http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

I think the CIA confirmed it....because the GOP made it!
:o

The way in which this speech was phrased is too ham-handed even for oafish Republican operatives.  They made the mistake of including ALL the objections Americans have to the Iraq war.  I know they wanted something quick and elegent to point to that would let them say, "if you oppose the war, you side with Osama," but they're not even trying to make their propaganda credible anymore!
;D

I think you may be wrong on this one, Max. I read the speech and as someone who is pretty familiar with the ins and outs of Islam, if they DID fake this they must have had someone who REALLY knew their stuff on Islam helping them.

I think you may be wrong on this one, Max. I read the speech and as someone who is pretty familiar with the ins and outs of Islam, if they DID fake this they must have had someone who REALLY knew their stuff on Islam helping them.

Who says they don't?  And if it IS indeed Bin Laden, the political hay the partisan Republican media is making with it is shameful hackery.  Basically, the outcome is the same whether it's the real Bin Laden or the fake Bin Laden. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

I think the CIA confirmed it....because the GOP made it!
:o

The way in which this speech was phrased is too ham-handed even for oafish Republican operatives.  They made the mistake of including ALL the objections Americans have to the Iraq war.  I know they wanted something quick and elegent to point to that would let them say, "if you oppose the war, you side with Osama," but they're not even trying to make their propaganda credible anymore!
;D


Your theory doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, Max.  Wouldn't the Republicans, based on your opinion of them, want the world to think our efforts have decreased the threat of attacks??  ???

Why would they fake the tape, don't they want us to think the guy is dead?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

I think the CIA confirmed it....because the GOP made it!
:o

The way in which this speech was phrased is too ham-handed even for oafish Republican operatives.  They made the mistake of including ALL the objections Americans have to the Iraq war.  I know they wanted something quick and elegent to point to that would let them say, "if you oppose the war, you side with Osama," but they're not even trying to make their propaganda credible anymore!
;D


::)

the only problem i have with this theory is that the relationship between the cia and the gop is actually kinda adversarial right now, because of valerie plame and trying to hang the trumped up war rationale on tenet and blaming "bad intelligence," even though the gop, and particularly the administration guys, have been slobbering for a war in iraq since before a lot of you were in diapers.

now, if the NSA or DIA were confirming the OBL tapes, that'd be a different matter.

on the surface it might seem like the gop would be into making it seem like attacks are less likely, but by the same token, all this fear of further attacks is where a lot of their power comes from. and that threat level thing is just to rattle people's nerves -- otherwise they'd have specific things they'd be telling us to do for different threat levels. at least during the cold war we were supposed to get under the desks! these days all we're supposed to do is be scared.

Why fake a proposal to stop attacks if we pulled out of Irraq and Afganistan?

And don't forget, this is not the first time he has made such an offer.  He has made similar ofers to most of the nations in Europe in the past (which have all been turned down).

And why fake something like this?  Do you think that he and his group would hesitate for a second in screaming out if it was fake?  I think that if it was faked, we would have been hearing from Bin Laden about the fraud.  And I have yet to hear anything of the sort.

Max, there is medication available for extreme paranoia.  Not everything in the world is a "Republican Plot".

Why fake a proposal to stop attacks if we pulled out of Irraq and Afganistan?

And don't forget, this is not the first time he has made such an offer.  He has made similar ofers to most of the nations in Europe in the past (which have all been turned down).

And why fake something like this?  Do you think that he and his group would hesitate for a second in screaming out if it was fake?  I think that if it was faked, we would have been hearing from Bin Laden about the fraud.  And I have yet to hear anything of the sort.

Max, there is medication available for extreme paranoia.  Not everything in the world is a "Republican Plot".


oh, come on. obviously the suggestion of a truce would be rejected. did anybody think GWbush and the rest of em wanted to have anything other than more war? was anybody in any way surprised by this tired old bromide that "we don't negotiate with terrorists"? just another example of the republicans in power being real tough with other people's lives. not that i think the OBL tape is a republican fake, but if it were, obviously they'd throw a little truce in there. not like it'd make any difference.

the right at this point has no capacity or ability for negotiation. all they know is war.

It's all about consolidation of state power in the Executive Branch and keeping the Republican (ie. fascist) party in power.  Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and probably still is.  Bin Laden will mimic Dems objections to the Iraq war to lend strategic advantage to the GOP.  He will also offer a vague offer of truce to allow the U.S. propaganda mill the opportunity to churn out 101 reasons not trust the Arabs. 

