Pigs Blood

[hawkeye]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ugetsum
[B]

Originally posted by hawkeye
what utter bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
its fools like yourselves that love war, that breed hatred, that perpetuate racism.


You have things backwards you jerk off! We don't love war! We don't love to have our troops die! We were attacked on 9/11 by a people that hate us simply because we're Americans. Period. For no other reason. That's racism you idiot! They're children are raised to hate us and to believe that killing is and dieing for the purpose of killing us is a glorious thing. We invaded Iraq believing there were WMD's there and they were planning on using them against us. Even though the WMD's haven't been found there is evidence that Iraq was planning to attack American targets, even Russia warned us of this. Hussein even attempted to have the first President Bush assassinated. Get your shit straight. You're a fucking joke!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dear ignorant brainwashed moron no 1.-please read

Al Qaeda Connection
ALL THE LIES:
Cheney has claimed that the bombings in Iraq were related to blasts in Bali, Casablanca and Riyadh carried out by Al Qaeda.

According to a senior administration officials there is no conclusive evidence pointing to any particular group as being responsible for the bombings. “At this point, it isn’t clear who’s responsible for these bombings.” (55)

On November 7, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein” is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. . . . A true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda” (2003 SOU)

In his February 5, 2003 address to the United Nations, Secretary Powell stated that “what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations with modern methods of mass murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin laden and his al-Qaeda lieutenants.”
On July 24, 2003, Vice President Cheney cited Iraq’s “ties to terrorist groups” as a justification for the war.
In his “victory” speech on the USS Lincoln, Bush proclaimed “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”
In September 2003, Cheney claimed US success in Iraq is “a major blow right at the heart of the . . . geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.”

ALL THE FACTS:
In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no “smoking-gun concrete evidence about” a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda. (63)
A January 2004 report by the Army War College agreed and found “[t]he war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism.” The war diverted valuable resources from the fight against Al Qaeda and homeland security. (72)
The Carnegie Foundation study on Iraqi WMDs also found no evidence of a link. (70)
The Joint Congressional Committee on September 11th Report concluded that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Committee member Max Cleeland explained “[w]hat you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”
A UN terrorism committee also found no evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link other than Secretary Powell’s speech.

At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link. Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda” and reported this to the White House.”

In addition, the Zarqawi claim is a red herring since the administration had several chances to wipe out his organization or even kill him but never pulled the trigger because “the administration had set its course with Iraq.” (87)

The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.” British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies. (6)

The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research dismissed the alleged link, claiming that the Bush administration “has had a faith based intelligence attitude.” (20)

In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11. (36)

