Chemtrail Central
Member's Area
Member List
Who's Linking
What's Popular
Image Database
Search Images
New Images
Link Database
Search Links
New Links
Chemtrail Forum
Active Topics
Who's Online
Flight Explorer
Silver Orbs
News Archive
Top Websites

  Chemtrail Central Forum
  Other Trails
  Gulf War II (Page 36)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Topic:   Gulf War II

Topic page views:

Agent Provocateur

588 posts, Nov 2002

posted 04-14-2003 11:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for shatoga     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Czechs & Poles were "liberated" by Hitler

just like Iraqis are now "liberated" by the american hitler

stand for freedom & the right of self determination

or admit to being a nazi

& 'zieg heil' proudly to Bush

just stop the BS already

[Edited 2 times, lastly by shatoga on 04-14-2003]

IP Logged

One moon circles

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-15-2003 03:13 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm damn happy....

which has been my position all along...

save the humans...

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 03:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Damn...I think Shatoga is even more of a nut case than Mech if that's possible! There is not the slightest shred of honesty, truthfullness, sincerity or rationality there, so it's not even worth dealing with....Complete idiocy.

And Mech, you still haven't begun to address my questions. Your argument seems to be that because people in the oil field deal with Iraqi oil...well, then that makes em corrupt. Well then, if we drive a car, we are probably dealing with some Iraqi oil because some of that gasoline is probably refined from Iraqi oil. I guess, by Mech's logic that makes everyone corrupt. I have to repeat the questions for the fifth or sixth time now?

Apparently I do (because Kook gets on my case if I cut and paste);

You are failing miserably Mech….Care to try again?

Who are these “globalist” companies which you claim our president started a war for the purposes of profiting from Iraqi oil?

How will these companies make their profits from Iraqi oil?

What is the process by which they would profit?

These are the questions you have not answered yet.

Oh and Prof…to address your comments, apparently the only thing that would make Mech happy is to put those 150 Iraqi kids back in the prisons and torture chambers…and Saddam and his sons back in power to kill and torture another 3million people over the next 12 years. This would be the reality if Mech had his way....and Mech would be happy.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Proud Veteran
Senior Member

United States
205 posts, Jan 2003

posted 04-15-2003 06:55 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Proud Veteran     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Here is some truth:
During a night “cleanup”in one of suburban houses near An-Nasiriya three marines shot a man and afterwards raped and shot his wife."

shitoga, which by the way is now how I'm going to address you, I don't believe that for one second.
You are supposed to be a war veteran?
You served our country in Vietnam?
I think you are nothing but a fake.

Organizing protests, violent ones at that, speaking out of context against the troops instead of supporting them, yes sir, I can tell you are a REAL veteran. Why don't you stop sniveling and act like one if you are. Here at the American Legion post I belong to, all the vets are sick of the way some of these alleged "vets" are disrupting this country with all their hate tactics. It's ok to speak your mind here in America, but by damned when the shit hits the fan, you should be ready to defend that right and support your country and fellow Americans.

The only message you are sending to the troops overseas is that they are doing something wrong. That they have no support here in the states.

As I have stated before, there hasn't been one administration since I have been alive that hasn't had a skeleton or two in their closet. Seems like everyone starts digging deep to find every little scrap of information they can to discredit anyone who they don't like. You and Mech and some of the others cry about privacy? To me it's quite obvious you have something to hide

There is no credibility to anything you have posted. You haven't convinced me one bit that this has been a wag the dog war. You are so blinded by your hate for this country and this administration you can't even see that you are part of the problem. In my eyes you are truley a mouthbreather. Someone sho is wasting oxygen that the rest of us need to live

I'm happy too Seeker that the Iraqis are free from saddam. I don't like what they did to the museum but that's their choice. They have to answer for that

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Proud Veteran on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 08:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


Rummy the gas salesman.

Rumsfeld 'offered help to Saddam'
Declassified papers leave the White House hawk exposed over his role during the Iran-Iraq war

London Guardian 12/31/02: Julian Borger

Original Link:,2763,866942,00.html

The Reagan administration and its special Middle East envoy, Donald Rumsfeld, did little to stop Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction in the 1980s, even though they knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons "almost daily" against Iran, it was reported yesterday.

US support for Baghdad during the Iran-Iraq war as a bulwark against Shi'ite militancy has been well known for some time, but using declassified government documents, the Washington Post provided new details yesterday about Mr Rumsfeld's role, and about the extent of the Reagan administration's knowledge of the use of chemical weapons.

The details will embarrass Mr Rumsfeld, who as defence secretary in the Bush administration is one of the leading hawks on Iraq, frequently denouncing it for its past use of such weapons.

The US provided less conventional military equipment than British or German companies but it did allow the export of biological agents, including anthrax; vital ingredients for chemical weapons; and cluster bombs sold by a CIA front organisation in Chile, the report says.

Intelligence on Iranian troop movements was provided, despite detailed knowledge of Iraq's use of nerve gas.

Rick Francona, an ex-army intelligence lieutenant-colonel who served in the US embassy in Baghdad in 1987 and 1988, told the Guardian: "We believed the Iraqis were using mustard gas all through the war, but that was not as sinister as nerve gas.

"They started using tabun [a nerve gas] as early as '83 or '84, but in a very limited way. They were probably figuring out how to use it. And in '88, they developed sarin."

On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.

However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.

In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.

Mr Rumsfeld has said that he "cautioned" the Iraqi leader against using banned weapons. But there was no mention of such a warning in state department notes of the meeting.

Howard Teicher, an Iraq specialist in the Reagan White House, testified in a 1995 affidavit that the then CIA director, William Casey, used a Chilean firm, Cardoen, to send cluster bombs to use against Iran's "human wave" attacks.

A 1994 congressional inquiry also found that dozens of biological agents, including various strains of anthrax, had been shipped to Iraq by US companies, under licence from the commerce department.

Furthermore, in 1988, the Dow Chemical company sold $1.5m-worth (£930,000) of pesticides to Iraq despite suspicions they would be used for chemical warfare.

The only occasion that Iraq's use of banned weapons seems to have worried the Reagan administration came in 1988, after Lt Col Francona toured the battlefield on the al-Faw peninsula in southern Iraq and reported signs of sarin gas.

"When I was walking around I saw atropine injectors lying around. We saw decontamination fluid on vehicles, there were no insects," said Mr Francona, who has written a book on shifting US policy to Iraq titled Ally to Adversary. "There was a very quick response from Washington saying, 'Let's stop our cooperation' but it didn't last long - just weeks."

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 08:20 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Bush and Congress Push the 'Arm Saddam Act'

Newsmax 10/11/02: Wes Vernon

Original Link:

Alarmed critics fear Congress, at the urging of the Bush administration, may pass little-noticed legislation that can help Saddam Hussein’s war-making prowess. The measure would weaken already-lax controls over the export of computer technology.

Ironically, the bill, passed by the Senate before 9/11, has been readied for House consideration just as the lawmakers have been debating whether to give President Bush the go-ahead to use military force against the very same Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein.

It is formally known as the Export Administration Act, but a very concerned Center for Security Policy (CSP) refers to it as the "Arm Saddam Act.”

'Dangerous Provisions'

Frank Gaffney, CEO of the organization, warned that the bill "contains dangerous provisions that not only will hamper the war on terrorism. They also will inadvertently aid in the development of mass destruction by terrorist regimes.”

For example, "if this law were in effect, it would be far easier for Saddam Hussein to acquire certain restricted technologies he is desperately seeking to buy.”

"In Saddam’s hands,” Gaffney said, "even less menacing technology can pose a mortal peril to Americans.” As an example, he cited fiber-optic technologies sold to China that Beijing resold to Iraq to improve Saddam’s air defense system.

Some security-minded Senate opponents, urging the House not to approve the bill, fear that in a war with Iraq, American service personnel could be the victims of the technology Saddam acquires, courtesy of U.S. companies.