It would seem more logical for the Administration to want its efforts to seem more, not less, successful against the terrorists, but you have to take into account the great need to generate FEAR among the populus.  If the people are frightened enough, they'll more readily submit to a police state.

The "War on Terror" is not a war against foreign terrorists so much as it is against democracy at home.

Do I expect Mr. Mushroom and the man who takes the president's initials as his screenname to say I'm nuts?  Of course!
8)

It's all about consolidation of state power in the Executive Branch and keeping the Republican (ie. fascist) party in power.  Bin Laden was on the CIA payroll and probably still is.  Bin Laden will mimic Dems objections to the Iraq war to lend strategic advantage to the GOP.  He will also offer a vague offer of truce to allow the U.S. propaganda mill the opportunity to churn out 101 reasons not trust the Arabs. 

It would seem more logical for the Administration to want its efforts to seem more, not less, successful against the terrorists, but you have to take into account the great need to generate FEAR among the populus.  If the people are frightened enough, they'll more readily submit to a police state.

The "War on Terror" is not a war against foreign terrorists so much as it is against democracy at home.

Do I expect Mr. Mushroom and the man who takes the president's initials as his screenname to say I'm nuts?  Of course!
8)


I don't think you're nuts... but I think you're misunderstanding the whole Republican concept of this war.  Obviously I can't speak for the president because nobody knows exactly what is in his mind except for him... but I can say as a Republican and as a war supporter, that the fact that we haven't been attacked here again is a big reason why I feel our stand on terrorism is necessary... unlike Clinton who didn't do a whole lot about it, and we continued to get attacked... leading up to 9/11, which obviously was being planned during the Clinton administration... but anyway, the idea of a threat against US soil doesn't particularly help my cause now, does it?  I don't see how it would help Bush's either...  Now the fact that he threatened is one thing... I hope it's just an idle threat... and if he really is planning something, I hope that our government will use all tools possible (including listening to overseas conversations) to stop whatever it is he is planning to do.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

I think the CIA confirmed it....because the GOP made it!
:o

The way in which this speech was phrased is too ham-handed even for oafish Republican operatives.  They made the mistake of including ALL the objections Americans have to the Iraq war.  I know they wanted something quick and elegent to point to that would let them say, "if you oppose the war, you side with Osama," but they're not even trying to make their propaganda credible anymore!
;D


  Hmmm...   
 
  I really don't understand who would fake this tape in this way. On the other hand, the message is fake, because it does not correlate in terms of style and perspective as compared with past video speeches credibly attributed to OBL. The rhetoric in English sounds like English was the original source language. Most translations include noticeable and typical stumbles in English idiom, because it is difficult to translate thoughtstreams between any significantly differing languages, without having a few vernacular miskeys, which can only be smoothed out after several rewrites (somewhat difficult to do with a news dispatch).

  This is puzzling. We may be puzzling on this for a very long time. I just want an open freakin' government and intellectually curious media, so that we don't have to look through this deliberate information clutter all the time.

I don't think you're nuts... but I think you're misunderstanding the whole Republican concept of this war.  Obviously I can't speak for the president because nobody knows exactly what is in his mind except for him... but I can say as a Republican and as a war supporter, that the fact that we haven't been attacked here again is a big reason why I feel our stand on terrorism is necessary... unlike Clinton who didn't do a whole lot about it, and we continued to get attacked... leading up to 9/11, which obviously was being planned during the Clinton administration... but anyway, the idea of a threat against US soil doesn't particularly help my cause now, does it?   I don't see how it would help Bush's either...  Now the fact that he threatened is one thing... I hope it's just an idle threat... and if he really is planning something, I hope that our government will use all tools possible (including listening to overseas conversations) to stop whatever it is he is planning to do.


well, for rank-and-file republicans the investment would obviously be different. your interests are going to be completely different from the interests of the republicans in power. are you getting any lobbying money? do the motivations and desires of the oil companies and the weapons manufacturers play any significant role in your life? are you engaged in a K-street project? i'd venture no, but there's really no getting around the fact that all along while the republicans in power, and that's the key distinction, have been making lots of noises aboiut protecting the country and about this being the most self-less and noble military cause since world war ii, they have in fact been benefiting greatly from this war on a personal financial level, and on the level of accumulating influence and political power, and expect to continue to benefit. their interests are completely different from your.

oh, come on. obviously the suggestion of a truce would be rejected. did anybody think GWbush and the rest of em wanted to have anything other than more war?


