mr mahs

Conspiracy thinkers listen up...

To hell with the fench,the dixie chicks or whomever I decide to boycott.. They chose to speak out.. I choose.. being we live in a free society not to purchase their products period....

As the wheels turn and the conspiracy theory brews what can this be?.. another made up story in the 007 like secrecy of the government... YAWN.... What I can't understand is that you will give sadam the benefit of the doubt but when it comes to your own country you are hesitant to beleive... that's just sad brother real sad..

Good post..

I saw PVD in Mimai at Space and felt the same thing bro.. I am also very shocked that he played that garbage DARKBEAT remix like he did in MIAMI.. I though he did that because Osacr G is the resident but if he played last night=CHEESE ... Coming from a person who loved PVD he is so disapointing shame..

OOPS mY bad he, he I meant to write Teddy...

I posted this on another thread and wanted to make a topic so to clear this portrayal of ant-iamerican sentiment in Iraq.. The anti-liberation media have tried to spread that a ant-american in the majority of Iraq this is untrue... Below is a article that explain who is really behind the protests.. April 17, 2003 -- TWO weeks before the war to liberate Iraq began, Syria's President Bashar Assad made a visit to Tehran for 12 hours of "dense talks" with Iran's ruling mullahs. The visit, Bashar's fifth in two years, underlined his growing dependence on Iran as a regional ally. (By comparison, Bashar's father, the late President Hafez Assad, visited Tehran just once in his 30-year rule, and then only for six hours.) At the visit's end, officials on both sides spoke of the "strategic partnership" between the Syrian Ba'athist regime and the Khomeinist ruling clique in Tehran. Both sides knew that the war had become inevitable and that Saddam's days were numbered. But they did not think the "Vampire of Baghdad" would fall so quickly. Just days before the war Ali Khamenehi, the "Supreme Guide" of the ruling mullahs in Tehran, prophesied that Iraq would become " a quagmire" for the American "Great Satan," signaling its "final destruction." Bashar called on Arabs to prepare for "holy war" against "the invaders." Tehran and Damascus did their best to prolong the war: * Iraqi Shiite parties, financed by Iran and headquartered in Tehran, called on their brethren in Iraq not to cooperate with "the invading forces." * Iranian "sleeper" terrorist cells in southern Iraq issued death threats against clerics who wished to welcome the coalition. * Syria, for its part, began shipping Russian-made and other military equipment and spare parts, to Iraq while opening its borders to Arab " volunteers for martyrdom" who wished to fight to save Saddam. With the fall of Saddam, the Syrian and Iranian regimes move to the top of the Richter scale for rogue states. Both have a record of sponsoring terrorism, have stockpiled chemical weapons and have a history of human-rights violations. Both know that they could be the next targets for regime change, not necessarily through direct U.S. military intervention. The leadership elites in Damascus and Tehran are divided over how to cope with the new situation created in the region. One faction urges change to transform Iran and Syria from rogue states sponsoring terrorism into law-abiding ones keen to seek a role in building a new Middle East. Another faction wants to turn Iraq into "a giant-size West Bank" for the United States and organize a campaign of terror designed to wear out Washington's resolve and force it to withdraw from the region in despair. The reformist faction in Syria includes technocrats such as Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shiraa and Economy Minister Ghassan al-Rifai, and is backed by younger army officers, businessmen and segments of the ruling Ba'ath Party. The anti-reform camp in Syria is led by Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam and Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Tlas, and supported by the military-security mafia that is plundering occupied Lebanon. Until recently, the pro-reform faction claimed to have President Assad's "quiet support." That, however, may have been a case of self-deception. Right now, Bashar appears to be on the side of the old guard. In Iran, the pro-reform faction is led by former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mussavi and includes clerics, parliamentarians and businessmen who seek a change of course by the regime. The faction is partly supported by President Muhammad Khatami, a mid-ranking mullah once seen as a possible leader for the reform movement. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani leads Tehran's anti-reform faction, with former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati acting as chief theoretician. Khamenehi, also a mid-ranking mullah, supports this faction. The anti-reform factions in Tehran and Damascus are working hand in hand to prevent, or at least postpone, the emergence of a democratic system in Iraq. They are active on three fronts. On one front, they are using their Iraqi Shiite clients as a means of preventing the Shiite community from taking part in U.S.-led plans for a new government. Together, Iran and Syria control five Iraqi Shiite groups: * The Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), led by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer Hakim Tabatabai (also a top leader of Tehran's anti-reform faction). * The Islamic Call Party, led by Muhammad Bahr al-Olum. * The Islamic Labor Party, led by Muhamad-Taqi Mudarressi. * The Iraqi branch of the Hezbollah, a semi-clandestine military organization with "sleeper" cells in some Iraqi Shiite cities. * The Badr Brigade, led by Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim. On the second front, Syria also controls a number of smaller Iraqi groups, including a breakaway branch of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. The Syrians hope that, if things do not settle in Iraq, they might be able to set up an Iraqi Ba'athist regime in exile and challenge a pro-American government wishing to seek recognition from Arab and Muslim countries. On a third front, Iran and Syria are actively campaigning to prevent Arab and Muslim countries from recognizing a new pro-American government in Baghdad. The opening shot in this joint attack on any such government came earlier this month, when a mob murdered Hojat al-Islam Abdel-Majid al-Khoei, a moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric, in Najaf. Few may have noticed it, but Iraq has already become the latest battleground between the Tehran-Damascus axis and the United States and its allies. E-mail: amirtaheri