SOURCE:http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm
Sources: (1) Gordon & Risen – New York Times 01.28.03, Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response, Donovan – Toronto Star 01.31.03; (2) Gordon & Risen – New York Times 01.28.03, Hans – Common Dreams.org 02.04.03, Ackerman & Judis – The New Republic 06.30.03, Schorr – Christian Science Monitor 10.24.03, Gellman – Washington Post 10.26.03; (3) Washington Post 10.22.02, 60 Minutes 12.06.02, Gordon – New York Times 01.10.03, Warrick – Washington Post 03.08.03, Ackerman & Judis – The New Republic 06.30.03; (4) Miller & Preston – New York Times 01.31.03, Bennis – The Nation 02.05.03; (5) Washington Post 10.22.02; (6) Risen & Johnston - New York Times 02.02.03, BBC News 05.03.03, AP – Washington Times 07.12.03, Waterman – UPI 07.23.03, Gilliard – Daily Kos 07.25.03; (7) 60 Minutes 12.06.02, Prague Post 07.15.02, FAIR Media Advisory 06.20.03, Ackerman & Judis – The New Republic 06.30.03; (8) Institute for Public Accuracy SOU Response; (9) New York Times 01.31.03; SOU - 2003 State of the Union Address; (9) FAIR Media Advisory- 02.27.03 (citing Newsweek report); (10) Raddatz - ABCNews.com 03.10.03, Hersch – The New Yorker 03.31.03, Pincus – Washington Post 06.13.03; (11) Washington Post – 04.03.03; (12) Kempner – BBC 05.15.03, Scheer – Los Angeles Times 05.20.03, BBC News; (13) Siddiqui – Toronto Star 03.13.03; (14) Pincus & Milbank – Washington Post 03.18.03; Independent 01.25.04; (15) Burns – New York Times 03.13.03, Gilliard – Daily Kos 07.25.03; (16) Fidler – Financial Times 03.27.03, Ivins – Fort Worth Star Telegram 10.16.03, The Daily Mis-Lead 10.06.03; (17) Ruben Bannerjee – Al Jazeera 04.06.03, NOW Update 05.22.03, Scheer – AlterNet.org 06.10.03; (17A) Gumbel – The Independent 04.13.03, Ivins – Dallas Star-Telegram 05.11.03, Rose – Lowcountry NOW 05.02.03; (18) Kessler – Washington Post 03.21.03, Milbank – Washington Post 03.25.03, NOW – The Truth About George Update – 04.17.03; (19) Ackerman & Judis – The New Republic 06.30.03, Krugman – New York Times 10.3.03; (20) Rivers-Pitt – Truthout.org 07.11.03, McGovern –AlternNet 06.30.03, NBC News 07.21.03, Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; (21) Scheer – AlterNet 06.27.03), Corn – The Nation (09/15/03); (22) Pincus & Allen – Washington Post 07.13.03, Miller – Los Angeles Times 07.12.03; (23) Pincus – Washington Post 06.22.03); Axheswe – Los Angeles Times 07.10.03; (24) Canadaeast.com 07.18.03; (25) Milbank – Washington Post 07.20.03; (26) Milbank – Washington Post 07.23.03; (27) Krugman – New York Times 07.22.03; (28) Ackerman – The New Republic 07.23.03; Loven – AP 07.24.03, Allen – Washington Post 07.25.03; (29) Waxman – FindLaw.com 08.19.03; (30) Ireland – The Nation 06.23.03; (31) Cowles – The New Republic 08.18.03, Gellman & Pincus – Washington Post Weekly 08.14.03; (32) Gellman & Pincus – Washington Post Weekly 08.14.03; (33) Kwiatkowski – LewRockwell.com 08.11.03; (34) Noah – Slate 07.15.03, AP 03.10.04; (35) Allen – Washington Post 07.25.03; (36) Corn – The Nation 09.15.03, Washington - Boston Globe 09,18.03, Daily Mis-Lead 09.23.03 (37) Pincus – Washington Post 09.09.03; (38) Zunes – Common Dreams 09.08.03; (39) Cowles – New Republic 09.22.03; (40) Cowles – New Republic 09.29.03, Gerth - New York Times 10.05.03; (41) Dobbs – Washington Post Weekly 09.22.03, Corn – BushLies.com 10.28.03; (42) Benjamin – Slate 08.31.03; (43) Daily Mis-Lead 09.26.03, Daily Mis-Lead 11.07.03; (44) Daily Mis-Lead 09.25.03; (45) Daily Mis-Lead 10.16.03; (46) CBS News.com 10.15.03; Kessler – Washington Post 02.03.04; (47) Drogin – The New Republic 10.27.03; (48) Drogin – The New Republic 10.27.03; (49) Gellman – Washington Post 10.26.03, Bowers – Christian Science Monitor 10.06.03; (50) Priest & Kessler – Washington Monthly 10.06.02, (51) AP 10.28.03, The Daily MisLead 10.29.03, Channel News Asia 10.30.03; (52) New York Times 10.04.03, Drogin – The New Republic 10.27.03; (53) Zogby – The Jordan Times 10.21.03; (54) Institute for Public Accuracy 10.29.03, (55) Corn – BushLies.com 11.11.03; (56) Noah – Slate 11.14.03; (57) Washington Post 12.30.02; (58) McCarthy – Florida Today 12.15.03; (59) Milbank – Washington Post 12.18.03; (60) ABCNews.com 12.16.03, Stevenson – New York Times 12.18.03; (61) Daily MisLead 12.17.03; (62) Corn – The Nation 01.08.04; (63) Marquis – New York Times 01.09.04; (64) Gellman – Washington Post 01.07.04, Jackson – Boston Globe 01.09.04; (65) Jackson – Boston Globe 12.03.03; (66) Daily MisLead 12.03.03, Allen – Washington Post 12.04.03; (67) Daily MisLead 12.19.03; (68) Pincus – Washington Post 12.24.03; (69) Center for American Progress 12.13.03; (70) WMD in Iraq – Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; (71) 60 Minutes 01.11.14; Dreyfus & Vest – Mother Jones Jan-Feb 04; Suskind – The Price of Loyalty. (72) Bounding the Global War on Terror – Army War College; (73) Daily MisLead 01.06.04; (74) Daily MisLead 12.23.03; (75) Independent – 01.25.04; (76) Buncombe – Independent 01.24.04; (77) Center for American Progress 01.23.03; (78) Daily MisLead 01.28.04, The Center for American Progress 01.29.04; (79) Center for American Progress 01.28.04; (80) Daily MisLead 02.05.04; (81) New Republic 02.02.04; (82) Corn – The Nation 02.15.04, Center for American Progress – Claim v. Fact: The President on Meet the Press (“Meet the Press Claims”) 02.09.04; (83) Meet the Press Claims 02.09.04; (84) Progress Report 03.15.04; (85) Borger – The Guardian 02.24.04; (86) 60 Minutes 03.14.04; (87) Progress Report 03.03.04, (88) Center for American Progress State of the Union Response 01.20.04; (89) Daily MisLead 05.06.05; (90) Center for American Progress 04.21.04.

