Further Proof

[Seaver]

This is just further proof of how the Terrorism threat is not something made up. In addition it shows plainly how Muslim Extreamists do not care which side Modern Western countries take politically.

Yes, they were Canadian. Yes, the connection to Al Qaeda must be taken with a grain of salt (although internet communication is extremely easy, as proven by this forum). The purpose of the planned attack can not be simply written off as a lone delusional man as in Oklahoma City, it was to be a very well planned and highly organized attack with multiple members.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5044560.stm

Canada charges 17 terror suspects
Equipment seized by police during the raid
Police said the suspects planned "al-Qaeda-inspired" attacks
Police in Canada have arrested and charged 12 men who they say were planning an "al-Qaeda-inspired" bombing campaign in and around Toronto.

Five other youths have also been charged, following an investigation involving more than 400 officers.

Police seized bomb-making materials in a series of raids in Toronto, including three tons of ammonium nitrate.

Officials said the group "posed a real and serious threat" with "the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks".

Fifteen of the suspects appeared in a heavily guarded courtroom in Brampton, a Toronto suburb, on Saturday.

Some family members sobbed during the hearing while others attempted to speak or wave to the detainees, Reuters news agency reports.

A list of the names and addresses of the 12 adults, which was released after the arrests were made, indicates that they are all resident in Toronto or the surrounding province of Ontario.

'Enough for three Oklahomas'

Ammonium nitrate is a commonly used fertiliser which has also been used to make bombs.


One guy was doing some criminal activity, selling guns for money
Aly Hindy
Imam at a Toronto mosque who knows some of the accused

"To put it in context, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that killed 168 people was completed with only one ton of ammonium nitrate," said assistant commissioner Mike McDonell of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or Mounties.

"Our investigation and arrests prevented the assembly of any bombs and the attacks from being carried out."

Southern Ontario is one of the country's main economic and business centres.

The Mounties would not name any of the suspected bombing targets.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Canada had been targeted because of its way of life and "was not sheltered from the terrorist threat".

"Today, Canada's security and intelligence measures worked. Canada's new government will pursue its efforts to ensure the national security of all Canadians," he added.

'Violent ideology'

Officials showed what they said was evidence of bomb-making materials, a computer hard drive, camouflage uniforms and what appeared to be a door with bullet holes in it.

Equipment seized by police during the raid
Police seized an array of bomb-making materials

The Mounties and other government security agencies, including intelligence and border security, have been conducting a lengthy investigation, the largest of its kind in Canada.

Police said those arrested on Friday were all Canadian residents "of different origins", most of them citizens - some were students, some employed, others unemployed.

Most of the 12 adults, whose ages range from 19 to 43, have Arabic names.

The suspects appeared to have "chosen a violent ideology inspired by al-Qaeda", said Luc Portelance, assistant director of operations for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), Canada's spy agency.

Aly Hindy, an imam at a Toronto mosque, said he knew most of the accused and believed one or two were involved in crime but not terrorism.

"One guy was doing some criminal activity, selling guns for money," he was quoted as saying by Reuters news agency outside the courtroom.

"But the problem is these days when a Muslim commits fraud, it becomes terrorism. When he commits stealing it becomes terrorism."

More arrests are said to be possible.

[Etarip]

Src: http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/...n3/v27n3-5.pdf

Until 2001, far fewer Americans were killed in any grouping of years by all forms of international terrorism than were killed by lightning, and almost none of those terrorist deaths occurred within the United States itself. Even with the September 11 attacks included in the count, the number of Americans killed by international terrorism since the late 1960s (which is when the State Department began counting) is about the same as the number of Americans killed over the same period by lightning, accident-causing deer, or severe allergic reaction to peanuts.

Excuse me while I run out to buy a lighting rod and deer siren...


All joking aside terrorism really isn't that big of a risk to us. To spread out and big.

[Gatorade Frost]

Here's the thing, though, if you're allergic to peanuts you can make an active decision to stay away from peanuts, don't drive at night through deer territory, and when it's lightning, maybe you should get your ass out of a field.

I'm not sure how you can conciously prepare for going to work only to have an air plane fly into your building. Yeah, it's spread out, but it's only spread out until you're directly affected by it.

[host]

Originally Posted by Etarip

.......All joking aside terrorism really isn't that big of a risk to us. To spread out and big.

I suspect that he was describing the U.S.....the country....compared to.....say .....a small place with a more limited number of population concentrations.... like, Israel, maybe?

Seaver, it doesn't matter if the terrorist "threat" is "made up"....it's the lies and the manipulation that TPTB have used to "eff us over", as a result of the insignifigant, in comparision damage that has been done in the "attacks", vs. the "reaction", which should have been handled by law enforcement agencies, as criminal investigations, not by a senseless "war on terror" that has torn our country apart, resulted in an anti-constitutional "power grab", fat, no bid contracts to the connected, racked up ridiculously high costs in treasure and in blood. and made the U.S. a "pariah", in the view of too many formerly friendly nations.......

Here's where we've come from:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/25/tappahanock.terror/
Small town beefs up terror patrol

Thursday, December 25, 2003 Posted: 7:15 PM EST (0015 GMT)

(CNN) -- The Tappahannock Police Department doubled its typical Christmas Day task force Thursday to handle the remote possibility that the small Virginia town may be the target of a terrorist attack, Mayor Ray Gladding said.