White House Sees No Danger

The Bush administration wants action on the measure before Congress goes home to campaign. It has the full support of the computer industry. The White House argues it poses no danger.

Last year, in applauding approval of the bill by the Senate Banking Committee, President Bush complained: "The existing export controls forbid the sales abroad of computers with more than a certain amount of computing power. With computing power doubling every 18 months, these controls have a shelf life of sliced bread. They don’t work.”

Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security adviser, added that S.149 "will strengthen the president’s national security and foreign policy authorities to control dual-use exports in a balanced manner, which will permit U.S. companies to compete more effectively in the global market place.”

A Few Senators Point Out Hazards

Wishful thinking, say five Republican U.S. senators who fired off a letter Sept. 6 to President Bush urging him to reconsider.

Sens. John Kyl of Arizona, Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Richard Selby of Alabama, John McCain of Arizona and Fred Thompson of Tennessee cite two "rather alarming reports” Congress has received regarding the antics of communist China.

One such report comes from the administration’s own Defense Department. It "warns that China is using legally acquired U.S. dual-use technology to modernize its military.” Electronic warfare capabilities have been accomplished "mainly through cooperation with Western companies and by reverse engineering.”

Further, the senators tell the president, "it is important to note that Beijing continues to transfer dual-use technology to states that support international terror networks,” and in fact "have exported substantial dual-use telecommunications equipment and technology to Iraq.”

In a separate article in the Washington Times, the five senators, joined by Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., say that passage of the Export Administration Act "would seriously hamper the president’s ability to carry out his own national security strategy. Yet some in Congress – and remarkably enough, in the administration – are determined to push the bill through.”

Arming the Enemy

"During the 1990s,” the senators wrote, the Chinese company Huawei Technologies "bought a number of dual-use items from the United States, such as high-performance computers and telecommunications equipment, including switches, chips and digital signal processing technologies. In other words, U.S. pilots are threatened by an Iraqi air defense network that could very well contain U.S. technology.”

A knowledgeable source cites a recent Washington Post story about huge tubes, a component of a nuclear arsenal.

"Those tubes are currently on the Export Control Administration list” of items whose exports are tightly restricted for security reasons. Under S. 149, this source explains, they would be removed.

"So we could give this to China, and China could export to Iraq because China is one of the leading proliferators in the world of this kind of dual-use technology to terrorist states,” an expert confirmed.

Few people are paying attention to all this. Those lawmakers who are alarmed are having a hard time getting their colleagues to focus on the measure, especially in view of the soothing assurances coming from the White House.

The House International Relations and House Armed Services committees have made some changes "around the edges,” according to Gaffney. In their letter to the president, the senators say these are "steps in the right direction,” but they "remain concerned that the baseline bill is fundamentally flawed.”

A few lawmakers such as Reps. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Curt Weldon, R-Pa., have succeeded in delaying House action on the measure, which was originally scheduled for last week.

'Seriously Concerned'

"Mr. President,” the senators’ letter reads, "we are seriously concerned at the prospect of further weakening the U.S. export control process through the Export Administration Act.

"We therefore respectfully request that, rather than seeking action on S. 149 at this late stage in the congressional session, you review the situation … and ask all interested parties to work with you in the next Congress to develop [new legislation] that strikes the right balance between national security and trade, and can be quickly passed by both Houses.”

But nothing short of public outrage from the public, including the families of U.S. military personnel, is likely to stop the steamroller heading toward approval from a Capitol Hill itching to get out of town and hit the campaign trail. Any differences between the House and Senate versions would have to be resolved in a conference committee, after which it would go to the White House for the president’s signature.

Attempts by to elicit comment from the White House on the objections of the senators were unsuccessful as of press time.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 10:03 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
You could not be more correct PV. It is unbelievable to me that some sickos like Shitoga would be capable of such low, disgusting, pathetic lies and idiocy, yet these depraved psychotic, delusional lying assholes are out there….(as Shitoga illustrates).

We've watched these troops from our living rooms due to the embedded reporters, and as a result this has been one of the most video taped wars in history...Our soldiers can't even "drain the ol lizard" without a camera being on them...They barely have had time to sleep as we've watched them take over each Iraqi city, and the thing that strikes one most as an observer is the unbelievable professionalism, humanity and sincerity of these guys. There is a kind of nobility about them, a level of humanitarian decency and love for their fellow man, mixed with efficiency and precision in doing their jobs that you don't see in other militaries.

Lying leftist military haters like Shitoga won't see this, but believe me....the Iraqis see it. That's why the message is understood almost universally by now that Americans (and not to forget the British) are there to help them, to liberate...not to conquer.

Oh and Mech.....the questions....remember? Nobody is reading your cut and paste propaganda (except for NewsMax) here Mech.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 12:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No one reading it? Hmmmm. Wow, last time i checked the page view was at 3, of the mods reset the counters a few day ago so I would estimate that number to be MUCH higher.Do the math. I find that very enlightening that people WANT to see DIFFERENT views OTHER THAN what the mainstream media pukes out at them 24/7.That is VERY American to want to find out THE TRUTH..NO MATTER HOW DISQUIETING.

That is a good sign.

If YOU want to make it look like a PHONY left/right issue...that's your right to do so.

Bottom isn't.

By the you hate and bash everyone who disagrees with you?

Judging by the way you treat my friend and VIETNAM VETERAN Shatoga it sure looks that way.

I have the utmost respect for him and his service to this country.A true CONSTITUTIONALIST.

10 to 1 says that Fastwalker is a CHICKENHAWK. Never put on a U.S. military Uniform and took a Constitutional oath yet favors sending other people to die so the Bu$histas and the globalists can get richer.

In a "war" where we were never attacked. A war with an enemy that has a puny, insignificnat defense I might add.

Yet Bu$h wants MY GUNS and wants to take my Constitutional rights.

I say...IMPEACHMENT and COURTMARTIAL is the only recourse for this 21st Century Benedict Arnold. The whole lot of his minions too.

[Edited 7 times, lastly by Mech on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 04:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Exclusive: Saddam key in early CIA plot

By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
From the International Desk
Published 4/10/2003 7:30 PM

U.S. forces in Baghdad might now be searching high and low for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, but in the past Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as a bulwark of anti-communism and they used him as their instrument for more than 40 years, according to former U.S. intelligence diplomats and intelligence officials.

United Press International has interviewed almost a dozen former U.S. diplomats, British scholars and former U.S. intelligence officials to piece together the following account. The CIA declined to comment on the report.

While many have thought that Saddam first became involved with U.S. intelligence agencies at the start of the September 1980 Iran-Iraq war, his first contacts with U.S. officials date back to 1959, when he was part of a CIA-authorized six-man squad tasked with assassinating then Iraqi Prime Minister Gen. Abd al-Karim Qasim.

In July 1958, Qasim had overthrown the Iraqi monarchy in what one former U.S. diplomat, who asked not to be identified, described as "a horrible orgy of bloodshed."

According to current and former U.S. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. For example, in the mid-1950s, Iraq was quick to join the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact which was to defend the region and whose members included Turkey, Britain, Iran and Pakistan.

Little attention was paid to Qasim's bloody and conspiratorial regime until his sudden decision to withdraw from the pact in 1959, an act that "freaked everybody out" according to a former senior U.S. State Department official.

Washington watched in marked dismay as Qasim began to buy arms from the Soviet Union and put his own domestic communists into ministry positions of "real power," according to this official. The domestic instability of the country prompted CIA Director Allan Dulles to say publicly that Iraq was "the most dangerous spot in the world."

In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed "close ties" with Qasim's ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument."

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim's office in Iraq's Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim's movements.

Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of "Unholy Babylon," said the move was done "with full knowledge of the CIA," and that Saddam's CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish's account.

Darwish said that Saddam's paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.

The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim's driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.