But the same offer was rejected by every European nation as well, including Spain, France, and Germany.

How does their approval or rejection of such an offer affect our President?  And why in the world should he even consider it, taking into account the number of people killed on 9/11?

"Oh, yes Mr. Tojo.  To many people have died taking Tarawa and Saipan.  So if you want peace, we will stop fighting.  We will just pretend that Pearl Harbor never happened."

i couldn't help but notice he really doesn't negotiate with ANYbody. with this government you have two options -- war, or the threat of it.

Max, I do not think you are nuts because you are Liberal and I am Conservative.  I simply think you are nuts because you seem to jump on so many whacky conspiracy theories.

Remember, I am very stoic.  I do not believe in conspiracies.  I do not believe that JFK was killed by the CIA-FBI-KGB-Industrial Complex, or anything other then a lone gunman with the initials LHO.

I also do not believe in Global Warming, Global Cooling, New World Order, Illuminati, Free Masons conducting the Jack The Ripper Murders, World Zionism, or anything else of the sort.  I do not believe that the GOvernment is holding UFO's in the Nevada-California desert.  In my personal belief, they call it Area 51 because anybody that believes in it is at least one card short of a full deck.

I simply hold such things against Occam's Razor, and dismiss them.

I do not dismiss all conspiracies.  There are a few that I do accept, but the reason they worked (or still work) is that very few people ever knew the secret.  I believe in a conspiracy around the dissapearances of Amelia Earhart and Jimmy Hoffa.  The Nazi Genocide was a great conspiracy, but it fell apart before the end of the war.  The vast majority of Germans never knew what was really happening, and most of the Allied soldiers and officers never realized it existed until they discovered the camps.

lumping global warming, a phenomenon on which there's a quite firm scientific consensus, with aliens in area 51 is awfully fakey, mushroom. how do you account for THAT move? lol.

lumping global warming, a phenomenon on which there's a quite firm scientific consensus, with aliens in area 51 is awfully fakey, mushroom. how do you account for THAT move? lol.


The concensus is not as firm as you would believe.  Even in the scientific community there is much debate on it.  There is no debate that it is happening, but there is a lot of debate as to the cause.  In fact, over 17,000 scientists signed a petition in opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, calling it "Junk Science".  This is over double the number of scientists who signed the petition urging it's approval.

Max, I do not think you are nuts because you are Liberal and I am Conservative.  I simply think you are nuts because you seem to jump on so many whacky conspiracy theories.



Isn't this against the rules? It seems to be crossing the line over into personal insults..

Isn't this against the rules? It seems to be crossing the line over into personal insults..

Maybe, but it doesn't bother me if somebody calls me "nuts" if I lay out he conspiracy theory I have swimming around in my head about the Bush Administration--Bin Laden plot.  I mean, it's just not something anybody in the mainstream media is willing to discuss.  Furthermore, I may be totally wrong.  The source of that tape could really be solely Osama and his bloody crew and have nothing to do with the U.S. government.
I could spend two years chasing every suspicious lead and write a book about it, like my ole pal John Kaminski, and then a million people would call me "nuts" no matter what kind of "proof" I mustered!  It's rather like the 9/11 conspiracy theorism.

I'm simply not trusting enough of this government and the corporate media NOT to pull dirty tricks to prolong a militaristic, authoritarian agenda. 

Refer back to Davester's post.  I think it's quite trenchant regarding phraseology, idiom, and language.

Mushroom does apply the philosophical term "stoicism" in an irrelevant way.  You can be "stoic" and believe or not believe in conspiracy theories."  Stoicism refers more to an approach to inner strength by accepting the hardships of life and persevering.

Isn't this against the rules? It seems to be crossing the line over into personal insults..


I mean no insult to Max, believe me there.  While we may disagree, I still respect his right to his own opinions.

And I am sure that he considers me to be a stiff Republican prig.  8)

I've got a question -- can we trust Osama?  I wouldn't, but if we DO pull out (which would be silly at this point), would he not bomb us?

