rigorousintuition.ca

It looks like Al CIAeda have wasted no time in appointing their next terrormeister ;<br><br> <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/12062006/325/zarqawi-successor-named.html">uk.news.yahoo.com/1206200...named.html</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br> These people are too funny <p></p><i></i>

Hilarious. <br><br>We need a new name for this. How about: <br><br><!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Entertainment Military Indistrial Complex. </em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--><br><br>That seems to sum it all up in its modern form. <p></p><i></i>

<br> Just watched a guy on "the news" over here telling us this story. It could be me, but I got the distinct impression that the tone of his voice gave the impression of " Are you seriously expecting me to say this autocue with a straight fucking face "<br><br> Meanwhile, as Someone on the UK 9/11 forum has quite rightly pointed out;<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Interesting. If you were running terrorist ops against highly-entrenched coalition forces, would you bother to tell them who you were?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br> Im wondering what others feel about such daring brinkmanship LOL. <p></p><i></i>

i laughed when i saw the "al-quada in iraq names new leader" headline this morning, but i maintain that it was a coping mechanism.<br><br>the rub in regard to terrorism is, of course, the fact that terrorists are renegades independent of state sponsorship, which is what makes terrorism such a difficult mechanism to combat. hence the futility of the "war on terror". i know i need not explain this to anyone here.<br><br>when the general american public thinks of "terrorists", they no longer think of independent extremists - they think of the al-quada terrorism cartel. and who has been predominantly headlining that cartel more and more in the past year than "al-quada in iraq". i give us another 6-8 months until the media drops the whole "in iraq" bit, under the correct assumption that most people have forgotten that there ever existed an al-quada outside of iraq. <br><br>terrorism with state sponsorship isn't terrorism. al-quada has gathered - or rather, has been made to gather - in iraq, where they are currently waging a war against a fledgling us-instated gov't.<br><br>imho, the civil war in iraq isn't so much between the sunnis and shi'ites as it is between the would-be al-quada "gov't" (they're electing leaders...we were there for two years before we could even attempt that) who have "gathered" as a direct and foreseeable consequence of us action and the would-be "democracy" implemented by us intervention. and if this is the real state of war in iraq, both sides have the same sponsor. (guess which side that sponsor favors.)<br><br>personally, i'm waiting for the day when the headline reads "four legs good, two legs better." <p></p><i></i>

<br><br> I know its not hard to confuse me <!--EZCODE EMOTICON START ;) --><img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"><!--EZCODE EMOTICON END--> <br><br> But could you articulate a lil more precisely where youre coming from ?<br><br> From my standpoint, "Al quaeda" are indeed state sponsored. State sponsored by the US/UK/Israeli 4th reich.<br><br> To take you back not 65 years, and to paraphrase Goebbels.<br><br> "Most people dont want war, and yet persuading them that war is neccesary is simple. Just convince them that they are under attack"<br><br> Hitler used his own convicts dressed in polish uniforms and shot on the border amongst other methods to convince his country that they were under attack.<br><br> For his Homeland security bills, he burned down the Reichstag.<br><br> Ever read "Tales from the Timeloop" ? <p></p><i></i>

Think that was Goering not Goebbels but your right to indicate the false flag operations. Bismarck had tried it 70 years earlier <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ems_Dispatch</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Also from <!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary">en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Diary</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br> Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?<br><br> Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. <br><br> Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.<br><br> Göring: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country. <p></p><i></i>

THE BOOGYMAN IS DEAD. LONG LIVE THE BOOGYMAN. <p></p><i></i>