"It bordered on farce," a former senior U.S. intelligence official said. But Qasim, hiding on the floor of his car, escaped death, and Saddam, whose calf had been grazed by a fellow would-be assassin, escaped to Tikrit, thanks to CIA and Egyptian intelligence agents, several U.S. government officials said.

Saddam then crossed into Syria and was transferred by Egyptian intelligence agents to Beirut, according to Darwish and former senior CIA officials. While Saddam was in Beirut, the CIA paid for Saddam's apartment and put him through a brief training course, former CIA officials said. The agency then helped him get to Cairo, they said.

One former U.S. government official, who knew Saddam at the time, said that even then Saddam "was known as having no class. He was a thug -- a cutthroat."

In Cairo, Saddam was installed in an apartment in the upper class neighborhood of Dukki and spent his time playing dominos in the Indiana Café, watched over by CIA and Egyptian intelligence operatives, according to Darwish and former U.S. intelligence officials.

One former senior U.S. government official said: "In Cairo, I often went to Groppie Café at Emad Eldine Pasha Street, which was very posh, very upper class. Saddam would not have fit in there. The Indiana was your basic dive."

But during this time Saddam was making frequent visits to the American Embassy where CIA specialists such as Miles Copeland and CIA station chief Jim Eichelberger were in residence and knew Saddam, former U.S. intelligence officials said.

Saddam's U.S. handlers even pushed Saddam to get his Egyptian handlers to raise his monthly allowance, a gesture not appreciated by Egyptian officials since they knew of Saddam's American connection, according to Darwish. His assertion was confirmed by former U.S. diplomat in Egypt at the time.

In February 1963 Qasim was killed in a Baath Party coup. Morris claimed recently that the CIA was behind the coup, which was sanctioned by President John F. Kennedy, but a former very senior CIA official strongly denied this.

"We were absolutely stunned. We had guys running around asking what the hell had happened," this official said.

But the agency quickly moved into action. Noting that the Baath Party was hunting down Iraq's communist, the CIA provided the submachine gun-toting Iraqi National Guardsmen with lists of suspected communists who were then jailed, interrogated, and summarily gunned down, according to former U.S. intelligence officials with intimate knowledge of the executions.

Many suspected communists were killed outright, these sources said. Darwish told UPI that the mass killings, presided over by Saddam, took place at Qasr al-Nehayat, literally, the Palace of the End.

A former senior U.S. State Department official told UPI: "We were frankly glad to be rid of them. You ask that they get a fair trial? You have to get kidding. This was serious business."

A former senior CIA official said: "It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed."

British scholar Con Coughlin, author of "Saddam: King of Terror," quotes Jim Critchfield, then a senior Middle East agency official, as saying the killing of Qasim and the communists was regarded "as a great victory." A former long-time covert U.S. intelligence operative and friend of Critchfield said: "Jim was an old Middle East hand. He wasn't sorry to see the communists go at all. Hey, we were playing for keeps."

Saddam, in the meantime, became head of al-Jihaz a-Khas, the secret intelligence apparatus of the Baath Party.

The CIA/Defense Intelligence Agency relation with Saddam intensified after the start of the Iran-Iraq war in September of 1980. During the war, the CIA regularly sent a team to Saddam to deliver battlefield intelligence obtained from Saudi AWACS surveillance aircraft to aid the effectiveness of Iraq's armed forces, according to a former DIA official, part of a U.S. interagency intelligence group.

This former official said that he personally had signed off on a document that shared U.S. satellite intelligence with both Iraq and Iran in an attempt to produce a military stalemate. "When I signed it, I thought I was losing my mind," the former official told UPI.

A former CIA official said that Saddam had assigned a top team of three senior officers from the Estikhbarat, Iraq's military intelligence, to meet with the Americans.

According to Darwish, the CIA and DIA provided military assistance to Saddam's ferocious February 1988 assault on Iranian positions in the al-Fao peninsula by blinding Iranian radars for three days.

The Saddam-U.S. intelligence alliance of convenience came to an end at 2 a.m. Aug. 2, 1990, when 100,000 Iraqi troops, backed by 300 tanks, invaded its neighbor, Kuwait. America's one-time ally had become its bitterest enemy.

Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International

IP Logged

One moon circles

Damnit...I'm a doctor jim
3297 posts, Jul 2000

posted 04-15-2003 04:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for theseeker   Visit theseeker's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
cygnus x-1 ?

the museum thing bothers me too once physical history is's gone...

hopefully the cash rewards will smoke out all the stolen items...

desperate people do desperate things...

[Edited 1 times, lastly by theseeker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 04:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote


- Tim O'Shea

Aldous Huxley's inspired 1954 essay detailed the vivid, mind-expanding, multisensory insights of his mescaline adventures. By altering his brain chemistry with natural psychotropics, Huxley tapped into a rich and fluid world of shimmering, indescribable beauty and power. With his neurosensory input thus triggered, Huxley was able to enter that parallel universe described by every mystic and space captain in recorded history. Whether by hallucination or epiphany, Huxley sought to remove all controls, all filters, all cultural conditioning from his perceptions and to confront Nature or the World or Reality first-hand - in its unpasteurized, unedited, unretouched, infinite rawness.

Those bonds are much harder to break today, half a century later. We are the most conditioned, programmed beings the world has ever known. Not only are our thoughts and attitudes continually being shaped and molded; our very awareness of the whole design seems like it is being subtly and inexorably erased. The doors of our perception are carefully and precisely regulated. Who cares, right?

It is an exhausting and endless task to keep explaining to people how most issues of conventional wisdom are scientifically implanted in the public consciousness by a thousand media clips per day. In an effort to save time, I would like to provide just a little background on the handling of information in this country. Once the basic principles are illustrated about how our current system of media control arose historically, the reader might be more apt to question any given story in today's news.

If everybody believes something, it's probably wrong. We call that Conventional Wisdom.


Pharmaceuticals restore health
Vaccination brings immunity
The cure for cancer is just around the corner
Menopause is a disease condition
When a child is sick, he needs immediate antibiotics
When a child has a fever he needs Tylenol
Hospitals are safe and clean.
America has the best health care in the world.
Americans have the best health in the world.
Milk is a good source of calcium.
You never outgrow your need for milk.
Vitamin C is ascorbic acid.
Aspirin prevents heart attacks.
Heart drugs improve the heart.
Back and neck pain are the only reasons for spinal adjustment.
No child can get into school without being vaccinated.
The FDA thoroughly tests all drugs before they go on the market.
Pregnancy is a serious medical condition
Chemotherapy and radiation are effective cures for cancer
When your child is diagnosed with an ear infection, antibiotics should be given immediately 'just in case'
Ear tubes are for the good of the child.
Estrogen drugs prevent osteoporosis after menopause.
Pediatricians are the most highly trained of al medical specialists.
The purpose of the health care industry is health.
HIV is the cause of AIDS.
AZT is the cure.
Without vaccines, infectious diseases will return
Fluoride in the city water protects your teeth
Flu shots prevent the flu.
Vaccines are thoroughly tested before being placed on the Mandated Schedule.
Doctors are certain that the benefits of vaccines far outweigh any possible risks.
There is a terrorist threat of smallpox.
The NASDAQ is a natural market controlled only by supply and demand.
Chronic pain is a natural consequence of aging.
Soy is your healthiest source of protein.
Insulin shots cure diabetes.
After we take out your gall bladder you can eat anything you want
Allergy medicine will cure allergies.
An airliner can be flown into a 100-storey building and can cause that building to collapse on its own footprint. Twice.
This is a list of illusions, that have cost billions to conjure up. Did you ever wonder why most people in this country think generally the same about most of the above issues? Or why you never see the President speaking publicly unless he is reading?


In their 2001 book Trust Us We're Experts, Stauber and Rampton pull together some compelling data describing the science of creating public opinion in America. They trace modern public influence back to the early part of the last century, highlighting the work of guys like Edward L. Bernays, the Father of Spin.