Instead of one officer patrolling the streets, the town will have two of its 10 officers working the holiday shift to keep Tappahannock's 2,000 residents safe.

The stepped-up patrol follows the raising of the national terror alert to orange (high).

The eastern Virginia town ended up on the FBI's worry list, which includes Los Angeles, California; Las Vegas, Nevada; New York; and Washington. Another rural Virginia area made the list of areas of concern too -- Rappahannock County, with 7,000 residents about 50 miles west of Washington.

"The FBI just told us they intercepted some chatter. They just heard the name," Gladding said. "Somewhere, in translation, the name Tappahannock, Rappahannock [was heard] -- they weren't really sure."

"They couldn't tell what context the words was used in."

As a result, state highway patrols have been beefed up through the town, and residents have been told to keep their eyes open for anything unusual. So far, little has attracted attention.

"We got one call yesterday about someone near a bridge," the mayor said. "It was a news crew from Washington taking pictures."

Things weren't much different Christmas afternoon, he said............

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiol...sculinity.html
Masculinity Challenged, Men Prefer War and SUVs
By LiveScience Staff

posted: 02 August 2005
03:58 pm ET


Men whose masculinity is challenged become more inclined to support war or buy an SUV, a new study finds.

Their attitudes against gays change, too.

Cornell University researcher Robb Willer used a survey to sample undergraduates. Participants were randomly assigned feedback that indicated their responses were either masculine of feminine.

The women had no discernable reaction to either type of feedback in a follow-up survey.

But the guys' reactions were "strongly affected," Willer said today.

"I found that if you made men more insecure about their masculinity, they displayed more homophobic attitudes, tended to support the Iraq war more and would be more willing to purchase an SUV over another type of vehicle," said Willer said. "There were no increases [in desire] for other types of cars."

Those who had their masculinity threatened also said they felt more ashamed, guilty, upset and hostile than those whose masculinity was confirmed, he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...021402125.html
325,000 Names on Terrorism List
Rights Groups Say Database May Include Innocent People

By Walter Pincus and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; Page A01

The National Counterterrorism Center maintains a central repository of 325,000 names of international terrorism suspects or people who allegedly aid them, a number that has more than quadrupled since the fall of 2003, according to counterterrorism officials.

The list kept by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) -- created in 2004 to be the primary U.S. terrorism intelligence agency -- contains a far greater number of international terrorism suspects and associated names in a single government database than has previously been disclosed. Because the same person may appear under different spellings or aliases, the true number of people is estimated to be more than 200,000, according to NCTC officials......

....."We have lists that are having baby lists at this point; they're spawning faster than rabbits," Sparapani said. "If we have over 300,000 known terrorists who want to do this country harm, we've got a much bigger problem than deciding which names go on which list. But I highly doubt that is the case."

Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the NSA's domestic intelligence intercept program, the NCTC official said, "Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA."

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that he could not discuss specifics but said: "Information is collected, information is retained and information disseminated in a way to protect the privacy interests of all Americans."

The NCTC name repository began under its predecessor agency in 2003 with 75,000 names, and it continues to grow. The center was created as part of a broad reorganization of U.S. intelligence agencies after the failure to disrupt the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It is the main agency for analyzing and integrating terrorism intelligence and is under direction of Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte.

Its central database is the hub of an elaborate network of terrorism-related databases throughout the federal bureaucracy. Terrorism-related names and other data are sent to the NCTC under standards set by Homeland Security Presidential Directive 6, signed by President Bush in September 2003, according to a senior NCTC official. The directive calls upon agencies to supply data only about people who are "known or appropriately suspected to be . . . engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to terrorism."...

http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075
Released: February 28, 2006

U.S. Troops in Iraq: 72% Say End War in 2006

......Almost 90% think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11, most don’t blame Iraqi

public for insurgent attacks.......

......While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11

attacks,” 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was “to stop Saddam

from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.”

“Ninety-three percent said that removing weapons of mass destruction is not a reason for U.S.

troops being there,” said Pollster John Zogby, President and CEO of Zogby International.

“Instead, that initial rationale went by the wayside and, in the minds of 68% of the troops, the

real mission became to remove Saddam Hussein.” Just 24% said that “establishing a democracy that

can be a model for the Arab World" was the main or a major reason for the war. Only small

percentages see the mission there as securing oil supplies (11%) or to provide long-term bases

for US troops in the region (6%)........

........Three quarters of the troops had served multiple tours and had a longer exposure to the

conflict: 26% were on their first tour of duty, 45% were on their second tour, and 29% were in

Iraq for a third time or more...........