The anti-liberation media have tried to spread that a ant-american in the majority of Iraq this is untrue... Below is a article that explain who is really behind the protests.. April 17, 2003 -- TWO weeks before the war to liberate Iraq began, Syria's President Bashar Assad made a visit to Tehran for 12 hours of "dense talks" with Iran's ruling mullahs. The visit, Bashar's fifth in two years, underlined his growing dependence on Iran as a regional ally. (By comparison, Bashar's father, the late President Hafez Assad, visited Tehran just once in his 30-year rule, and then only for six hours.) At the visit's end, officials on both sides spoke of the "strategic partnership" between the Syrian Ba'athist regime and the Khomeinist ruling clique in Tehran. Both sides knew that the war had become inevitable and that Saddam's days were numbered. But they did not think the "Vampire of Baghdad" would fall so quickly. Just days before the war Ali Khamenehi, the "Supreme Guide" of the ruling mullahs in Tehran, prophesied that Iraq would become " a quagmire" for the American "Great Satan," signaling its "final destruction." Bashar called on Arabs to prepare for "holy war" against "the invaders." Tehran and Damascus did their best to prolong the war: * Iraqi Shiite parties, financed by Iran and headquartered in Tehran, called on their brethren in Iraq not to cooperate with "the invading forces." * Iranian "sleeper" terrorist cells in southern Iraq issued death threats against clerics who wished to welcome the coalition. * Syria, for its part, began shipping Russian-made and other military equipment and spare parts, to Iraq while opening its borders to Arab " volunteers for martyrdom" who wished to fight to save Saddam. With the fall of Saddam, the Syrian and Iranian regimes move to the top of the Richter scale for rogue states. Both have a record of sponsoring terrorism, have stockpiled chemical weapons and have a history of human-rights violations. Both know that they could be the next targets for regime change, not necessarily through direct U.S. military intervention. The leadership elites in Damascus and Tehran are divided over how to cope with the new situation created in the region. One faction urges change to transform Iran and Syria from rogue states sponsoring terrorism into law-abiding ones keen to seek a role in building a new Middle East. Another faction wants to turn Iraq into "a giant-size West Bank" for the United States and organize a campaign of terror designed to wear out Washington's resolve and force it to withdraw from the region in despair. The reformist faction in Syria includes technocrats such as Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shiraa and Economy Minister Ghassan al-Rifai, and is backed by younger army officers, businessmen and segments of the ruling Ba'ath Party. The anti-reform camp in Syria is led by Vice President Abdel-Halim Khaddam and Defense Minister Gen. Mostafa Tlas, and supported by the military-security mafia that is plundering occupied Lebanon. Until recently, the pro-reform faction claimed to have President Assad's "quiet support." That, however, may have been a case of self-deception. Right now, Bashar appears to be on the side of the old guard. In Iran, the pro-reform faction is led by former Prime Minister Mir-Hussein Mussavi and includes clerics, parliamentarians and businessmen who seek a change of course by the regime. The faction is partly supported by President Muhammad Khatami, a mid-ranking mullah once seen as a possible leader for the reform movement. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani leads Tehran's anti-reform faction, with former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati acting as chief theoretician. Khamenehi, also a mid-ranking mullah, supports this faction. The anti-reform factions in Tehran and Damascus are working hand in hand to prevent, or at least postpone, the emergence of a democratic system in Iraq. They are active on three fronts. On one front, they are using their Iraqi Shiite clients as a means of preventing the Shiite community from taking part in U.S.-led plans for a new government. Together, Iran and Syria control five Iraqi Shiite groups: * The Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI), led by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqer Hakim Tabatabai (also a top leader of Tehran's anti-reform faction). * The Islamic Call Party, led by Muhammad Bahr al-Olum. * The Islamic Labor Party, led by Muhamad-Taqi Mudarressi. * The Iraqi branch of the Hezbollah, a semi-clandestine military organization with "sleeper" cells in some Iraqi Shiite cities. * The Badr Brigade, led by Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim. On the second front, Syria also controls a number of smaller Iraqi groups, including a breakaway branch of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party. The Syrians hope that, if things do not settle in Iraq, they might be able to set up an Iraqi Ba'athist regime in exile and challenge a pro-American government wishing to seek recognition from Arab and Muslim countries. On a third front, Iran and Syria are actively campaigning to prevent Arab and Muslim countries from recognizing a new pro-American government in Baghdad. The opening shot in this joint attack on any such government came earlier this month, when a mob murdered Hojat al-Islam Abdel-Majid al-Khoei, a moderate Iraqi Shiite cleric, in Najaf. Few may have noticed it, but Iraq has already become the latest battleground between the Tehran-Damascus axis and the United States and its allies. E-mail: amirtaheri