[ugetsum]

Originally posted by hawkeye
Dear ignorant brainwashed moron no 1.-please read

Al Qaeda Connection
ALL THE LIES:
Cheney has claimed that the bombings in Iraq were related to blasts in Bali, Casablanca and Riyadh carried out by Al Qaeda.

According to a senior administration officials there is no conclusive evidence pointing to any particular group as being responsible for the bombings. “At this point, it isn’t clear who’s responsible for these bombings.” (55)

On November 7, 2002, President Bush said that Saddam Hussein” is a threat because he is dealing with Al Qaeda. . . . A true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”

“Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda” (2003 SOU)

In his February 5, 2003 address to the United Nations, Secretary Powell stated that “what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations with modern methods of mass murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Osama bin laden and his al-Qaeda lieutenants.”
On July 24, 2003, Vice President Cheney cited Iraq’s “ties to terrorist groups” as a justification for the war.
In his “victory” speech on the USS Lincoln, Bush proclaimed “We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda.”
In September 2003, Cheney claimed US success in Iraq is “a major blow right at the heart of the . . . geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11.”

ALL THE FACTS:
In January 2004, Secretary Powell conceded that there is no “smoking-gun concrete evidence about” a connection with Iraq and Al Qaeda. (63)
A January 2004 report by the Army War College agreed and found “[t]he war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism.” The war diverted valuable resources from the fight against Al Qaeda and homeland security. (72)
The Carnegie Foundation study on Iraqi WMDs also found no evidence of a link. (70)
The Joint Congressional Committee on September 11th Report concluded that there is no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Committee member Max Cleeland explained “[w]hat you’ve seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends.”
A UN terrorism committee also found no evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link other than Secretary Powell’s speech.

At the same time as the release of the 9-11 Report, a former Bush intelligence official revealed that the White House knew there was no basis for the link. Former State Dept. intelligence official Greg Thielman stated that the intelligence agencies agreed on the “lack of a meaningful connection to Al Qaeda” and reported this to the White House.”

In addition, the Zarqawi claim is a red herring since the administration had several chances to wipe out his organization or even kill him but never pulled the trigger because “the administration had set its course with Iraq.” (87)

The CIA, FBI and British intelligence have found no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. One FBI official stated that “[w]e’ve been looking at this hard for more than a year and . . . we just don’t think its there.” British intelligence reports that Hussein and fundamentalist Bin Laden are ideological enemies. (6)

The director of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence & Research dismissed the alleged link, claiming that the Bush administration “has had a faith based intelligence attitude.” (20)

In September 2003, Bush finally admitted that there was “no evidence” linking Iraq to 9-11. (36)

SOURCE:http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm

Again, I state that you're a fucking joke! Please use a source that's a little less biased than this quack website.

[spidey]

Any site named "Bushlies.com" must be completely objective, right? :rofl:

What about Russian President Putin himself admitting that he gave us intelligence after 9/11 that Sadaam was planning massive terrorist attacks on US soil? What about the head hyjacker meeting with Iraqi intelligence agents only the week before 9/11? I suppose they could have just been having lunch and discussing the weather......

[Primal Instinct]

Actually, Putin hadn't announced any Russian intelligence reports about Al Qaeda attacks on US soil until after he met with Bush one week earlier. Putin isn't a very reputable guy either, as he has suppressed the only independent television station in Russia after they openly criticized the Russian government policy on personal freedom of Russian citizens. Putin then had the owner jailed. All of this PRIOR to his recent re-election. He is still a hardliner at heart.

As for the hijacker (Atta) meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials, that has been debunked by the 9/11 Commission because they have proof that Atta was in the US at the very same point in time as he was purported to be meeting overseas for the "meeting" and the evidence was false or fabricated.