........The survey included 944 military respondents interviewed at several undisclosed

locations throughout Iraq. The names of the specific locations and specific personnel who

conducted the survey are being withheld for security purposes. Surveys were conducted

face-to-face using random sampling techniques. The margin of error for the survey, conducted

Jan. 18 through Feb. 14, 2006, is +/- 3.3 percentage points.........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documen...-jarecki.shtml
<B>WHY WE FIGHT</B>
Eugene Jarecki, USA, 2005
Wednesday 23 March 2005 10pm-11.40pm; 2.10am-3.50am

<B>What are the forces that shape and propel American militarism?</B> This award-winning film provides an inside look at the anatomy of the American war machine.
Director interview: read about the making of the film

......BBC Four: You ask members of the public, "Why do we fight?" Were the replies what you expected?
EJ: No. We must have asked about 150 people all over the country that and other questions. For over 120 of the people, their very first word was "freedom". It's fine that people do want to feel that that's what we are fighting for, <b>but you have to ask yourself what kind of open society are we living in with that consistency of response.</b> I think it's a knee-jerk reaction. If you were living in a state-controlled society how would it be any different? I trust people, I just think that the powerful media that we have is incredibly manipulative. It's unprecedented...........

<b>So...the "stage" was set, by TPTB, to instill fear and misinformation in to the minds of the people, and the soldiers, along with crap like the "homphobia" card, and a pinch of mindless, patriotic boosting, testosterone.....</b>

[Etarip]

Originally Posted by Gatorade Frost

Here's the thing, though, if you're allergic to peanuts you can make an active decision to stay away from peanuts, don't drive at night through deer territory, and when it's lightning, maybe you should get your ass out of a field.

I'm not sure how you can conciously prepare for going to work only to have an air plane fly into your building. Yeah, it's spread out, but it's only spread out until you're directly affected by it.

OK, I'll byte. If you're afraid of a terrorist attack, don't work in one of the biggest buildings in your city. Not that hard. Still scared? Don't work or live in a major city, also not that hard. Outside of those two places no terrorist is going to care enough to try and off you.

My point is that compared to all the myriad risks we face terrorism is insignificant.

Pulling more statistics from our of dark places:
Src: http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._of_dying.html

Heart Disease 1-in-5
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
Accidental Injury 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident* 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121
Falling Down 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.) 1-in-3,357
Electrocution* 1-in-5,000
Drowning 1-in-8,942
Air Travel Accident* 1-in-20,000
Flood* (included also in Natural Forces above) 1-in-30,000
Legal Execution 1-in-58,618
Tornado* (included also in Natural Forces above) 1-in-60,000
Lightning Strike (included also in Natural Forces above) 1-in-83,930

Terrified of terrorism? Don't go near water. Don't live where it floods. Don't live where it's flat and open. Don't drive a car. Feck, you're more likely to try to off you self than be killed by some terrorist.

[Seaver]

Nice Host, proclaim that those who view Terrorism as a threat are insecure about their masculinity? Nice veiled insult.

Etarip, yes not that many have died as a result of terrorism as opposed to other factors. But then again TONS more die every year as a result of disease and old age than say, murders.

Does this mean we should not worry about being murdered? Hell, murders do not kill many people, therefor we do not need city/county/state/national police departements because it's not a big threat. Imagine the impact that if in a single city if 2,843 people were murdered within hours. The city, state, and nation would do anything within it's powers to capture those responsible and would invest massive amounts of money to prevent the possibility of happening again. Then tell the city that it's not an actual threat, because they're more likely to have a heart attack.

Now the problem you run into is the chicken or egg. Are there few deaths because of ineptitude of terrorists or the professional and effective conduct of the anti-terrorist forces.

You will NOT convince me that Al-Qaeda have not been planning more attacks. They live only to kill and destroy America at this point. Host your point about small towns getting federal aid for anti-terrorism, that's valid, it pisses me off. But it has nothing to do with this.

[jimbob]

Nice Host, proclaim that those who view Terrorism as a threat are insecure about their masculinity? Nice veiled insult.

Not quite - you're affirming the consequent. He said men who's masculinity is challenged are more likely to support the Iraq war, which is surely only an insult to men who support that war and are insecure about their sexuality. (Now that is a veiled insult ;-)) However, I don't get why Host posted that - it doesn't seem relevant. And let's not mix up the Iraq war with the war on terror.

Actually I'm not too sure about the relevance of the thread as a whole. Are you suggesting that there are people who don't think terrorism exists, or do you simply think some people don't see it as a threat? A story about a group of alleged terrorists who were prevented from committing an act of terrorism indicates that there is a threat, but it is contained, so there's less of a need to worry. Let's be honest, worrying gets us nowhere. The lesson from this story is "stop worrying but stay vigilant".

By the way, Canada sent troops to Afghanistan so you can't use this story to determine that extremists don't take politics into account. I don't recall any al-Qaida related activities in Spain since the change of government though.

[host]

Originally Posted by Seaver

Nice Host, proclaim that those who view Terrorism as a threat are insecure about their masculinity? Nice veiled insult........

Seaver.....my post showed evidence of a "noise machine" designed to get the attention and support of the maximum number of citizens, anyway that it can.
The goal is world domination......Bush was out with his party's homophobia component, again yesterday....isn't the <b>fear du jour</b> what the underlying message in his drive to pass a constitutional amendment to "protect marriage and families" is all about? My point Seaver is that this ruling party's exploiting of homophobia falls nicely in with the rest of their MESSAGE of FEAR, (it's about mass manipulation of emotion to effect control). If the public
stops emoting, it might start thinking that <b>the message</b> is illogical:

<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/14735677.htm">Last week Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told Fox News Channel that he was bringing up the ban because “marriage is under attack.”</a>

Seaver, do these seem like sound decisions of a "terror fightin' gub-a mint?":

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...sdate=6/4/2006
........An analysis by the Department of Homeland Security says <b>New York has just four major financial assets that are at risk, and, get this, no national monuments or icons...........</b>

.....All of New York is a casualty of an attempt by an inept Cabinet-level agency to send money to places where it isn't as urgently needed. Buffalo, right there on the Canadian border, with one of the busiest crossings in the country, is about to lose almost half of the $7.2 million it received last year.