From his own amazing 1928 chronicle Propaganda, we learn how Edward L. Bernays took the ideas of his famous uncle Sigmund Freud himself, and applied them to the emerging science of mass persuasion. The only difference was that instead of using these principles to uncover hidden themes in the human unconscious, the way Freudian psychology does, Bernays studied these same ideas in order to learn how to mask agendas and to create illusions that deceive and misrepresent, for marketing purposes.


Edward L. Bernays dominated the PR industry until the 1940s, and was a significant force for another 40 years after that. (Tye) During that time, Bernays took on hundreds of diverse assignments to create a public perception about some idea or product. A few examples:

As a neophyte with the Committee on Public Information, one of Bernays' first assignments was to help sell the First World War to the American public with the idea to "Make the World Safe for Democracy." (Ewen) We've seen this phrase in every war and US military involvement since that time.

A few years later, Bernays set up a stunt to popularize the notion of women smoking cigarettes. In organizing the 1929 Easter Parade in New York City, Bernays showed himself as a force to be reckoned with. He organized the Torches of Liberty Brigade in which suffragettes marched in the parade smoking cigarettes as a mark of women's liberation. After that one event, women would be able to feel secure about destroying their own lungs in public, the same way that men have always done.

Bernays popularized the idea of bacon for breakfast.

Not one to turn down a challenge, he set up the liaison between the tobacco industry and the American Medical Association that lasted for nearly 50 years. They proved to all and sundry that cigarettes were beneficial to health. Just look at ads in old issues of Life, Look, Time or Journal of the American Medical Association from the 40s and 50s in which doctors are recommending this or that brand of cigarettes as promoting healthful digestion, or whatever.

During the next several decades Bernays and his colleagues evolved the principles by which masses of people could be generally swayed through messages repeated over and over, hundreds of times per week.

Once the economic power of media became apparent, other countries of the world rushed to follow our lead. But Bernays remained the gold standard. He was the source to whom the new PR leaders across the world would always defer. Even Josef Goebbels, Hitler's minister of propaganda, closely studied the principles of Edward Bernays when Goebbels was developing the popular rationale he would use to convince the Germans that in order to purify their race they had to kill 6 million of the impure. (Stauber)


As he saw it, Bernay's job was to reframe an issue; to create a desired image that would put a particular product or concept in a desirable light. He never saw himself as a master hoodwinker, but rather as a beneficent servant of humanity, providing a valuable service. Bernays described the public as a 'herd that needed to be led.' And this herdlike thinking makes people "susceptible to leadership." Bernays never deviated from his fundamental axiom to "control the masses without their knowing it." The best PR happens with the people unaware that they are being manipulated.

Stauber describes Bernays' rationale like this:

"the scientific manipulation of public opinion was necessary to overcome chaos and conflict in a democratic society."
-- Trust Us, p 42

These early mass persuaders postured themselves as performing a moral service for humanity in general. Democracy was too good for people; they needed to be told what to think, because they were incapable of rational thought by themselves. Here's a paragraph from Bernays' Propaganda:

"Those who manipulate the unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. In almost every act of our lives whether in the sphere of politics or business in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."

A tad different from Thomas Jefferson's view on the subject:

"I know of no safe depository of the ultimate power of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise that control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not take it from them, but to inform their discretion."

Inform their discretion. Bernays believed that only a few possessed the necessary insight into the Big Picture to be entrusted with this sacred task. And luckily, he saw himself as one of that elect.


Once the possibilities of applying Freudian psychology to mass media were glimpsed, Bernays soon had more corporate clients than he could handle. Global corporations fell all over themselves courting the new Image Makers. There were dozens of goods and services and ideas to be sold to a susceptible public. Over the years, these players have had the money to make their images happen. A few examples:

Philip Morris

Union Carbide



Eli Lilly

tobacco industry

Ciba Geigy

lead industry



Shell Oil


Standard Oil

Procter & Gamble


Dow Chemical

General Motors


General Mills


Dozens of PR firms have emerged to answer the demand for spin control. Among them:

Hill & Knowlton
Mongovin, Biscoe, and Duchin

Though world-famous within the PR industry, these are names we don't know, and for good reason. The best PR goes unnoticed. For decades they have created the opinions that most of us were raised with, on virtually any issue which has the remotest commercial value, including:

-pharmaceutical drugs
-medicine as a profession
-alternative medicine
-fluoridation of city water
-household cleaning products
-global warming
-leaded gasoline
-cancer research and treatment
-pollution of the oceans
-forests and lumber
-images of celebrities, including damage control
-crisis and disaster management
-genetically modified foods
-food additives; processed foods
-dental amalgams


Bernays learned early on that the most effective way to create credibility for a product or an image was by "independent third-party" endorsement. For example, if General Motors were to come out and say that global warming is a hoax thought up by some liberal tree-huggers, people would suspect GM's motives, since GM's fortune is made by selling automobiles. If however some independent research institute with a very credible sounding name like the Global Climate Coalition comes out with a scientific report that says global warming is really a fiction, people begin to get confused and to have doubts about the original issue.

So that's exactly what Bernays did. With a policy inspired by genius, he set up "more institutes and foundations than Rockefeller and Carnegie combined." (Stauber p 45) Quietly financed by the industries whose products were being evaluated, these "independent" research agencies would churn out "scientific" studies and press materials that could create any image their handlers wanted. Such front groups are given high-sounding names like:

Temperature Research Foundation
International Food Information Council
Consumer Alert
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
Air Hygiene Foundation
Industrial Health Federation
International Food Information Council
Manhattan Institute
Center for Produce Quality
Tobacco Institute Research Council
Cato Institute
American Council on Science and Health
Global Climate Coalition
Alliance for Better Foods

Sound pretty legit don't they?


As Stauber explains, these organizations and hundreds of others like them are front groups whose sole mission is to advance the image of the global corporations who fund them, like those listed on page 2 above. This is accomplished in part by an endless stream of 'press releases' announcing "breakthrough" research to every radio station and newspaper in the country. (Robbins) Many of these canned reports read like straight news, and indeed are purposely molded in the news format. This saves journalists the trouble of researching the subjects on their own, especially on topics about which they know very little. Entire sections of the release or in the case of video news releases, the whole thing can be just lifted intact, with no editing, given the byline of the reporter or newspaper or TV station - and voilá! Instant news - copy and paste. Written by corporate PR firms.

Does this really happen? Every single day, since the 1920s when the idea of the News Release was first invented by Ivy Lee. (Stauber, p 22) Sometimes as many as half the stories appearing in an issue of the Wall St. Journal are based solely on such PR press releases.. (22) These types of stories are mixed right in with legitimately researched stories. Unless you have done the research yourself, you won't be able to tell the difference. So when we see new "research" being cited, we should always first suspect that the source is another industry-backed front group. A common tip-off is the word "breakthrough."