Mushroom does apply the philosophical term "stoicism" in an irrelevant way.  You can be "stoic" and believe or not believe in conspiracy theories."  Stoicism refers more to an approach to inner strength by accepting the hardships of life and persevering.


Here is a definition from dictionary.com:

One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.

What I mean by it is that I try to not let my personal feelings get in the way of both facts, and what is best for the population at large.  This is what lets me argue for (or against) things, when my own belief goes the opposite way.  And my comments are never meant to be hurtfull or insulting, I am just saying what comes to mind.

I've got a question -- can we trust Osama?  I wouldn't, but if we DO pull out (which would be silly at this point), would he not bomb us?


Of course we can not trust him.  We did follow one of his leading demands in pulling out of Saudi Arabia.  And have their attacks lessened in the last 2 years?  There is no negotiating with a fanatical fundamentalist.  Most of the time, they can justify breaking any oath they make, since it is made to people they deem "untrustworthy".  Their own goals are the only thing that matters, and will do or say anything in order to achieve their goals.

Kinda like Hitler, or Saddam, or Eric Rudolph.

Of course we can not trust him.  We did follow one of his leading demands in pulling out of Saudi Arabia.  And have their attacks lessened in the last 2 years?  There is no negotiating with a fanatical fundamentalist.  Most of the time, they can justify breaking any oath they make, since it is made to people they deem "untrustworthy".  Their own goals are the only thing that matters, and will do or say anything in order to achieve their goals.

Kinda like Hitler, or Saddam, or Eric Rudolph.


For a little humor, what kind of a megalomaniac name is Eric Rudolph?  At least "Hitler" and "Saddam" are threatening.  ;D

I mean no insult to Max, believe me there.  While we may disagree, I still respect his right to his own opinions.

And I am sure that he considers me to be a stiff Republican prig.   8)

From what you've reveald about yourself on this board, I don't think the words "stiff" or "prig" apply to you.  Why you insist on being a Republican--especially nowadays--beats me!
;)


Here is a definition from dictionary.com:

One who is seemingly indifferent to or unaffected by joy, grief, pleasure, or pain.

What I mean by it is that I try to not let my personal feelings get in the way of both facts, and what is best for the population at large.  This is what lets me argue for (or against) things, when my own belief goes the opposite way.  And my comments are never meant to be hurtfull or insulting, I am just saying what comes to mind.

That's "stoicism" in the vernacular.  However, I don't think the founders of philosophical stoicism, such as Marcus Aurelius would agree with the dictionary.com definition.  Philosophically speaking, stoicism is not about being indfferent to or unaffected by emotions.  Far from it.  Stoicism encourages feeling the full range of emotions, and accepting them as emotions.  That is, accepting pain, pleasure, grief, or joy, and letting them pass by.  It has more in common with Buddhism than John Wayne.  Stoicism---again, philosophical stoicism--also emphasizes taking responsibility for your re-actions to the actions of others.
"Say to yourself in the early morning: I shall meet today ungrateful, violent, treacherous, envious, uncharitable men. All of these things have come upon them through ignorance of real good and ill... I can neither be harmed by any of them, for no man will involve me in wrong, nor can I be angry with my kinsman or hate him; for we have come into the world to work together..."
--Marcus Aurelius

As for "facts," we live in a world of ghostly televised images.  Deceit is more easily practiced today, and on a more grandiose scale, than at any time since the invention of the printing press.  For me to believe what the media is telling me, I have to trust the media, and the sources who inform the media.  Both the media and the government have violated my trust, and trust violated is not easily restored.  Furthermore, when it comes to power and money, one must always verify information, not just trust it.  The bigger the power and the more money is at stake the greater the need to trust but verify (it is ironic Ronnie Reagan popularized this phrase).  In the case of the mainstream media, I cannot trust them on matters of foreign affairs, and I haven't the resources to verify their claims of what Osoma said and did.
Phew!

For a little humor, what kind of a megalomaniac name is Eric Rudolph?  At least "Hitler" and "Saddam" are threatening.  ;D


Well, for those who do not recognize the name, Eric Rudolph was the nutcase who set the bomb in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.  He also set off a great many other bombs in abortion clinics.  He goes around writing manifestos and claiming that he is saving babies, at the same time he is killing a great many other people by his bombs.  But because he was in his own mind "fulfilling God's wish", it was justifyable.