But is it any safer than it was a year ago? It's an especially valid question, since the Department of Homeland Security also concedes that the New York City region, at least, isn't any less at risk.

Statewide, there will be a 20 percent decrease in anti-terrorism funding. That means, at $183.7 million, <b>New York will receive $2.22 a person, down from $2.78. Wyoming, by comparison, gets $14.83 per person.</b>

Look, too, where the increases in funding are directed. The Newark-Jersey City area, is getting $34 million, 44 percent more than last year. That makes sense, but mainly because of its ports and its proximity to New York City. <b>Forty percent increases are in store as well, though, for Louisville, Omaha, and Charlotte, N.C.</b>

Does Mr. Chertoff know something about the threat of terrorism in those cities that he's not telling us?.......

Originally Posted by Seaver

This is just further proof of how the Terrorism threat is not something made up........

Now....I suspect....we're pulling into the "stage" described in the following quote box....some of us are....anyway....and some of us are still back in the Dec. 25, 2003, Tappahannock, VA, elevated terror color code stage....

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/0...ial-reckoning/
Not to beat a haunted horse, but Ghostman’s perspective on the Godsmack interview is interesting if placed in historical perspective.

Step 3 in progression to outright revolution is granting or withholding support of a regime. The foremost expression of that development is that the grantors and withholders start duking it out publicly. <b>The withholders start to shame their fellows who are complicit in supporting the regime and make it clear that they will be publicly humiliated, followed by progressively worse fates.

Noam Chomsky addressed West Point on April 21st. Steven Colbert openly mocked the preznit the next weekend. This interview, small case in point. This is the humiliation phase. Choose ye this day whom ye will serve, and remember thy oaths.</b>

http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1244
05/06/2006
TALKING TO GODSMACK (WHOSE ALBUM IS NO. 1 ON THE CHARTS) ABOUT WHAT THEY USE THEIR MUSIC FOR.

Godsmack are a millionaire hard rock band who have sold millions of records in the last 8 years. Their fourth album, “IV,” was released on April 25. It sold 211,000 copies in its first week in the USA to debut at Number One on the Billboard chart.

<a href="http://www.apolloaudio.com/lt.asp?name=AA32">LISTEN TO THE INTERVIEW.</a>
(Initial audio digitizing courtesy Bobby Tamkin!)

JAY BABCOCK of Arthur Magazine: Alright let me get the tape rolling here. How you doing?

SULLY ERNA of Godsmack: I’m good!

JAY: How was the Jimmy Kimmel show on Friday? You were outside playing, right?

SULLY: Yeah it’s always cool to do that because it’s so set up for musicians, you know. Big stage, live crowd. It’s not so like indoors with a camera rehearsals. It’s a lot easier.

JAY: Yeah. So you got to be back out in front of your fans.

SULLY: Yeah. It was good. It was fun.

JAY: What kind of people listen to your music, do you think?

SULLY: Ummm… I’ve seen em range as young as 8 and as old as 68. [chuckles]

JAY: Yup.

SULLY: So it’s…

JAY: Well, you’ve seen a lot more of ‘em than I have, and I’m trying to get an idea of what it feels like when you’re out there—to you, on the stage. Do you think there’s a lot of teenagers in the audience? A lot of guys in their 20s? Chicks—

SULLY: Ah you know…

JAY: Is it a dude audience?

SULLY: I would say, if I had to guess what our age group is, it’s probably between …18 and 40.

JAY: Oh yeah?

SULLY: I would have to say that’s kind of where we’re at, maybe more, majority would be 18-30? But I, we definitely, we recruited a lot of new fans off of that acoustic record—

JAY: That did it, huh?

SULLY: —an older audience. And this record seems to be drawing in a different kind of audience as well, so. You know we’re just trying to continue to expand and not have a ceiling over our heads.

JAY: Right. You guys are still having a good time making music after all these years?

SULLY: Of course. We’re musicians, that’s what we do. It may not always be great music, but we love making it! [laughs]

JAY: Cuz music has a power…?

SULLY: Mmm hmm. It’s a universal language.

JAY: So what you say with it, and what you do with it, has an effect…?

SULLY: Of course.

JAY: Right?

SULLY: [emphatically] Of course.

<b>JAY: So I notice you guys have been really involved with promoting the military. [1]

SULLY: Well, they actually came to us, believe it or not.</b> Somebody in the Navy loves this band, because they used ‘Awake’ for three years and then they came to us and re-upped the contract for another three years for ‘Sick of Life.’ So, I don’t know. They just feel like that music, [laughs] someone in that place thinks that the music is very motivating for recruit commercials I guess. And hey, I’m an American boy so it’s not… I’m proud of it.

