Topics Topics Edit Profile Profile Help/Instructions Help Member List Member List Edit Profile Register  
Search Last 1|3|7 Days Search Search Tree View Tree View  

Archive through May 27, 2002

Sepulchritude Forum » The Absinthe Forum Archive thru June 2002 » Archive Thru May 2002 » Cover-up? » Archive through May 27, 2002 « Previous Next »

Author Message
Pablo
Posted on Monday, May 27, 2002 - 5:52 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The anthrax stories died out simply because there hasn't been any new developments. The last major development was that a magazine (Time or one of those) wrote an article saying that the FBI had a solid suspect, and that they were monitoring him. They got this info from a source at the FBI. The next day the FBI said basically "well, thats not quite true. We have several suspects blah blah blah." Basically, the FBI done fucked up. There hasn't been a single anthraz case since.
But believe me, they know who it is. They are just trying to build a case.
Also, the press was reporting that it was most likely domestic terrorism from the begining. CNN had a terrorism expert on after the very first case who said it was most likely domestic.

Last point: the White House has its own air defense system in place. Its was briefly touched upon when that guy landed a private plane on the lawn years back. I think if it was shot down by the airforce, they would have to admit it. Way too many people would know about it, and they wouldnt keep their mouths shut.
Not with nosey people like me around.
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 3:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Indeed Pickle, but that sort of 'friendly' fire on civilians is carried out on purpose and not as a result of a blunder.

A relative of mine marched in Derry on Bloody Sunday.


Hobgoblin
Pikkle
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 3:06 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Except on the Irish, right?
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 1:21 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Pikkle,

At least they'd be trained not to dish out unnecessary friendly fire.

Hobgoblin
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Sunday, May 26, 2002 - 1:17 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Why would China be foolish to do this?

Look at it from China's point of view. It'd be an ideal opportunity to claim back what it tried to take in the 60's when the Indian army held China to a stalemate in 1964 and stopped them from invading India (for anyone who underestimates India, just remember that she stopped the Chinese army from invading her in 1964 and India is in a much stronger position today).

An India/Pakistan war would throw the Asian continent into major turmoil. What would China have to lose by taking advantage of this? Move in, take a good sized chunk of land while India is busy fighting Pakistan, the other major world powers would then plead with China to stop, China would then take just a little bit more and stop and the other world powers would be grateful for her stopping.

Hobgoblin
Albertcamus
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 9:01 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

china would be foolish to undertake such a venture.
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 9:00 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Camus, that's why Pakistan won't commit to "no first use" of nuclear weapons, like India has. Pakistan is outgunned by India, though India would be terribly damaged even in a conventional war. Worst case scenario: India gets the upper hand momentarily, and Pakistan uses tactical nukes. India responds in kind... then, just for the fun of it, China decides to step in and resolve a few border issues.
Crowlyman
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I found out recently that South Korea has quite a large army themselves. (Side note: the US has only 36000 troops stationed there helping a very large army-what do they plan on using a mere 36000 troops for?) I can't remember what the size of the army is but I know it is quite formidable.

And Hob, I meant it as a joke. I always truncate my words and my point never comes across...I gotta quit doing that!
Albertcamus
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 8:39 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I wonder what the vegas odds are regarding India vs. Pakistan.My money would be on India.
Pikkle
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 5:30 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Nah, they're all a bunch of bufoons, just wait and see... especially since the Brits trained and equipped them, they're fucking pathetic!!!
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Saturday, May 25, 2002 - 3:05 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Crowlyman,

We should not underestimate the armies of India or Pakistan. Why do you assume they are badly trained? The USA, Russia, China and Britain are not the only countries with formidable, professional armies. Its about time we woke up to this fact.

India has the fourth largest army in the world (only China, the USA and Russia have larger armies). It has an army much larger than the armies of all the Western nations except the USA. It is better equipped than most Western armies and has more nukes than most Western nations. The Israeli army looks like a troop of boy scouts by comparison.

Pakistan also is not a force to be underestimated either.

These are not a couple of half-baked, banana republic armies with incompetent officers and ill-disciplined troops using out-dated weapons. They are capable of starting much more than just a spark. They are capable of starting a major conflict with devastating consequences.

Hobgoblin
Perruche_Verte
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 8:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The unspoken third option in that madness has always been Kashmiri independence, which is probably what most Kashmiris themselves would prefer, except that nobody's even making a pretense of asking them.
Mr_Rabid
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 7:04 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If they would just agree that NEITHER side could have it...