Obviously, Bushlies.com IS very slanted but the facts and quotes by US government officials presented by Hawkeye above can be verified by conventional media sources listed in the footnotes (eg., Washington Post, 60 Minutes, Boston Globe, NY Times, LA Times, etc...) as well as Congressional investigation findings. A simple Google search would surely clarify these questions.

[ugetsum]

[

Obviously, Bushlies.com IS very slanted but the facts and quotes by US government officials presented by Hawkeye above can be verified by conventional media sources listed in the footnotes (eg., Washington Post, 60 Minutes, Boston Globe, NY Times, LA Times, etc...) as well as Congressional investigation findings. A simple Google search would surely clarify these questions. [/B][/QUOTE]

There were some mistakes made. I don't think anyone questions that. However, Hawks original post stated that we breed hate and racism. Taking quotes out of context from a biased website proves nothing other than his ignorance. And for any American to defend this idiot just blows my mind!

[Primal Instinct]

ugetsum,

I don't agree with the Americans love war and breed hate comment either. I was not trying to defend Hawkeye but simply acting as an honest broker with regards to his subsequent post.

Hawkeye,

No one here on this board sets US foriegn policy nor has anyone of us had a vote towards any actions taken by our current government policies overseas or here at home. Policy is not based on a referendum vote. Whether any of us agree with it or not is basically irrelevant for all intensive purposes. We are fortunate in the fact that we can openly disagree with our government's policies whereas other nations (Russia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, etc...) do not have that luxury. Open debate is what makes the free democratic countries of the world so desireable to others on the outside looking inside. It is not accurate to paint all US citizens with a broad stroke as war mongering or with racist tendencies. That is an unfair characterization of millions of people. We do not classify all muslims as terrorists or an inept backwards society so please don't call us bloodthirsty.

[hitmansb]

Quite frankly, I don't even care that Bush and his administration lied to get into the middle east to start kicking ass. As far as I'm concerned, the ends justify the means....and a crackdown on these Islamic fundamentalist cocksuckers has been a long time in coming. I only wish the scope was broader, and that the U.S. military would pummel Syria, Iran, and a few others while they are in the neighborhood.

[Breeze]

Re: Pigs Blood

Originally posted by goliath
let's start soaking all of our bullets in pigs blood. Then, drop flyers accross the entire middle east that informs all of them that we are doing such. lol - then see how long it takes them to stop shooting at us!

In 1911, US General "Black Jack" Pershing ordered a group of Muslim terrorists executed during a campaign in the Phillipines. He had a mass grave dug, and buried the terrorists with pigs blood and entrails- guess what? their friends stopped fucking with US troops after that- of course, those were the days before political correctness- we need another Black Jack Pershing IMO:usa:

[goliath]

Re: Re: Pigs Blood

Originally posted by Breeze
In 1911, US General "Black Jack" Pershing ordered a group of Muslim terrorists executed during a campaign in the Phillipines. He had a mass grave dug, and buried the terrorists with pigs blood and entrails- guess what? their friends stopped fucking with US troops after that- of course, those were the days before political correctness- we need another Black Jack Pershing IMO

i would also like to add that there were 49 terrorists caputured, 48 of them were executed while the 49th was set free to go tell everyone what had happened to their brothers. there was not a terrorist act commited by a muslim for 42 years after that day.

[JUICE]

Re: Re: Pigs Blood

Originally posted by Breeze
In 1911, US General "Black Jack" Pershing ordered a group of Muslim terrorists executed during a campaign in the Phillipines. He had a mass grave dug, and buried the terrorists with pigs blood and entrails- guess what? their friends stopped fucking with US troops after that- of course, those were the days before political correctness- we need another Black Jack Pershing IMO:usa:

that sounds like a sweet idea. Wish that could happen

[jack152]

Spidey,

Here is the (AP) article on the info:

Putin: Russia Gave Bush Iraq Intelligence

Jun 18, 8:26 AM (ET)