Socialism... would be perfect even thoughnit has FAILED in so many countries... She is so brainwashed by some loon professer on her campus that preaches socialsm and anti-american rhetoric... Sassa To answer you r question of why we think we are great.... We are...

The world could give 2 shits about our well being. So you want to know what?? I am glad they follow a in your face diplomacy because pussy footing around beauracracy got us no where in the past.. In the words of FDR... talk softly but carry a big stick... Did you ever stop to think why this coiuntry is so great? Because we reinvent the mold.. adapt to any obstacle in front of us so to say we are doing it wrong is incorrect and to say we are arrogant is also incorrect because we are confident and confidence always gets the girl;) This author who is obviously a liberal with ant-republican slanted views.. is stopping him from seeing the success this administartion has accomplished the 2 years in office.. I am proud to be an american again.. it is a good day and in time everything will fall into place.. you'll see! but I bet you would never give credit 4...

Show me proof besides the american company wanting to drill in Afghanistan.. To say the Govt committed the 911 tragedy because of it, is just Horse shit... If the U.S wanted a reason for invading Afghanistan they would have used the american embassy and USS Cole bombing they knew bin laden was behind it and had enough of a motive to attack then.. why cripple your econmy costing trillions in economic activity for some reserve in the east.. It would be cheaper and easier to keep buying from the Saudi's think about what you are saying.. 911 caused our econmy to dip into costing TRILLIONS in losses that's why I think it's a conspiracy theory....

I hope they are beleive me... but to insist that the U.S killed all those people on 911 because of a oil reserve is a PIPE DREAM (no pun intended) frenchie