As 1920s spin pioneers like Ivy Lee and Edward Bernays gained more experience, they began to formulate rules and guidelines for creating public opinion. They learned quickly that mob psychology must focus on emotion, not facts. Since the mob is incapable of rational thought, motivation must be based not on logic but on presentation. Here are some of the axioms of the new science of PR:

technology is a religion unto itself
if people are incapable of rational thought, real democracy is dangerous
important decisions should be left to experts
when reframing issues, stay away from substance; create images
never state a clearly demonstrable lie

Words are very carefully chosen for their emotional impact. Here's an example. A front group called the International Food Information Council handles the public's natural aversion to genetically modified foods. Trigger words are repeated all through the text. Now in the case of GM foods, the public is instinctively afraid of these experimental new creations which have suddenly popped up on our grocery shelves and which are said to have DNA alterations. The IFIC wants to reassure the public of the safety of GM foods. So it avoids words like:

-gene gun

Instead, good PR for GM foods contains words like:

-natural order

It's basic Freudian/Tony Robbins word association. The fact that GM foods are not hybrids that have been subjected to the slow and careful scientific methods of real cross-breeding doesn't really matter. This is pseudoscience, not science. Form is everything and substance just a passing myth. (Trevanian)

Who do you think funds the International Food Information Council? Take a wild guess. Right - Monsanto, DuPont, Frito-Lay, Coca Cola, Nutrasweet - those in a position to make fortunes from GM foods. (Stauber p 20)


As the science of mass control evolved, PR firms developed further guidelines for effective copy. Here are some of the gems:

-dehumanize the attacked party by labeling and name calling
-speak in glittering generalities using emotionally positive words
-when covering something up, don't use plain English; stall for time; distract
-get endorsements from celebrities, churches, sports figures, street people - anyone who has no expertise in the subject at hand
-the 'plain folks' ruse: us billionaires are just like you
-when minimizing outrage, don't say anything memorable
-when minimizing outrage, point out the benefits of what just happened
-when minimizing outrage, avoid moral issues

Keep this list. Start watching for these techniques. Not hard to find - look at today's paper or tonight's TV news. See what they're doing; these guys are good!


PR firms have become very sophisticated in the preparation of news releases. They have learned how to attach the names of famous scientists to research that those scientists have not even looked at. (Stauber, p 201) It's a common practice. In this way, the editors of newspapers and TV news shows are themselves often unaware that an individual release is a total PR fabrication. Or at least they have "deniability," right?

Stauber tells the amazing story of how leaded gas came into the picture. In 1922, General Motors discovered that adding lead to gasoline gave cars more horsepower. When there was some concern about safety, GM paid the Bureau of Mines to do some fake "testing" and publish spurious research that 'proved' that inhalation of lead was harmless. Enter Charles Kettering.

Founder of the world famous Sloan-Kettering Memorial Institute for medical research, Charles Kettering also happened to be an executive with General Motors. By some strange coincidence, we soon have Sloan-Kettering issuing reports stating that lead occurs naturally in the body and that the body has a way of eliminating low level exposure. Through its association with The Industrial Hygiene Foundation and PR giant Hill & Knowlton, Sloane-Kettering opposed all anti-lead research for years. (Stauber p 92). Without organized scientific opposition, for the next 60 years more and more gasoline became leaded, until by the 1970s, 90% or our gasoline was leaded.

Finally it became too obvious to hide that lead was a major carcinogen, which they knew all along, and leaded gas was phased out in the late 1980s. But during those 60 years, it is estimated that some 30 million tons of lead were released in vapor form onto American streets and highways. 30 million tons. (Stauber)

That is PR, my friends.


In 1993 a guy named Peter Huber wrote a new book and coined a new term. The book was Galileo's Revenge and the term was junk science . Huber's shallow thesis was that real science supports technology, industry, and progress. Anything else was suddenly junk science. Not surprisingly, Stauber explains how Huber's book was supported by the industry-backed Manhattan Institute.

Huber's book was generally dismissed not only because it was so poorly written, but because it failed to realize one fact: true scientific research begins with no conclusions. Real scientists are seeking the truth because they do not yet know what the truth is.

True scientific method goes like this:

1. form a hypothesis
2. make predictions for that hypothesis
3. test the predictions
4. reject or revise the hypothesis based on the research findings

Boston University scientist Dr. David Ozonoff explains that ideas in science are themselves like "living organisms, that must be nourished, supported, and cultivated with resources for making them grow and flourish." (Stauber p 205) Great ideas that don't get this financial support because the commercial angles are not immediately obvious - these ideas wither and die.

Another way you can often distinguish real science from phony is that real science points out flaws in its own research. Phony science pretends there were no flaws.


Contrast this with modern PR and its constant pretensions to sound science. Corporate sponsored research, whether it's in the area of drugs, GM foods, or chemistry begins with predetermined conclusions. It is the job of the scientists then to prove that these conclusions are true, because of the economic upside that proof will bring to the industries paying for that research. This invidious approach to science has shifted the entire focus of research in America during the past 50 years, as any true scientist is likely to admit. If a drug company is spending 10 million dollars on a research project to prove the viability of some new durg, and the preliminary results start coming back about the dangers of that dug, what happens? Right. No more funding. The well dries up. What is being promoted under such a system? Science? Or rather Entrenched Medical Error?"

Stauber documents the increasing amount of corporate sponsorship of university research. (206) This has nothing to do with the pursuit of knowledge. Scientists lament that research has become just another commodity, something bought and sold. (Crossen)


It is shocking when Stauber shows how the vast majority of corporate PR today opposes any research that seeks to protect

-public health
-the environment

It's a funny thing that most of the time when we see the phrase "junk science," it is in a context of defending something that threatens either the environment or our health. This makes sense when one realizes that money changes hands only by selling the illusion of health and the illusion of environmental protection or the illusion of health. True public health and real preservation of the earth's environment have very low market value.

Stauber thinks it ironic that industry's self-proclaimed debunkers of junk science are usually non-scientists themselves. (255) Here again they can do this because the issue is not science, but the creation of images.


When PR firms attack legitimate environmental groups and alternative medicine people, they again use special words which will carry an emotional punch:

-sound science
-junk science

The next time you are reading a newspaper article about an environmental or health issue, note how the author shows bias by using the above terms. This is the result of very specialized training.

Another standard PR tactic is to use the rhetoric of the environmentalists themselves to defend a dangerous and untested product that poses an actual threat to the environment. This we see constantly in the PR smokescreen that surrounds genetically modified foods. They talk about how GM foods are necessary to grow more food and to end world hunger, when the reality is that GM foods actually have lower yields per acre than natural crops. (Stauber p 173) The grand design sort of comes into focus once you realize that almost all GM foods have been created by the sellers of herbicides and pesticides so that those plants can withstand greater amounts of herbicides and pesticides. (see The Magic Bean)


Publish or perish is the classic dilemma of every research scientist. That means whoever expects funding for the next research project had better get the current research paper published in the best scientific journals. And we all know that the best scientific journals, like JAMA, New England Journal, British Medical Journal, etc. are peer-reviewed. Peer review means that any articles which actually get published, between all those full color drug ads and pharmaceutical centerfolds, have been reviewed and accepted by some really smart guys with a lot of credentials. The assumption is, if the article made it past peer review, the data and the conclusions of the research study have been thoroughly checked out and bear some resemblance to physical reality.

But there are a few problems with this hot little set up. First off, money

Even though prestigious venerable medical journals pretend to be so objective and scientific and incorruptible, the reality is that they face the same type of being called to account that all glossy magazines must confront: don't antagonize your advertisers. Those full-page drug ads in the best journals cost millions, Jack. How long will a pharmaceutical company pay for ad space in a magazine that prints some very sound scientific research paper that attacks the safety of the drug in the centerfold? Think about it. The editors may lack moral fibre, but they aren't stupid.

Another problem is the conflict of interest thing. There's a formal requirement for all medical journals that any financial ties between an author and a product manufacturer be disclosed in the article. In practice, it never happens. A study done in 1997 of 142 medical journals did not find even one such disclosure. (Wall St. Journal, 2 Feb 99)

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.

Then there's the outright purchase of space. A drug company may simply pay $100,000 to a journal to have a favorable article printed. (Stauber, p 204)

Fraud in peer review journals is nothing new. In 1987, the New England Journal ran an article that followed the research of R. Slutsky MD over a seven year period. During that time, Dr. Slutsky had published 137 articles in a number of peer-reviewed journals. NEJM found that in at least 60 of these 137, there was evidence of major scientific fraud and misrepresentation, including:

-reporting data for experiments that were never done
-reporting measurements that were never made
-reporting statistical analyses that were never done
-o Engler

Dean Black PhD, describes what he the calls the Babel Effect
that results when this very common and frequently undetected scientific fraud in peer-reviewed journals is quoted by other researchers, who are in turn re-quoted by still others, and so on.