<b>JAY: You’re proud of recruiting your fans into the military?

SULLY: Well, no. [laughs, then playfully] Don’t be turning my fucking words around, you!

JAY: Well, tell me what you mean. You said your music is powerful, it’s got an effect, like you said, and you’re letting the military use it. The military, who are they recruiting? 18-to-30-year-olds, right?

SULLY: I guess… I don’t know what their recruit age is. I know it’s at least 18.

JAY: Yeah, they do down in the high schools now.

SULLY: My thing is… Listen, here’s my thing with the military. I’m not saying our government is perfect. Because I know that we make some mistakes and we do shitty things BUT, BUT. You wouldn’t have your job, and we wouldn’t have our lives, if we weren’t out there protecting this country so we could lead a free life.</b> So there’s kind of a ying and a yang to that. Sometimes it’s not always the best choices that we make, or we stick our noses in other people’s shit, but at the same time, we protect this place enough that we’re able to like pursue careers and do what a lot of people in other countries aren’t able to do. They’re kind of picked and they’re chosen to be whatever they become… I’m, I’m, I’m proud to be an American, I’ll tell you that.

<b>JAY: So your country, right or wrong?

SULLY: Uh, no. Not right or wrong. But I’m proud to be an American. I love my country. I’ve seen the depressions and how people live in other countries and how they’re told what to be, and they don’t have the choices that we have. I do love that about our country. So, you know… And I actually sympathize with a lot of the soliders, and the military in general, that are trained to go out and protect FOR us, and what they have to go through, it’s really kind of shitty in a sense that these young kids have to go over there and die, sometimes, for something that isn’t our fucking problem. And that kind of sucks. So what I have to do is at least support them, because they don’t have the choice that we do.

JAY: They don’t have the choice because…?

SULLY: Because they’ve decided to fight for our country.

JAY: And they decided to do that because…?

SULLY: [laughs]…</b>

JAY: Of your song…?

SULLY: Aw, come on. It’s not like that.

JAY: Well I have a quote from you here: “We’ve always been supportive of our country and our president, whereas a lot of people I thought”—and you said this in 2003, to MTV News, you said—”a lot of people I thought lashed out pretty quickly at what we did and I thought the government did everything pretty cleanly and publicly as possible.” [2]

SULLY: Yeah…?


JAY: Well, what are you talking about?

SULLY: That was my opinion at the time. The whole war thing, and trying to keep us up to date like… If you remember, back in other wars, we didn’t have the opportunity to follow it through the media, and CNN, and the news—live updates and that kind of thing. And I thought that for the most part you know we were allowed to follow it as best we could through the media sources that were feeding us information.

<b>JAY: [incredulous] You didn’t think the media was being controlled by the military?

SULLY: Well, it could be. I don’t know.

JAY: You didn’t look into it?</b>

SULLY: Listen. Are you a fucking government expert?

JAY: I’m not telling people to go join the military and then not knowing what the military is doing.

SULLY: I don’t tell people to go join the military!!

JAY: You don’t think using your songs—the POWER of your music, which you were talking about—has an effect on the people that hear it when it goes with the visuals that the best P.R. people in the world use?

SULLY: Oh man, are you like one of those guys that agrees with some kid that fuckin’ tied a noose around his neck because Judas Priest lyrics told him to?

JAY: You were telling me how powerful your music was, and what age the people are that listen to it, and you must have thought, ‘Well the Navy sure thought it was useful,’ so you tell me.

<b>SULLY: Hey, listen. The Navy thought….</b> It’s the same reason why wrestlers work out to the music, and extreme motorcross riders listen to the music and do what they do. It’s ENERGETIC music. It’s very ATHLETIC. People feel that they get an adrenaline rush out of it or whatever, so, it goes with whatever’s an extreme situation. But I doubt very seriously that a kid is going to join the Marines or the US Navy because he heard Godsmack as the underlying bed music in the commercial. They’re gonna go and join the Navy because they want to jump out of helicopters and fuckin’ shoot people! Or protect the country or whatever it is, and look at the cool infra-red goggles.

JAY: You said to MTV, “We’re not a very political band but we’re supportive of the U.S. military and how they approach things.” [2]

SULLY: Listen. Someone turned that around. I never said “and how they approach things.”

JAY: Okay. So that’s a misquote. Or something–

SULLY [interrupting]: Wow, what—

JAY: What about this? In 2003 you did a show that started with video footage of Apache helicopters”honing in on a desert target interspersed with the words ‘We will prevail…Stronger than them all.”

SULLY: Say that again?

JAY: I’m reading from a Boston Glove review of a show you did at the Tweeter Center.

SULLY: Yeah.

JAY: In front of 13,000 people on May 22, 2003.

SULLY: Yeah, but tell me what it said again.

JAY: Yes sir. It said “Godsmack’s ferociously high energy 90-minute set started with video footage of Apache helicopters honing in on a desert target, interspersed with the words ‘We will prevail…Stronger than them all.” [3]

SULLY: Yeah…?

<b>JAY: So you’re using military imagery with your music at your concerts?</b>

SULLY: First of all, it was a COMPUTER image, a computer-animated helicopter that didn’t… There was no scene of a desert in there. It was a helicopter that rose up from the screen and scanned the audience. It was an EFFECT. And then it shot out missiles that hit the stage.