Well, for those who do not recognize the name, Eric Rudolph was the nutcase who set the bomb in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Games.  He also set off a great many other bombs in abortion clinics.  He goes around writing manifestos and claiming that he is saving babies, at the same time he is killing a great many other people by his bombs.  But because he was in his own mind "fulfilling God's wish", it was justifyable.

Eric Rudolph, you know, Rudolph the Red State Reindeer!
:D

The concensus is not as firm as you would believe.  Even in the scientific community there is much debate on it.  There is no debate that it is happening, but there is a lot of debate as to the cause.  In fact, over 17,000 scientists signed a petition in opposition to the Kyoto Treaty, calling it "Junk Science".  This is over double the number of scientists who signed the petition urging it's approval.


no, there is, by any reasonable standard, a consensus. there are a few detractors, but they tend to be flat-earthers fuinded by the extreme right, and they're VASTLY outnumbered. kyoto is a different matter from whether human-caused global warming is happening -- with kyoto there is a great deal of politics involved. but about the existence of global warming, and whether it's human-caused, that's more or less a closed issue. remember the political movement that still questions global warming is a cousin to the political movement that wants to teach creationism in biology class. the right wing is demonstrably at odds with modern science on a number of different fronts, but that doesn't change the facts.

no, there is, by any reasonable standard, a consensus. there are a few detractors, but they tend to be flat-earthers fuinded by the extreme right, and they're VASTLY outnumbered.


You call 17,000 "a few"?

And remember, they all used the arguement that the basis was "junk science".  And they are far from alone.

This is just another case of where ideology overrules historical facts.  People have their ideology of man causing the heating of an entire planet, and damn the facts.

I've got a question -- can we trust Osama?  I wouldn't, but if we DO pull out (which would be silly at this point), would he not bomb us?


  I still maintain that Osama's dead. But his cause is helped by the video. However, al-Qaeda did not produce this one. This Jim Johnson article expresses the frustration I feel while searching for a full English transcript.  The best I can do, for now, is something that might make Pink Floyd blush...

You call 17,000 "a few"?

And remember, they all used the arguement that the basis was "junk science".  And they are far from alone.

This is just another case of where ideology overrules historical facts.  People have their ideology of man causing the heating of an entire planet, and damn the facts.


well, you haven't posted a link to this so i have no idea whether it's true. and it flies in the face of claims by multiple international scientific consortiums that global warming is no longer controversial, which -- don't forget -- dovetails with ample statistics showing that the ten hottest summers on record have all happened since the 1970s and the stormiest seasons in the past 150 years have all occurred in the past ten. the evidence is really overwhelming. the scientists who object to global warming these days tend to be funded by the likes of exxon-mobil, and i think we're at a point now much as we were with tobacco in the 70s and 80s -- where it was known to everyone but a few that tobacco caused cancer and heart disease, and the handful of fringe doctors saying otherwise tended to be whores, basically, bought by the tobacco companies.

it flies in the face of claims by multiple international scientific consortiums that global warming is no longer controversial,

We also have scientists that try to explain how the blood of innocent people turns into OJ Simpson's blood, and how man never really landed on the moon.

We also have scientists that try to explain how the blood of innocent people turns into OJ Simpson's blood, and how man never really landed on the moon.


yes, but in OJ simpson's case they're getting fat checks, and in the case of the moon shot revisionists there are precious few of them. and both conditions hold true in the case of "scientists" who are denying global warming. there aren't many, and typically the oil companies or right-wing causes are paying them rather handsomely.

   I still maintain that Osama's dead. But his cause is helped by the video. However, al-Qaeda did not produce this one. This Jim Johnson article expresses the frustration I feel while searching for a full English transcript.  The best I can do, for now, is something that might make Pink Floyd blush...