Want to see something that sort of re-frames this whole discussion? Check out the McDonald's ads which routinely appear in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Then keep in mind that this is the same publication that for almost 50 years ran cigarette ads proclaiming the health benefits of tobacco. (Robbins)

Very scientific, oh yes.


Hope this chapter has given you a hint to start reading newspaper and magazine articles a little differently, and perhaps start watching TV news shows with a slightly different attitude than you had before. Always ask, what are they selling here, and who's selling it? And if you actually follow up on Stauber & Rampton's book and check out some of the other resources below, you might even glimpse the possibility of advancing your life one quantum simply by ceasing to subject your brain to mass media. That's right - no more newspapers, no more TV news, no more Time magazine or People magazine Newsweek. You could actually do that. Just think what you could do with the extra time alone.

Really feel like you need to "relax" or find out "what's going on in the world" for a few hours every day? Think about the news of the past couple of years for a minute. Do you really suppose the major stories that have dominated headlines and TV news have been "what is going on in the world?" Do you actually think there's been nothing going on besides the contrived tech slump, the contrived power shortages, the re-filtered accounts of foreign violence and disaster, even the new accounts of US retribution in the Middle East, making Afghanistan safe for democracy, bending Saddam to our will, etc., and all the other non-stories that the puppeteers dangle before us every day? What about when they get a big one, like with OJ or Monica Lewinsky or the Oklahoma city bombing? Or now with the Neo-Nazi aftermath of 9/11. Or the contrived war against Saddam? Do we really need to know all that detail, day after day? Do we have any way of verifying all that detail, even if we wanted to? What is the purpose of news? To inform the public? Hardly.

The sole purpose of news is to keep the public in a state of fear and uncertainty
so that they'll watch again tomorrow to see how much worse things got and to be subjected to the same advertising.

Oversimplification? Of course. That's the mark of mass media mastery - simplicity. The invisible hand. Like Edward Bernays said, the people must be controlled without them knowing it.

Consider this: what was really going on in the world all that time they were distracting us with all that stupid vexatious daily smokescreen? We have no way of knowing. And most of it doesn't even concern us even if we could know it. Fear and uncertainty -- that's what keeps people coming back for more.

If this seems like a radical outlook, let's take it one step further:

What would you lose from your life if you stopped watching TV and stopped reading newspapers and glossy magazines altogether?


Would your life really suffer any financial, moral, intellectual, spiritual, or academic loss from such a decision?

Do you really need to have your family continually absorbing the illiterate, amoral, phony, culturally bereft, desperately brainless values of the people featured in the average nightly TV program? Are these fake, programmed robots "normal"?

Do you need to have your life values constantly spoonfed to you?

Are those shows really amusing, or just a necessary distraction to keep you from looking at reality, or trying to figure things out yourself by doing a little independent reading? Or perhaps from having a life?

Name one example of how your life is improved by watching TV news and reading the evening paper or the glossy magazines. What measurable gain is there for you?

What else could we be doing with all this freed-up time that would actually expand awareness?


There's no question that as a nation, we're getting dumber year by year. Look at the presidents we've been choosing lately. Ever notice the blatant grammar mistakes so ubiquitous in today's advertising and billboards? Literacy is marginal in most American secondary schools. Three-fourths of California high school seniors can't read well enough to pass their exit exams. ( SJ Mercury 20 Jul 01) If you think other parts of the country are smarter, try this one: hand any high school senior a book by Dumas or Jane Austen, and ask them to open to any random page and just read one paragraph out loud. Go ahead, do it. SAT scales are arbitrarily shifted lower and lower to disguise how dumb kids are getting year by year. (ADD: A Designer Disease) At least 10% have documented "learning disabilities," which are reinforced and rewarded by special treatment and special drugs. Ever hear of anyone failing a grade any more?

Or observe the intellectual level of the average movie which these days may only last one or two weeks in the theatres, especially if it has insufficient explosions, chase scenes, silicone, fake martial arts, and cretinesque dialogue. Doesn't anyone else notice how badly these 30 or 40 "movie stars" we keep seeing over and over in the same few plots must now overact to get their point across to an ever-dimming audience?

Radio? Consider the low mental qualifications of the falsely animated corporate simians they hire as DJs -- seems like they're only allowed to have 50 thoughts, which they just repeat at random. And at what point did popular music cease to require the study of any musical instrument or theory whatsoever, not to mention lyric? Perhaps we just don't understand this emerging art form, right? The Darwinism of MTV - apes descended from man.

Ever notice how most articles in any of the glossy magazines sound like they were all written by the same guy? And this writer just graduated from junior college? And yet he has all the correct opinions on social issues, no original ideas, and that shallow, smug, homogenized corporate omniscience, which enables him to assure us that everything is fine...

All this is great news for the PR industry - makes their job that much easier. Not only are very few paying attention to the process of conditioning; fewer are capable of understanding it even if somebody explained it to them.


Let's say you're in a crowded cafeteria, and you buy a cup of tea. And as you're about to sit down you see your friend way across the room. So you put the tea down and walk across the room and talk to your friend for a few minutes. Now, coming back to your tea, are you just going to pick it up and drink it? Remember, this is a crowded place and you've just left your tea unattended for several minutes. You've given anybody in that room access to your tea.

Why should your mind be any different? Turning on the TV, or uncritically absorbing mass publications every day - these activities allow access to our minds by "just anyone" - anyone who has an agenda, anyone with the resources to create a public image via popular media. As we've seen above, just because we read something or see something on TV doesn't mean it's true or worth knowing. So the idea here is, like the tea, perhaps the mind is also worth guarding, worth limiting access to it.

This is the only life we get. Time is our total capital. Why waste it allowing our potential, our scope of awareness, our personality, our values to be shaped, crafted, and boxed up according to the whims of the mass panderers? There are many important issues that are crucial to our physical, mental, and spiritual well-being which require time and study. If it's an issue where money is involved, objective data won't be so easy to obtain. Remember, if everybody knows something, that image has been bought and paid for.

Real knowledge takes a little effort, a little excavation down at least one level below what "everybody knows."

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 05:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
US allies 'also have weapons of mass destruction'

Syria is the latest target of US accusations over weapons of mass destruction, but the list of states with chemical, biological or nuclear arms also extends to several US allies.

The US and Britain cited Iraq's alleged stocks of weapons of mass destruction in their decision to invade, and George Bush now says Syria is also sitting on an arsenal of chemical weapons.

But, among the nations believed to have WMD capability, are states the US may not consider hostile - like Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, India and Taiwan.

Jon Wolfsthal, deputy director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the US Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said: "We tend to look the other way when it suits our interest. That decision has come back to haunt us."

Israel's nuclear weapons programme is thought to include about 200 warheads deployed on ballistic missiles and aircraft, Wolfsthal said. Israeli officials do not comment on the country's nuclear weapons potential.

Egypt, another US ally, is believed to harbour chemical weapons - including deadly sarin and VX agents - along with, perhaps, an offensive bioweapons capability, according to the Monterey Institute of International Studies.

India and Pakistan have publicly tested nuclear weapons. They are also suspected to be engaged in chemical and biological weapons research, according to Carnegie and Monterey. And Taiwan probably maintains a chemical weapons programme and may have a biological research programme, according to Monterey.

Saudi Arabia has bought nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles from China, although the Saudis are not believed to have unconventional warheads to put in them, Wolfsthal said.

Other countries with current chemical and biological weapons stocks or research programmes include Russia, China, Libya and Sudan, according to the Carnegie Endowment.

The US and Britain developed their own chemical and biological weapons in the past. Britain has destroyed all such stocks, and the US is still eliminating the last vestiges of its chemical weapons, said Amy Smithson of the Henry L Stimson Centre - a national security think tank in Washington.

© Associated Press

Story filed: 09:32 Tuesday 15th April 2003

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 05:30 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Let's see, 10 year olds tortured behind prison bars, or museum artifacts...