JAY: Uh huh…

SULLY: Because the intro to ‘Straight Out of Line” has the sounds of like, a war thing going on.

JAY [trying to decide if Sully is dissembling or just obtuse]: Oh I see. So it’s just sort of a concept thing. [pause] Well, you’ve done a lot to help out the guys who are in the military, who are stuck there now, whether they chose to be there or they got hoodwinked into being there. For whatever reason, they’re in the military. And they’re doing their job. You guys did a show for them at Camp Pendleton–

SULLY: Yup.

JAY: —called “Rockin’ the Corps.” And so you’ve been doing a lot of benefit shows—

SULLY: [interrupting] Well, like I said, Listen you know, there’s a lot of young kids that die for our country, man, and they don’t have the choice once they’re in there.

JAY: That’s right.

SULLY: So I just feel well you know whatever we can do to say ‘thank you for protecting our country’ is what we try to do. I’m not trying to make this a big political issue.

JAY: Okay. Have you done anything to prevent people from joining the military?

SULLY: No.

JAY: To maybe educate them as to what’s in store for them?

SULLY: I don’t have enough education in the military to educate them in anything.

JAY: Would you let your music be used for anti-military recruiting advertisements?

SULLY: I don’t know, I ‘d have to see what that was about.

JAY: But you’d be open to it?

SULLY: We’re open to whatever, as long as it’s not a Maybelline commercial.

JAY: [laughs] Maybelline’s more offensive than the military…?

SULLY: No. That doesn’t quite go with what we do.

JAY: Buth the military does.

SULLY: Listen. Where are we going with this thing? Is this interview about the government—

JAY: Well, I’ve never seen such a pro-military—

SULLY: Sounds like this is a personal attack or whatever.

<b>JAY: Well I’ve never seen such a pro-military band as you guys. [4]</b>

SULLY: But we’re not! I think [chuckling] you’re making us out to be a little bit more. When we’re asked about something, we just answer the question. We don’t go spend 23 hours out of our day supporting the military and what they do.

JAY: Um hmm.

SULLY: We just simply, an opportunity came up, they wanted to use some music for a recruit commercial. What are we gonna say, no?

JAY: Yeah. How hard is it to say ‘no’?

SULLY: Why would we, though?!?

JAY: Because—

SULLY [interrupting]: Is it because you don’t feel the same way about the government that we do, makes you right and us wrong?

JAY: Yeah. What do you feel about the government? Tell me what—

SULLY: Aw, that’s crazy, man! That’s just an OPINION.

JAY: I can back my opinion up from here to tomorrow if you would like to talk to me all day long.

SULLY: Well obviously you’ve done a lot of research and you’ve—

JAY [interrupting]: That’s right, because—

SULLY: —got a different opinion. We don’t know that stuff that you know, so—

JAY [impatient]: Why don’t you do some research before you get involved with these sorts of things? You’re talking about young kids’ lives. You’re talking about kids—

SULLY: [yelling] Would you rather not have us be protected so they can come and overrun our country?!?

JAY: Do you know what a “fool’s errand” is?......

<b>Could the following exposure of Rumsfeld's culpability and his "defense", help explain why the troops in the Zogby poll didn't have a clue as to why the U.S. military had invaded Iraq, in the first place?</b>
It was Rumsfeld's turn <b>to be "shamed":</b>

http://www.crooksandliars.com/storie...dMcgovern.html
Watch the clip: <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/04.html#a8164">Here</a>

.......McGovern: Well we’re talking about lies and your allegation there was bulletproof evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq. Was that a lie? or where you mislead?

RUMSFELD: Zar..., Zarqawi was in Baghdad during the prewar period. That is a fact.

McGovern: Zarqawi? He was in the north of Iraq in a place where Saddam Hussein had no rule. That's where he was.

RUMSFELD: He was also… (crosstalk) He was also in Baghdad.

McGovern: Yes, when he needed to go to the hospital.

Come on, these people aren’t idiots. They know the story.

RUMSFELD: You are... Le...,Let me, Let me give you an example it's easy for you to make a charge, Um, but why do you think that the men and women in uniform every day when they came out of Kuwait and went into Iraq put on chemical weapon protective suits, because they like the, ah, style (laughter) They honestly believed that there where chemical weapons Saddam Hussein had used Chemical weapons on his own people previously, he'd used them on his neighbor the Iranians and they believed he had those weapons. We believed he had those weapons.

McGovern: That's what we call a non-secretor, it doesn't matter what the troops believe, it matters what you believe..........

The media quickly moved to "tidy up" the McGovern/Rumsfeld exchanges:

Media Matters - NBC, CBS, Fox cropped Rumsfeld questioner's ...
On May 4, retired CIA analyst Ray McGovern confronted Secretary of Defense ... out of Kuwait and went into Iraq, put on chemical weapon protective suits? ...
http://mediamatters.org/items/200605060001 - 53k - Cached - Similar pages

Except for this "dead" search result, The Wa Po has "scrubbed it" completely:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...EY.%20ATLANTA&
Rumsfeld Faces Barrage of Antiwar Protesters
Shannon McCaffrey, A20 (Post)
05/05/2006
Article
ATLANTA, May 4 -- Antiwar protesters repeatedly interrupted Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld during a speech Thursday, and one man...hostile questions. But the outbursts Rumsfeld confronted on Thursday seemed beyond the usual.Three protesters were escorted away by security as each interrupted Rumsfeld's speech by jumping up and shouting antiwar messages. Throughout the speech, a fourth protester...