Exactly.  If we don't know he's dead, he's as good as alive to us.  His shadow lives on, kind of like Tolkien  ;D

It all comes down to this:  Do you have faith the government always tells us the truth and does not lie about important affairs of state?  If you have such faith, it's easy to call somebody "nuts" for saying Osama is still on the CIA payroll.  If you don't have the faith, if you think the government DOES lie, and DOES not have the average person's best interest at heart, then it is much easier to say, "I can't prove Osoma is a CIA shill, but he may well be."  This is a much less comforting position to hold because it's scary to have people you can't trust in charge.
The same conservatives who believed it was naive to trust the Clinton Administration, now tell us it is unpatriotic NOT to trust the Bush Administration.  And yet, under presidents, the military-industrial power structure was basically the same.
::)

^exactly. this government now has the most power of any government in human history. it's been caught in repeated lies, many of the people in it have deeply suspicious backgrounds and suspicious contacts, and have presided over the most american deaths in history -- between 9/11, katrina, and the iraq and afghan wars -- and yet somehow it's unpatriotic to question them. well, i for one find them highly questionable and i definitely recall that the self-same folks who are telling me i need to shut up and wave a flag now, were blue in the face for all of the clinton years.

so meh, whatever. your president sucks. sorry.

^exactly. this government now has the most power of any government in human history.
The Bush Administration doesn't have as much exectuive power as the Stalin Administration, or the Pharoah Administration, but that's what they're driving at!
::)

The Bush Administration doesn't have as much exectuive power as the Stalin Administration, or the Pharoah Administration, but that's what they're driving at!
::)


well, not power in terms of separation of powers -- they don't quite have dictatorial powers yet -- but i mean more the power of the nation that's at stake, in terms of force projection, political and economic influence. anyone who argues, oh i'm sure the government is benevolent and has our interest in mind, is being naive for just this very reason -- that this is the most powerful nation in history, at the apex of its power, and whatever crimes, whatever conspiracies, whatever lies have been told in the past to acquire power, the people in office now have MORE motive to lie and cheat for power than these criminals of the past, because they stand to gain even more -- more even than hitler than stalin or the pharoahs.

Of course we can not trust him.  We did follow one of his leading demands in pulling out of Saudi Arabia.  And have their attacks lessened in the last 2 years? 

Not to mention the Palestinians got their chunk of Israel... which is what many Dems used as an excuse for the terrorist attacks in the first place...

Say what you want in defense of the nasty little Bushies but I'm still with Jack White on this one:

I think I Smell A Rat

Oh I think I smell a rat
I think I smell a rat
all you little kids seem to think you know just where it's at
Oh I think I smell a rat
walking down the street carrying a baseball bat
Oh I think I smell a rat

Oh I think I smell a rat
Oh I think I smell a rat
all you little kids seem to think you know just where is at
Oh I think I smell a rat
using your mother and father for a welcome mat
Oh I think I smell a rat
>:(


(That's also my favorite White Stripes song because it reminds me of my dad, attitude-wise!  Oh, you kids...you kids! Grrrrr!)
;D

and typically the oil companies or right-wing causes are paying them rather handsomely.


Why not prove that?

Anyone else hear anything about Osama's mentioning of the book The Rogue State in his latest tape? According to CBC, the books sales skyrocketed. What a weird occurence.

bit of an awkward happenstance for william blum, i imagine, that plug by obl. but i also heard after 9/11 sales of books about islam skyrocketed.

Why not prove that?


y'all always asking me to prove stuff everybody already knows. anyone who reads regularly is aware of the anti-climate change campaign sponsored by big oil. you can say big oil is right in claiming there's no such thing as global warming, but you definitely can't say they're not deeply involved in lobbying the science about climate change and bringing some big bucks to the table. it's the tobacco flim-flam all over again.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/08/30/katrinas_real_name/

"Unfortunately, very few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.

The reason is simple: To allow the climate to stabilize requires humanity to cut its use of coal and oil by 70 percent. That, of course, threatens the survival of one of the largest commercial enterprises in history.

In 1995, public utility hearings in Minnesota found that the coal industry had paid more than $1 million to four scientists who were public dissenters on global warming. And ExxonMobil has spent more than $13 million since 1998 on an anti-global warming public relations and lobbying campaign.

In 2000, big oil and big coal scored their biggest electoral victory yet when President George W. Bush was elected president -- and subsequently took suggestions from the industry for his climate and energy policies.

As the pace of climate change accelerates, many researchers fear we have already entered a period of irreversible runaway climate change.

Against this background, the ignorance of the American public about global warming stands out as an indictment of the US media.

When the US press has bothered to cover the subject of global warming, it has focused almost exclusively on its political and diplomatic aspects and not on what the warming is doing to our agriculture, water supplies, plant and animal life, public health, and weather.