Humans slowly lowered into shredding machines...or museum artifacts

Saddam building weapons of mass destruction (including an atomic weapon) to threaten his neighbors, the world, in order to hold Mid East oil supply hostage thereby threatening dependent European economies, while funding terrorist groups such as Hammas, Hesbola and Islamic Jihad...while starving, torturing and murdering his own people...while confiscating the money intended for Iraqi children for his own palaces....


Museum artifacts.....

The museum artifacts don't bother me to much...all things considered.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 05:41 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The main difference between the Bush and the Clinton administration can be summed up by future generations with the following comparison;

During the Bush administration we were obsessed with finding Saddam's DNA in a pile of rubble...

During the Clinton administration, we were obsessed with finding Clinton's DNA on a blue dress...

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 05:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 05:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
See..that's YOUR problem Fastwalker. I think Clinton was ALSO a lying, scheming SOB.Certainly had a hand in the Oklahoma City Bombing.BUT..Bu$h is like Bill Clinton..ON CRACK.

They BOTH work for the globalists/Bilderbergs.

GW wants to completely dismantle the Constitution and Bill of Rights and basically start WW IV for profit. Not a very good prospect for the future of my generation or those coming after me. In fact it's downright UNAMERICAN.

One only needs to look at Bu$h's signature on the legislation being passed to understand that.

Look it up.

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 06:02 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Believe your lies...repeat them if you want, but the fact remains, your interpretation is extremely questionable. You can't even answer a few simple questions that would enhance your argument and credibility Mech. Instead, you avoid truth like a plague. This is demonstrable. Whatever you say now has to be taken as likely being highly bogus by any thinking individual. This is the reputation you have earned.

You’re a lot like France calling the US illegitimate at this point Mech.

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 06:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh well. I think all the answers you need are in the links provided in these threads. It's up to you to come up with your own determination...although i'm sure you already have regardless.

Still..I get the impression you seek to attack ME and others who do not have the same views as you. Not their ideas or POVs. Makes for a rather 2 dimensional world view.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 09:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Note that my questions to you were not an attempt to state my views, they were asking for YOUR viewpoint, yet you seem too scared to answer, perhaps for fear that you might reveal that your argument has no basis in truth or reality...

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 09:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nah..I already tried that and you twisted my words around and cleverly attached your own personal bias to them. You can't reason with someone bent on trying to do you in. You deal with it how Sun Tzu would deal with it.

Again..I try not to engage in hatred. It leads to nowhere. Read the articles and make our own decision.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 10:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is no twisting of words here;

The reality that Mech doesn’t seem to want to address is; who owns the Iraqi oil? If no companies in the United States are making claims of ownership, then how can they profit from the sale of oil? If the Iraqi government (when one is set up) owns Iraqi oil, then how can US companies profit from the sale of Iraqi oil to the world markets?

I simply asked Mech to explain to me how this profit scenario would occur…what the dynamics or mechanism for profit is here, and he has avoided the question. There is no twisting of words, because Mech hasn't yet offered words to twist! He hasn't provided an answer!

He is making the claim that this war is about control of Iraqi oil…yet who controls it? Again, this is not a twisting of Mech's words....He agrees with me that this is a fair representation of the claims he is making.

Well... Who owns the oil? If Mech wants to name one of these so-called globalist companies, oh say…Shell oil for example. Wouldn’t Shell have to actually OWN an Iraqi oil field before it could profit from the sale of oil? Again, this question is not a twisting of simply remains yet un-addressed by Mech. There can be no twisting of what Mech is saying because he has avoided answering the question as of yet.

Mech should know the answer to this because he is the one making the claim that this war is for oil…..Who owns the oil wells now Mech? Can you first list these companies who own the wells, and secondly, show the business mechanism by which they will profit? For example, let’s say Shell owns an Iraqi oil field. It costs a certain X amount of money to pump the oil from the ground. These are fixed costs and variable costs that form the overhead costs. Now if Shell then sells the oil to the world market, it must sell at an amount higher than it’s cost to pump the oil. Come to think of it...Is Shell even in the pumping business…OR is it in the refining business?

Anyway This is just an example to show what I’m asking of Mech. I want to know the detailed mechanism by which these "globalist" businesses intend to make their money. Again, Mech MUST know the answer to this, because it is his claim that this war is about oil. So far, we haven't seen an answer, however.

OK then, if this is about oil, then somebody intends to profit from it…..Well who intends to profit, Mech? Who are these mysterious "globalist" companies? Once you name names, can you then show the process by which they will profit (as I just gave an example of)? Then, can you provide a source for your information, and how this information was obtained? This should be easy for you...but as of yet, we have seen you do nothing but evade.

Seems to me, it would be very difficult for US companies to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil to the world Markets if that profit is going towards the re-building of Iraq. The reason for this is due to the fact that, as I pointed out, theoretically these companies that would of necessity, have to own these oil fields (in order to profit from the sale of the oil) are going to have certain overhead costs of extraction….Their profit margin might not be that large, in order that they remain competitive….How could they afford to give a certain percentage of this money to Iraqi re-construction and still remain profitable?

Anyway…this is a moot point until we can first establish who owns the Iraqi fields. If Iraq owns it, then whatever government to be set up will be able to set the prices, and directly take the profit from the sale of oil…. Last I heard...this was the intention.

Again, any American companies interested in profiting from the production side would be left out of the picture. To profit from production, it is axiomatic that the profiting company or government must first own or otherwise have legal claim to the commodity being produced…. Other wise, American companies will have to make their money just like any other oil company in the world….by buying oil at a discount on the world commodity markets, and selling at a higher price directly, or by selling the refined by-products of that initial commodity.

So, as we can see…The idea that we are going to war for oil is a ridiculous and false argument upon even the most cursory examination into how this process would actually work. After thinking about it for a minute, we realize that in order to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil, there must be ownership of Iraqi oil. Unless Mech can establish, what US "globalist" company owns the Iraqi oil fields, he is obviously making a baseless argument.

Without proving or first establishing that the United States or a US company actually owns any Iraqi oil fields, then you can’t make the claim that the US government or a US company is somehow profiting here.

Does this make sense...Have I been redundant enough with this point to penetrate the massive quantities of bone between Mech's ears yet?

This article below may help to clarify this point a little bit better and demonstrates how other countries are trying to establish ownership…Funny that it is NOT the United States, or US companies…trying to establish ownership, but instead it's Russia, and France. Yet Mech is still attempting to make the argument that one of these mysterious "globalist" companies, had GW start the war in order to profit. Well if they are going to profit, they need to own the rights to Iraqi oil….Who are these mysterious companies? Mech obviously must have more knowledge than this Newsmax article, because according to the article, it is unknown who owns Iraq’s oil.

Since there is no government bureaucracy in Baghdad, there are legal questions as to exactly who owns Iraq's oil and who has the authority to sell it. In addition, a new Iraqi government will have to decide on its future relationship with OPEC and whether or not to honor the contracts signed by the old regime with companies such as LUKoil

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-15-2003 10:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"--Does this make sense...Have I been redundant enough with this point to penetrate the massive quantities of bone between Mech's ears yet? __"

Like I said... I try not to engage in hatred.

It is perfectly clear that the Globalists like Bechtel and Halliuburton, want to gobble up IRAQI oil assets for their own personal gains.

This was the reason for the war to begin with.

There are STILL no WMD found in iraq.

This war is still unjustified...the US wasn't attacked.

A sovereign country has a right to it's own self-determination.

Attacking FIRST isn't American.

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 11:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"--Does this make sense...Have I been redundant enough with this point to penetrate the massive quantities of bone between Mech's ears yet? __"
Like I said... I try not to engage in hatred.