Read Rumsfelds "answer" again.....he and the rest of TPTB, fed the troops and the American people a pile of fetid BS, and when they "swallowed" it, because of the post 9/11 "fear" presentation of Bushco propaganda, catapulted by a media apparatus, that, as the post "scrubbing" from MSM internet site of Rumsfeld's "chemical suits" answer, demonstrates....is still compliant and co-operative with TPTB, <b>Rumsfeld had the "gall" to answer that, BECAUSE the troops, "honestly believed that there where chemical weapons"</b>, somehow, he and the rest of the "pre-emptive war cabal", were somehow vindicated!

Ray McGovern responded to Rumsfeld's pathetic "dodge" by confronting him with a truth that the MSM shrunk from displaying on their websites:
<b>McGovern: "That's what we call a "non-sequitur", it doesn't matter what the troops believe, it matters what you believe.........."</b>

Seaver, discussion at both of the following threads,
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=104979">It's Time to Teach China a Lesson</a>
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?goto=lastpost&t=104440">Ahmadinejad's Letter to Bush</a> have "ground" to a halt, and I'm presuming that it's because no one wants to talk about what I've described and advocated. I think that the "object" of TPTB is world domination, and I've accepted that they've done so much damage to the U.S., that it's the only option left to us, and only if we act ASAP. IMO, the only "terrorists" that we actually have to fear, are the ones "leading" us, and I'm resigned to what they plan to do, because my "practical side" can't see the U.S. peacefully accepting the consequences of it's decision to mortgage and consume away it's fiscal stability. IMO, we spend enough on offensive weapons to achieve domination.

[Seaver]

The goal is world domination

You have statements like that before your links and then get mad people dont read them all?

And as for your Godsmack interview, I used to listen to them. I thought it was a great idea for the Navy to use their song. Yes, there is a correlation between young men and those who listen to rock. Yes, young men are who the military want to recruit. Your point? It's called advertising to your intended demographic. You wont get many recruits if you have flowers and hippies playing a guitar in your advertisements.

How this has anything to do with the terrorist threat, or your belief that Bush wants nothing short of world domination, I still dont know.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by jimbob

Actually I'm not too sure about the relevance of the thread as a whole. Are you suggesting that there are people who don't think terrorism exists, or do you simply think some people don't see it as a threat? A story about a group of alleged terrorists who were prevented from committing an act of terrorism indicates that there is a threat, but it is contained, so there's less of a need to worry. Let's be honest, worrying gets us nowhere. The lesson from this story is "stop worrying but stay vigilant".

I felt the same way when I first read his post but I think he may be referring to when I compare the "war on terror" to the 1984 war on Eurasia or Eastasia, which the novel quite strongly implies is imaginary. Therefore, it's not so far a stretch to think that such statements imply that terrorism is imaginary, which is not a statement I wish to make. We all watched two planes fly into the World Trade Center. Terrorism does happen.

However, the point I was trying to make is that a war, any war, can be used to justify any act by a government. We've seen countless examples of how the government has performed actions or passed laws that are clearly not in your best interests in order to "make you safe" and it's only getting worse. This is the analogy I was trying to make and it's still a strong one.

Furthermore, if there was ever a trumped up war, it's the "war on terror." Why is it a war? Why aren't you just looking for terrorists and the world goes about it's business as usual? The US governement is hyping the threat of terrorism in order to gain more power. It's been almost five years since 9/11 happened. If I recall correctly, only seven years before that, a home grown nut performed, what was then, the worst act of terrorism on US soil. So, it doesn't seem as if the threat of terrorism has risen any higher but the threat to your freedoms certainly has...

Originally Posted by Seaver

The purpose of the planned attack can not be simply written off as a lone delusional man as in Oklahoma City, it was to be a very well planned and highly organized attack with multiple members.

Can it be "written off" as a lone group of multiple delusional members?
Seriously, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. In what way do you think this might be "written off?" What does their orginaziation matter? And how organized were they? They were caught, after all...


It does seem to me that Seaver would gladly give up liberty for security, something with which I vehemently disagree. If you give up your civil liberties because of fear from the terrorists, they've already won...

Also, Seaver, if you don't mind, I'd like to complain about your thread title.

Couldn't you have picked a more descriptive thread title? One of my biggest peeves about web forums is when people choose thread titles that don't sufficiently describe the thread's subject. "Further proof" of what? Every time I see a thread titled like this, I always wonder if it's worth potentially wasting my time to see if the thread interests me. Next time, please don't be afraid to actually say what you want to talk about...

[Seaver]

It does seem to me that Seaver would gladly give up liberty for security, something with which I vehemently disagree. If you give up your civil liberties because of fear from the terrorists, they've already won...

It does seem to me you should look up people's past posts before making rediculous assumptions like this. I have never supported the loss of any liberties for US citizens.

