Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (100214)	6/10/2007 3:54:32 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

The first one proves that some people think that way. That they are willing to use deceptive tactics to accomplish things that they think should get done. The military in this case. Most likely the only reason that the documents from Northwoods were ever declassified was because it was never implemented. if it had been implemented they would never declassify the documents proving it was a false flag operation. That some people think this way, in no way proves a false flag operation has ever actually occurred, much less "many false flag operations" as you charged. "Second, Pearl Harbor was ACTUALLY ATTACKED by Japanese naval air forces. A false flag operation would have involved US planes disguised as Japanese attacking Pearl." False. If they knew it was coming and let it happen as an excuse to get into WW2 that would also qualify as a false flag operation. It is also a fact that we had cut off Japan's oil supply. It wasn't a stretch to expect that they would retaliate. You can argue around it but you haven't proven it wasn't a false flag operation. Apparently you want to redefine false flag operation. The real definition is one done under a "false flag". An actual Japanese attack can't be an American false flag attack by definition. False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. wikipedia As far as the Gulf of Tonkin, it is a very widespread idea that it was a manufactured incident. A widespread myth should not be used as evidence. Go ahead and prove it wasn't if you can. You haven't yet. I've cited a source saying an attack really happened. What more do you need as evidence? What would you accept? Nothing, your closed mind is made up. Isn't that true? I've already pointed out that the only way one could actually prove that an incident was a false flag operation would be if someone involved in perpetrating it CONFESSED. That would be evidence of course. So would good witnesses. But you don't give ANY evidence that a US false flag operaton has ever happened, much less the "many false flag operations" you claimed. Even then diehard righties would just say that the person was a liar and would continue on with what they want to believe. The conclusion is that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A FALSE FLAG OPERATION in any way that would be acceptable to you. We don't know that, because you haven't offered any evidence. You just list examples, ignore contrary evidence, and want your fantasies accepted as reality by others as proof of their open-mindedness. So I choose to believe that in reality that is the way government functions sometimes. Sure, believing that provides a rationale for the hostility you feel toward our nation. You have not proven that is not the case. I've made arguments and provided evidence publicly available. Really, the burden of proof though should be on you anyway. You're making the wild assertion and demanding it not be challenged. Actually your whole attitude that it is worthy of argument is STUPID. I would suggest your inability to argue in support of your wild claim is ... well, you know.

To: JBTFD who wrote (100214)	6/10/2007 4:16:42 PM
From: Skywatcher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 173976

thank God he's no longer a Democrat...he's republican.... Lieberman: U.S. Should Weigh Iran Attack From Associated Press June 10, 2007 3:00 PM EDT WASHINGTON - Sen. Joseph Lieberman said Sunday the United States should consider a military strike against Iran because of Tehran's involvement in Iraq. "I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman said. "And to me, that would include a strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers." The U.S. accuses Iran of fostering terrorism and Tehran's nuclear ambitions have brought about international reproach. Lieberman, the Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000 who now represents Connecticut as an independent, spoke of Iranians' role in the continued violence in Iraq. "We've said so publicly that the Iranians have a base in Iran at which they are training Iraqis who are coming in and killing Americans. By some estimates, they have killed as many as 200 American soldiers," Lieberman said. "Well, we can tell them we want them to stop that. But if there's any hope of the Iranians living according to the international rule of law and stopping, for instance, their nuclear weapons development, we can't just talk to them." He added, "If they don't play by the rules, we've got to use our force, and to me, that would include taking military action to stop them from doing what they're doing." Lieberman said much of the action could probably be done by air, although he would leave the strategy to the generals in charge. "I want to make clear I'm not talking about a massive ground invasion of Iran," Lieberman said. "They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home." To deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions, Democratic presidential hopeful Bill Richardson said tough negotiation is called for. "I would talk to them, but I would build an international coalition that would promote and push economic sanctions on them," Richardson said. "Sanctions would work on Iran. They are susceptible to disinvestment policy. They are susceptible to cuts, economic sanctions in commodities." On Friday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Iran's detention of at least four Americans is unwarranted but will not stop Washington from trying to engage Iran on other matters, including its disputed nuclear program and alleged support of insurgents in Iraq. In an Associated Press interview, Rice also appeared to cast doubt on whether the U.S. would take its tentative diplomatic outreach to Iran any further for now. The U.S. and Iranian ambassadors in Iraq met last month for the first public, substantive high-level discussions the two countries have held in nearly three decades. Although limited to the topic of violence and instability in Iraq, the talks have been seen as a possible window to better relations. Immediately after the meeting in Baghdad, Iran announced plans for another. But U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said Washington would decide only after the Iraqi government issued an invitation. U.S. officials also said they wanted to see Iran follow up on U.S. complaints that it is equipping and helping insurgents who attack American forces. Lieberman spoke on "Face the Nation" on CBS. Richardson was on "Late Edition" on CNN.

To: JBTFD who wrote (100214)	6/12/2007 9:48:19 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. " en.wikipedia.org Here. These are from YOUR side. Maybe they'll help you get the point. deeperpolitics.gnn.tv rense.com topplerummy.org prisonplanet.com The term is actually centuries old. Back in The Goode Old Days when the Spaniards were stealing all the gold in the Western Hemisphere, the English (among others) wanted a cut. Since the Spaniards rudely refused to just hand it over, they resorted to piracy. That gold somehow had to be moved from the Western Hemisphere to Spain. The only available method was sailing ships. These ships flew flags to indicate their nationality. So: An English pirate hauls down the English flag, ups the Spanish flag, sails over to his prey who thinks a friendly ship is approaching to convoy with him- -and the English pirate opens fire. THAT'S what a false flag operation is, dummy! What's the dumbest breed of dog? I know its not a sheperd. 've already pointed out that the only way one could actually prove that an incident was a false flag operation would be if someone involved in perpetrating it CONFESSED. Even then diehard righties would just say that the person was a liar and would continue on with what they want to believe. The conclusion is that it is IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A FALSE FLAG OPERATION in any way that would be acceptable to you. DO WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN EVERYTHING TO YOU???? Somebody had to remark American planes and paint meatballs on them. Oh, and rebuild part of them since no American plane looked like the Japanese fighters and bombers used to attack Pearl Harbor (51 Mitsubishi A6M Type 0 fighters, 171 Nakajima B5N Type 97 torpedo bombers, and 108 Aichi D3A Type 99 dive bombers). Those planes had to be fueled, armed, and take off from somewhere. Then attack, land somewhere, and be repainted and partly rebuilt. Oh. There was a Japanese 2-man midget submarine detected and sank by the USS Ward slightly prior to the attack. The US had none of those. And you're going to do all of that, with all the people who would be involved and who would be PARTICULARLY ALARMED (by your own admission) after the Pearl Harbor attack, and no one would take any notes or pictures or talk to the press afterwards? And you expect us to believe this? Because just ignoring warnings of an enemy attack (to the extent they existed, which has been endlessly argued in many books, and about some aspects of which there is conflicting testimony) IS NOT A FALSE FLAG OPERATION! Regardless of how many times you claim it is.