30 years we may know the truth...I think not. I think soon.
Well I have read it now.
It does not appear to be related in any way to the belief that 9/11 was an inside job that I can see, but it does look like a credible story of the arrogance and lack of thought within the CIA at the time of the disaster.
Dunno. But, I am not ready to dismiss any theory. I feel like too much is out there to be looked at that isn't and hasn't. I REALLY don't like that we have built a society that immediately dismisses investigative reporting as concocted "conspiracy theory" like a conspiracy could never exist so lets just dismiss it. No one is smart enough to mastermind anything in America! Or, Nobody could mastermind anything in America, because we are all too smart to be fooled. On the other hand, I would there to be an open and transparent inquiry into the events. I NEVER liked that the 9/11 commission never got all of the information they requested by the White House and the CIA. But, the biggest reason I would like the investigation??? Because there are too many damn THEORIES floating around as a direct result of the investigation NOT being transparent!
Related Discussions
- 70
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
by Fahad 12 years ago
Do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?I want to hear other people's opinion on this. I'm currently doing research for a personal project, and would love to hear people's opinion.
- 37
Dick Cheney faces bribery scandal charges in Nigeria
by Stacie L 13 years ago
Dick Cheney faces bribery scandal charges in NigeriaJoined: 22.10.10 Dick Cheney faces bribery scandal charges in NigeriaDick Cheney, file pic Mr Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive before becoming vice-president to George W BushNigeria's anti-corruption agency is to charge former...
- 27
"In My Time," more lies from Dick Cheney
by Ralph Deeds 13 years ago
"Whatever readers think of Mr. Cheney’s politics, their heads are more likely to explode from frustration than from any sense of revelation. Indeed, the memoir — delivered in dry, often truculent prose — turns out to be mostly a predictable mix of spin, stonewalling, score settling and highly...
- 61
9/11 - Loose Change
by sannyasinman 14 years ago
If you watch this film you can surely no longer have any doubt that 9/11 was an inside job, a well coordinated demolition . The question is what can be done about it now that we know the truth? Any suggestions? Perhaps you are already doing something? Or do you prefer to ignore it, and pretend that...
- 14
Do you believe our elected officials are being honest with us?
by Rev Bruce S Noll HMN 11 years ago
Do you believe our elected officials are being honest with us?There is so much information concerning impending financial and environmental crises, do you feel out government warrants out full faith and trust?
- 43
The Big Dick Cheney Gets a New Heart
by Paul Wingert 12 years ago
He voted against healthcare reform, helped Bush destroy this country and he gets a new heart. Now someone has to wait longer for a heart transplant because of this assh**e. Feel free to comment or make a list of a person(s) who needs a new heart more than Dick.