And the difference between a lone person or group of multiple people is a big one. It takes a shared ideology, a great deal of communications, and much greater organization to pull things off in a group. They are also much more dangerous this way.

You may be sick of my thread title, I'm the blind Bush haters always stating that if you support the war against terrorism that you are doing it because you are scared. I'm not scared, I just realize this insident is yes, FURTHER PROOF that terrorism is a real and serious threat.

[KnifeMissile]

Originally Posted by Seaver

It does seem to me you should look up people's past posts before making rediculous assumptions like this. I have never supported the loss of any liberties for US citizens.

I only made that statement based on the content of your post in this thread. I don't normally read the Politics forum and your recalcitrant attitude isn't encouraging me to do so, again, in the future...

And the difference between a lone person or group of multiple people is a big one. It takes a shared ideology, a great deal of communications, and much greater organization to pull things off in a group. They are also much more dangerous this way.

All that being so, I don't see how this supports the claim that terrorism exists. Whether it be a group ideology or lone man madness, it exists.
And to be fair, they didn't pull anythng off, so their organization is suspect...

You may be sick of my thread title, I'm the blind Bush haters always stating that if you support the war against terrorism that you are doing it because you are scared. I'm not scared, I just realize this insident is yes, FURTHER PROOF that terrorism is a real and serious threat.

In response to your first paragraph, at least I read the post to which I'm responding! Please re-read that part of the post. I'll quote myself, here:

Originally Posted by KnifeMissile

Couldn't you have picked a more descriptive thread title? One of my biggest peeves about web forums is when people choose thread titles that don't sufficiently describe the thread's subject. "Further proof" of what? Every time I see a thread titled like this, I always wonder if it's worth potentially wasting my time to see if the thread interests me. Next time, please don't be afraid to actually say what you want to talk about...

So, let me clarify: I'm not sick of the topic of your thread, I'm annoyed by the lack of content in the title!

Now, having re-read my own post, I think I may have found what threw you off. When I said "'Further proof' of what?" I'm not implying that you have no proof. I'm merely saying that you didn't say what the subject of your proof is in your title, which is essential information for your title to have any meaning. I had thought the preceding (and following!) sentence(s) would have given enough context so that you wouldn't construe such an obstinate intention, but apparently not...

[host]

Originally Posted by host

The goal is world domination

Seaver, I am not "mad"....I'm frustrated that so few people are willing to do the, IMO, not too difficult "work" of "connecting the dots. Consider their "statement", consider the "roster" of PNAC members, and the positions that they've held in the Bush administration, and consider that defense and intelligence spending has more than doubled in just six budget years after they took power.....all the info to document these points is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century

...........A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic............

The jury is still out, Seaver, as to whether it's just "sh*t luck" that <b>"the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."</b>, line was a "prescient coincidence", or whether the "process of transformation" was somehow accelerated by the complicity of PNAC members in the "events" of 9/11.

My point again, Seaver, is that the PNAC cabal got everything that they wanted since the formation of the group in 1997. They've detailed everything that they've wanted to accomplish. What parts of their twisted, aggressive declarations would you suggest that I not react to?

Do you expect that they will spell their agenda out, more obviously than they already have? They declared what they wanted to accomplish in the areas of world domination via military supremacy, and our paper money has the status of a "dead man walking", as a direct result of the execution of their plan.

I'm a practical person who now accepts that they've boxed us into a corner, economically, and diplomatically......first by a secretive energy policy that reduced to zero, the possibility of decreasing national dependence on petroleum, even as the price rose (oil was $!0 per bbl near the end of the Clinton administration....and the economic justification and imperative to promote alternative energy sources rose with the price....during the PNAC reign).....then..... by whatever their culpability or non-interference with 9/11 attacks really was, and lastly by using the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to turn a budget surplus into a spending bonanza that is funneled to their connected friends in the military industrtial complex and in pertoleum related businesses.

The result is not a "war on terror". The "war" is against everyone who sees past their quest for hegemony and reacts by resisting. It isn't a patriotic quest, either, Seaver. These folks are not patriots/ They are power and money grubbing parasites with a quest for empire building as old as human history.

Look at what they've written, look at what they've done, look at where the U.S. is economically, militarilly, diplomatically, and look at the accumulating trade, treasury, and budget deficits, now, vs. six years ago,

How do you think that, other than at the point of gun or of an ICBM, the U.S. will continue to be able to purchase 14 million bbls a day of petroleum, and finance, at current forward levels, a $1.4 trillion annual combined trade and budget deficit, and service the interest obligation on the current $14 trillion combined treasury and trade debt?

Will we simply print more paper money to pay for it all, Seaver.....and will the purchasing power of the newly printed fiat money magically remain at current levels?

The rising prices of Gold, Silver, Light Sweet Texas Crude, copper, coffee, other commodities, as well as the Euro and the Canadian dollar, all already indicate that the answer is no.

So.....then what's left to do, Seaver? I predict that we will take....by force, what we are no longer capable of paying for....with our currency trashed by the execution of the PNAC agenda. Other realistic scenarios are always welcome.....but no one seems to have any.....to post.

[Dilbert1234567]

Originally Posted by Seaver

You wont get many recruits if you have flowers and hippies playing a guitar in your advertisements.

That would hilarious.