By BAGILA BUKHARBAYEVA

ASTANA, Kazakhstan (AP) - Russia gave the Bush administration
intelligence
after
the September 11 attacks that suggested Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq
was
preparing attacks in the United States, President Vladimir Putin said
Friday.
Putin said he couldn't comment on how critical the Russians'
information was
in
the U.S. decision to invade Iraq. He said Russia didn't have any
information
that Saddam's regime had actually been behind any terrorist acts.
"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation
in
Iraq,
the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received
information
that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in
the
United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other
interests,"
Putin said.
He said the United States had thanked Russia for the information. There
was
no
immediate comment from U.S. officials.
"It's one thing to have information that Saddam's regime is preparing
terrorist
attacks, (but) we didn't have information that it was involved in any
known
terrorist attacks," Putin said in the Kazakh capital Astana after
regional
economic and security summits.
Putin said the intelligence didn't cause Russia to waver from its firm
opposition to the war.
"Despite that information about terrorist attacks being prepared by
Saddam's
regime, Russia's position on Iraq remains unchanged," Putin said.
Putin didn't elaborate on any details of the terror plots or mention
whether
they were tied to the al-Qaida terror network.
A commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States
reported
this week that while there were contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq,
they did
not
appear to have produced "a collaborative relationship."
President Bush, however, insisted Thursday that Saddam had "numerous
contacts"
with al-Qaida and said Iraqi agents had met with the terror network's
leader,
Osama bin Laden, in Sudan.
Saddam "was a threat because he had terrorist connections - not only
al-Qaida
connections, but other connections to terrorist organizations," Bush
said.

[Primal Instinct]

I'm simply amazed that Bush and Cheney are constantly insinuating that there is evidence to show Al Qaeda and Iraq had support ties to each other yet when pressed, they never produce a single shred of credible evidence. The Atta hijacker meeting had been rebuked, the yellowcake uranium claim rebuffed, the documents that were presented as evidence to a meeting were pronounced by various experts as forged, yet we should take them at face value? C'mon people...we are smarter than that. If there was solid evidence the White House would have had it plastered all over the news, you better believe it. They have burned all of their bridges with regards to trustworthiness and public integrity.



There are some serious questions that I still have about the presidential account of the sequence of events on the morning of 9/11. Stuff seriously doesn't add up. Bush's own account is flawed and no one has seriously questioned him on this- not to mention the fact that he won't testify to the events UNDER OATH.

[goliath]

Originally posted by Primal Instinct
Bush's own account is flawed and no one has seriously questioned him on this- not to mention the fact that he won't testify to the events UNDER OATH.

when asked if he would testify, on camera, he stumbled on his words and said, "well...testify? they can come down here and i'll be happy to talk to em'".

[Primal Instinct]

Originally posted by goliath
when asked if he would testify, on camera, he stumbled on his words and said, "well...testify? they can come down here and i'll be happy to talk to em'".

Hell, I'm talking about how he told different groups at speeches he gave describing the sequence of events on the morning of 9/11. In a speech only two months after the attacks, he told the audience that he was at the elementary school in Florida that morning and was waiting to go onstage to be with some children to promote a reading program. He said that he saw the first plane crash into the north tower on the TV located just off-stage. Bush said he thought that it was a bad accident attributted to pilot error. He then went on soon afterwards and was doing his thing when his Chief of Staff Andrew Card came onstage and whispered to him that a second plane struck the south tower. It was shortly after that he made an announcement and left for the airport to get to safety on Air Force One.


What's the problem with this? The problem is that the first plane hit the WTC at 8:45am. The second plane hit the south tower while Bush was onstage with the kids at 9:03am. Bush arrived at the elementary school at approximately 9am, about 15 minutes after the first crash. He couldn't have seen it live because there were no news crews on the scene- after all, they didn't know it was going to happen. The only footages available on that day was that from tourists and from the firefighter documentary crew several blocks away. Here's the kicker folks, the only footage available to the media on television on September 11th was that of the second plane striking the tower. This is because film crews were already at the WTC filming the damage from the aftermath of the first plane strike. You see, the earliest run footage from the first plane didn't air on TV until the next day! Bush couldn't possibly have seen the first plane strike footage on TV while at the elementary school as he claims because it wasn't even in network TV hands yet. He couldn't have confused it with the second plane footage either because he was already onstage with the kids when THAT happened. So then why did he lie about it?

Here's the link to the speech he gave just four weeks after the first speech in Ontario, California. In this speech, he claims the same scenario as he did previously in his speech in Florida.

Here's another link from CNN laying out the timeline of 9/11 events as they unfolded..

This is just one example of things that just don't match up with his story. There are several others that concerned me as well. It just doesn't sit right with me. :(


*edit* To make matters clearer, the film footage of the 1st crash wasn't available to TV networks because it wasn't sold to them by the private owners of the footage until 9/12. Only after that point, it was aired on national TV. Get it?

[majoradams]

I agree with the pigs blood.........