They should give it to Canada or something.
Destiny
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 5:42 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Pilot of the storm who leaves no trace, like thoughts inside a dream

Heed the path that led me to that place, yellow desert stream

My Shangri-La beneath the summer moon, I will return again

Sure as the dust that floats high in June, when movin' through Kashmir.
Crowlyman
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 3:26 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

The deciding factor may be the battle over Kashmir. A million troops at the ready is quite a force, badly trained or not...This just may be the spark.
Destiny
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 12:22 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

If the plane *was* heading to the White House, or any other target, then yes, it should have been shot down. But why lie and fabricate these stories about heros who stopped the terrorists? Just to avoid bad press? I know the "official" story is that people got cell calls from people on the plane but more people claim to have seen UFOs and I bet you don't believe that.

Another thing is the new suicide-bomber scare. For several months now, these suicide-bombings have been in the news more and more. Now (that the public is sufficiently fearful) they're saying that these type of bombings will be the next wave of terrorism. So now Ashcroft will have even more support while he shits on the Constitution yet again!

It's over... time to party, lets have one final get-together in Amsterdam before th fucking war begins.
Robertsmith
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 12:10 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

I hope it was shot down, that way it will totally deligitimize that goddamn Neil Young "Let's Roll" song. what a piece of shit that is!
Lordhobgoblin
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 10:45 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Whether it was shot down or not isn't really relevant. The important point was whether or not it was reasonable to assume the plane was on a suicide mission or not. If it was reasonable to assume this then a decision to shoot it down would have been the correct decision as the the passengers on the plane were going to die anyway so why add to the death list by not shooting it down.

A more dishonourable bit of manipulation is the fact that the publicity over the anthrax attacks suddenly stopped dead when it became apparant that the responsible party was not Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein or any Islamic group. Funny how enquiries and coverage seemed to come to a halt with no evidence whatsoever to link the attacks to Saddam Hussein. The US government says it has a "strong hunch" about who was responsible. It has more than that but if the culprit is a disgruntled ex-employee its better all round to bury the enquiry.

Hobgoblin
Raschied
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 7:00 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

Yep, one of the passengers called his mother when the hijackings occurred, told her what he and a bunch of other passengers were about to do, and was reported to say, "Let's Roll" just as he hung up the phone.

Whether they got to the hijackers before the plane was shot down is anyone's guess, but I'm willing to believe the story. According to the conversation, they definitely had the INTENT to stop the hijackers at whatever cost necessary, and that makes them heroes in my book.
Dr_Ordinaire
Posted on Friday, May 24, 2002 - 12:21 am:   Edit PostPrint Post

The White House being a target was a late discovery. What I understand happened was that the passengers of the plane heard on their cel phones that other planes had been crashed in the Pentagon and the Twin Towers.

Therefore, they saw the writing on the wall and fought the crazy motherfuckers.

On the other hand, if an F-15 dropped them, that's exactly what I would have done. A fully fueled Boeing jet in the hands of terrorists is bad news, no matter where it's going...
Lint
Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 10:13 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

i agree with marc, if the passengers did bring the plane down without knowing it was headed for the whitehouse, then werent they idiots? how do we know the passengers knew it was going for the whitehouse? I doubt it was announced by the highjackers...but you never know.
Destiny
Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 9:43 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

>> If it does come out now that it was shot down, I would be pissed that the government wouldn't trust me with that knowledge.

That's the whole point, why can't our "leaders", supposed role-models, simply explain what happened and deal with the consequences? It's no wonder why so many people feel that they don't need to be accountable for their actions. Blocking lawsuits would be simple, particularly if it's a national security thing.
Marccampbell
Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 9:18 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

the uprising of the passengers makes for better press/propaganda.

if we shot the plane down, we'd have alot of explaining to do. How do we prove it was really heading toward the White House with the intention of being crashed?
Raschied
Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 9:05 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

And if the plane WAS shot down -- so what?

The truth in this case either way doesn't have the same implications that, say the JFK conspiracy has.

If the passengers brought it down, they are heroes. If an F15 pilot was placed in a no-win situation and had to defend the White House by shooting down a civilian aircraft, then maybe he's the hero. Either way, a bunch of assholes forced the situation that made the plane crash.

If it does come out now that it was shot down, I would be pissed that the government wouldn't trust me with that knowledge. On the other hand, there are a lot of stupid people in this country, and I could see the families filing lawsuits against the F15 pilot for doing his job....

BTW - JFK was killed by Aliens from Roswell.
Destiny
Posted on Thursday, May 23, 2002 - 5:59 pm:   Edit PostPrint Post

Now they're being more vocal about the White House being the alleged target of the plane that "crashed" in the field on 9/11.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/23/flight.93/index.html

Am I the only one that thinks it was shot down and all the gratitute to the brave passengers is just Washington BS/cover-up?

Administration Administration Log Out Log Out   Previous Page Previous Page Next Page Next Page