For years, the fossil fuel industry has lobbied the media to accord the same weight to a handful of global warming skeptics that it accords the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries reporting to the United Nations."

Not to mention the Palestinians got their chunk of Israel... which is what many Dems used as an excuse for the terrorist attacks in the first place...


They do not want a piece out of Israel, they want nothing but the complete and total elimination if Israel and Jews.

Hmmm, I seem to remember a fight similar to this 60 years ago.  And never expect me to side with people who endorse genocide and "ethnic clensing".

They do not want a piece out of Israel, they want nothing but the complete and total elimination if Israel and Jews.

Hmmm, I seem to remember a fight similar to this 60 years ago.  And never expect me to side with people who endorse genocide and "ethnic clensing".


not all palestinians are the same, mushroom. they're human beings, not zombies.

not all palestinians are the same, mushroom. they're human beings, not zombies.


I am well aware of that.  And I am not talking about Palestinians, nor am I talking about Arabs or Muslims.  I am talking about Fundamentalist Terrorists.

Not all Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists.  And without the intervention of the extreemists, I am sure that the majority of Muslims and Jews would get along just fine in that area of the world.

not all palestinians are the same, mushroom. they're human beings, not zombies.


It's all a matter of what viewpoint the right-wing press is pushing.  Before the U.S.-Israeli military-industralial strategy, it was very chic among the Right to be anti-Jewish.  Now that Israel is a strategic linchpin for U.S. imperialism, it is chic to beat the drum for Israel.  Now, only a tiny percentage of the world's Semitic population lives in Israel.  Remember, Arabs are Semites too.  American Jews and gentiles alike are encouraged by the American press to be rabidly in favor of Israeli aggression.  The American press is often more belicose toward the Palestinians than the Israeli press.  After all, Americans don't have to live with the bus bombings!
It is absurd for Mr. Mushroom to imply Hamas wants liquidate all Jews as if they were Hitler.  There is a militant wing of Hamas that carries out the well-publicized acts of terror.  There is a social service wing of Hamas that provides food, clothes, shelter, and advocacy for many impoverished Palestinians--this beneficent side is of course ignored by the American press.  If all Hamas did was act like the Revenge Brigade and blow people up, they would never have gathered the political clout to win the election.  If we don't acknowledge the positive side of Hamas, we can easily believe the majority of Palestinians are bloodthirsty, which is what the American establishment wants us to think.  However, when a crazed nineteen year old blows out a pizza parlor with a backpack full of dynamite, the Palestinian people know they can count on terrible reprisals.  The majority of Palestinians are in a daily struggle to stay afloat.  They know terrorism won't help them.  Their view of Hamas is the opposite of ours.

It doesn't help that so many powerful American politicians adhere to a brand of Pentecostal psychosis known as "Christian Fundamentalism," or the "Evangelical movement."  These crazies are hoping for Armageddon to start over there in "Israel" because they want to be "raptured" away to heaven.  The American Right is infested and informed by Fundamentalist madness.  The last thing they want to see over in the Middle East is peace.  

As for man-made climate change, it doesn't matter to those who deny it how great the scientific consensus is on the other side, all that matters is the scientists who ALSO deny man-made climate change.  It doesn't matter either if the petroleum industry pays these scientists.  Hey, who you gonna trust?  The oil companies that make the U.S. economy thrive, or some bitter anti-American French climatologist?
:D

I am well aware of that.  And I am not talking about Palestinians, nor am I talking about Arabs or Muslims.  I am talking about Fundamentalist Terrorists.

Not all Muslims or Palestinians are terrorists.  And without the intervention of the extreemists, I am sure that the majority of Muslims and Jews would get along just fine in that area of the world.


no you're not. you changed your story. if you go back and look at the post, odyssey was talking about "palestinians" and you said "They do not want a piece out of Israel, they want nothing but the complete and total elimination if Israel and Jews." the "they" you're using plainly refers to "palestinians," not fundy terrorists or al qaeda or any such.

no you're not. you changed your story.


No, I am not.  And if you look through my history of posting in here, you will see that.

This refers back to my problem with pronouns, and why I try not to use them.The "they" I was refering to is the people who are causing the problems, not Palestinians at large.

Maybe I should have placed yet another disclaimer at the end of this and every other post I make in the future, to prevent this from happening.