Not hatred, truth. Even now, as redundant as I have been, we can see (as your following comments reveal) that I'm still not getting through to you. This is either the result of extreme stupidity, delusional rationalization and avoidance of any deductive reasoning...or just plain insanity. I'm not sure which exactly it is at this point, but one thing's certain. It is merely a profoundly descriptive term to place you in the category of severe bonehead...not hateful. If you are not a bonehead, then I don't know who would qualify. You epitomize that definition...Allow me to clarify, using your own responses;

It is perfectly clear that the Globalists like Bechtel and Halliuburton, want to gobble up IRAQI oil assets for their own personal gains.

Ok, then if this is so clear, then show me how these companies intend to profit from the sale of Iraqi oil, when they do not own the rights to Iraqi oil, when they are not even in the business of selling or even extracting oil. And what is the business of these companies? Well Halliburton, founded in 1919, “is one of the world's largest providers of products and services to the oil and gas industries “. See about Halliburton here;

Halliburton was needed to rebuild some of the Iraqi oil infrastructure damaged in the war. This is the obligation of a victorious nation according to the “rules of war”. America always rebuilds countries after it defeats them because we are an honorable country. Halliburton just happens to be the biggest and best equipped company in the world to help with the job, such as fixing damaged oil wells that the Iraqi Republican guard may have sabotaged. This reconstruction is necessary so that the Iraqi people can profit from the sale of their natural resource, which is oil, and so some of those costs for reconstruction do not have to be borne upon the backs of the American taxpayer, but can be offset by Iraq’s own natural asset. Halliburton certainly does not profit from the sale of oil, so it cannot honestly be argued that this war was about the profit from Iraqi oil. Certainly, Halliburton is not profiting directly from sale of Iraqi oil, but rather, the costs of reconstruction. It’s a bit like blaming Pacific Bell for profiting from fixing a downed power line after a storm…It’s ridiculous at best, and certainly does not support the argument that this war is for the control of Iraqi oil in any logical way. Halliburton does not control Iraqi oil or benefit from the sale thereof.

This was the reason for the war to begin with.

Oh really, on what basis are you making this claim? I just explained WHY it was not the reason for the war using the example of Halliburton. Again; Halliburton does not control Iraqi oil or benefit from the sale thereof.

There are STILL no WMD found in iraq.

Uh….you don’t know this yet. But give it time. Our inspectors have only been over there a little over three weeks now. They haven’t had time to “inspect” because they’ve been pre-occupied with this little thing called THE WAR…. AND GETTING SHOT AT….YOU BONEHEAD

This war is still unjustified...the US wasn't attacked.

Attack alone isn’t the sole justification for war. The first Gulf War never ended because Iraq did not live up to it’s cease fire agreements in the form of the 18 UN resolutions. Iraq invaded Kuwait. Iraq was routinely firing upon US aircraft during the last 12 years, which is a direct attack upon the United States. Waiting for first attack is not an intelligent option when we are talking about the possibility of first attack being done with a possible nuclear weapon delivered via a third party terrorist group (with which we are now seeing that Saddam had strong affiliations). I’m not willing to see NYC go up in a mushroom cloud, when we have every justification for taking pre-emptive measures. Even if you overlook the war on terrorism and taking out a major terrorist nation such as Iraq as motivation and justification for war, then humanitarian reasons for removing an evil dictator who has killed and tortured around 3 million people is justification enough. Freeing those 150 Iraqi children is justification enough. Because we CAN, and because it sets up a powerful deterrent to countries like Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and N. Korea that harbor terrorists, is justification enough. Because it let’s Russia and China know that the US is not a paper tiger…is justification enough.

A sovereign country has a right to it's own self-determination.

This is a fine example of a classic bonehead comment, and you might even be making my case without realizing it. The Iraqi people had no right to self-determination, because they were under brutal oppression from an evil dictator. Only a free people have the ability for self-determination. We just liberated the Iraqi people and restored this right to self-determination…a right they did not possess under Saddam Hussein….hence the war was justified.

Attacking FIRST isn't American.

I beg to differ. America was attacked first on a little date known as 9/11...remember? And history would beg to differ with you as well. America sure as hell DOES attack first. Remember Pearl Harbor? How did this attack on us justify our subsequent attacks on another wacky guy with a moustache known as Adolf Hitler? Were we justified in attacking Nazi Germany first? I don’t remember Nazis attacking the United States first?

[Edited 1 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-15-2003]

IP Logged

Senior Member

832 posts, Mar 2003

posted 04-15-2003 11:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Fastwalker     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
9/11 Ties to Baghdad

Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:46 a.m. EDT
Wall Street Journal: 9/11 Hijackers Trained by Baghdad?

The Wall Street Journal has broken the mainstream media's silence on evidence that Baghdad may have been directly involved in the 9/11 attacks, with the paper's editorial page urging U.S. officials on Monday to investigate "whether any of the September 11 hijackers are graduates of Salman Pak, or other terrorist training camps in Iraq."

U.S. troops who took control of Salman Pak last week "should be looking for documents bearing the name [lead 9/11 hijacker] Mohamed Atta. Some of us still want to know who trained him," the Journal advised.

Evidence uncovered at the South Baghdad terrorist camp "supports the statements of two former Iraqi military officers who in the fall of 2001 told PBS's 'Frontline' and the New York Times that Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs went to Salman Pak to practice hijacking planes," the paper noted.

In an interview about of the 9/11 attacks for the same "Frontline" report, Sabah Khodad, a captain in the Iraqi army who was stationed at Salman Pak in 1994 and 1995, said that when he saw Atta and Marwan al Shehhi's planes crash into the Twin Towers, he thought to himself, "This was done by graduates of Salman Pak."

The paper also suggested that the CIA had been covering up evidence linking Iraq to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, which most investigators believe was a precursor to the 9/11 attacks.

Citing reports that one of the 1993 WTC bombers had fled to Iraq and had later taken part in a January 2000 al-Qaeda "summit" in Malaysia, the paper complained, "The CIA never told the rest of the U.S. government until some time in 2002. We hope the CIA doesn't make the same mistake this time."

Though Salman Pak got a fair amount of media attention in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the press - as well as the Bush administration - has been virtually silent in the intervening year and a half about compelling evidence linking Iraq to the most devastating attack ever suffered by the U.S.

One prominent exception has been No. 1 radio talker Rush Limbaugh, who routinely reports on the Salman Pak connection - and features on his Web site links to satellite photos of an airliner fuselage used since the mid-1990s by Salman Pak trainees to rehearse 9/11-style hijackings.

[Edited 2 times, lastly by Fastwalker on 04-16-2003]

IP Logged

Resisting the NWO

Northeast USA
3907 posts, Sep 2002

posted 04-16-2003 07:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mech   Visit Mech's Homepage!   Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

U.S. Bans Media from Anti-American protests

April 16 2003 BAGHDAD

US forces yesterday tried to stop the media from covering a third day of anti-American protests by Iraqis outside a hotel housing a US operations base, according to a reporter at the scene.

Up to 300 Iraqis gathered outside the Palestine Hotel to express rage at what they said was the US failure to restore order after the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

For the first time, visibly angered US military officials sought to distance the media from the protest, moving reporters and cameras about 30 metres from the barbed-wired entrance to the hotel.

"We want you to pull back to the back of the hotel because they (the Iraqis) are only performing because the media are here," said a marines colonel who would not give his first name or title.

The crowd later moved to the nearby square where a statue of Saddam was toppled last Wednesday, signalling the end of the regime. The Iraqis chanted: "No, no, USA."

Tension has been rising in front of the hotel, where Iraqis protest against a lack of police protection, water, electricity and other basic services.

As the protest grew more vocal, a marines corporal held an impromptu briefing for a few reporters about progress in bringing Iraq back to normal.

Corporal John Hoellwarth said the US forces planned to boost joint police patrols, bring more hospitals back into service and restore power to parts of Baghdad within 72 hours.


Printer friendly version

IP Logged

This topic is 45 pages long:  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  37 38 39 40
 41 42 43 44 45

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Chemtrail Central

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c