Gimme a C Gimme a O Gimme a N Gimme a S Gimme a P Gimme a I Gimme a R Gimme a A Gimme a C Gimme a Y what's that spell.... Do you know how rediulous you sound? The oil reserve under Afghanistan? wanted by the U.S. like I said I hope they did tap it because it would pay for the rebuilding of that country... I think drunk on the other pOst sumed up that theory drawn up by a fellow LOON...Ted RALL go read it... or here you go.. excuse me Drunk... Return of Rall: Oil conspiracy redux By Bryan Keefer April 12, 2002 Ted Rall knows something you and I don't: the war in Afghanistan is all about oil, not terrorism. At least, that's what he tries to argue in his latest column, written in response to a critique of a previous piece by my co-editor Brendan Nyhan. As one of the most elaborate and prominent expositions of the war-for-oil theory, which has been repeated by some liberal pundits, Rall's conspiracy theory is worth a detailed look. Not surprisingly, his argument breaks down under scrutiny into little more than a few wisps of circumstantial evidence held together by anti-Bush vitriol and emotionally charged rhetoric. Rall first began arguing that military action in Afghanistan was about oil rather than terrorism in a syndicated column published in October. Examining the oil politics of Central Asia, he took note of American oil giant Unocal's mid-1990s plan to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to transport the large oil reserves of land-locked Kazakhstan (and other newly-independent Soviet republics) to the Pakistani port of Karachi. The Clinton administration's decision to harden its line against the Taliban in 1998 (in the wake of the terrorist attacks of that year) prompted Unocal to abandon the plan as politically impossible. Rall suggested that the September 11 attacks provided a pretext to bomb Afghanistan in order to get the Unocal deal back on track, claiming that "[f]inally the Bushies have the perfect excuse to do what the U.S. has wanted all along-invade and/or install an old-school puppet regime in Kabul." Nyhan noted that there had been little consideration of the politics of oil in Central Asia, but also thoroughly debunked Rall's conspiracy theory. He demonstrated how Rall had misread the recent history of Afghanistan according to his own source, as well as numerous other factual errors. Most importantly, Nyhan argued that Rall trivialized the importance of the publicly-declared motivations of the Bush administration for the actions in Afghanistan: going after Osama bin Laden, his network, and the regime that was sheltering both. Rall's newest column attempts to refute Nyhan and shore up his earlier theory. In it, he claims his argument is supported by "three painfully obvious truths": That the Bush administration was planning to attack Afghanistan even before September 11; that the war on terror really isn't a war on terror at all; and that the White House doesn't care about the victims of the terrorist tragedies. Each is built on faulty logic and distorted evidence. As proof that the Bush administration intended to attack Afghanistan even before September 11, Rall provides exactly no evidence - perhaps he thinks the claim is so "painfully obvious" that it needs no justification. Regardless, it is likely that his source is Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth, a French book published a month after the terrorist attacks by two investigative journalists. Currently not available in translation, the book charges in part (as summarized by United Press International) that the Bush administration was negotiating with the Taliban over the proposed pipeline last year, and threatened to use force against it to push the project through. The authors claim their source for this information was former FBI agent John O'Neill, who was killed in the September 11 attacks in New York City. A spokesman for the National Security Council, however, flatly denied the report, saying "There's just absolutely nothing to it; it's just not correct," and the State Department has also denied that such negotiations took place. Moreover, the truth of the claim is irrelevant: even if the administration threatened the Taliban before September 11 over oil interests, it does not necessarily follow that those same interests motivated military action after September 11. His next contention is that "the ersatz 'war on terror' has little to do with reducing, much less preventing, terrorist acts by Islamic extremists." Rall suggests that the White House should have "targeted groups in the countries that carried out the 9-11 attacks - Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan." While it is true that the US could have targeted those countries, its decision to bomb Afghanistan instead - which evidence suggested was harboring bin Laden - does not prove that the war is not about terrorism. He continues with the suggestion that "Ninety-nine percent of the estimated 5,000 to 15,000 Afghans killed by US bombs had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. That's an atrocity, it's even worse than 9-11, and Arabs know it." Once again, Rall fails to source his claims, which don't stand up to close scrutiny. The Associated Press estimated in February that the campaign had directly caused the deaths of 500 to 600 civilians based on hospital records, interviews, and examinations of bomb sites. Even University of New Hampshire economist Marc Herald, who has been criticized for duplicate sourcing of the casualties, estimated only between 3,100 and 3,800 civilian deaths caused by US forces. None of this, of course, minimizes the tragedy of such deaths. Yet neither do civilian casualty estimates support the claim that the war on terrorism is about oil. This is simply an inflammatory attempt to rile readers' emotions in support of Rall's outlandish theory. Rall's final contention is that the Bush administration does not care about the victims of September 11, their families, or about women in Afghanistan. Rall notes that "for the first seven and a half months of his presidency, Bush never issued a single statement criticizing the Taliban's treatment of women." Once again, this is irrelevant -- such a lack of direct criticism from Bush does not necessarily contradict the administration's stated motive of going after terrorism by attacking the Taliban. Nor does this have anything to do with oil. It's simply a way of appealing to readers' preconceptions of Bush as hostile to women in order to score emotional points. Attempting to prove that the White House doesn't care about the victims of 9-11, Rall claims that "the Bushies rushed through legislation depriving survivors of their right to sue the government or airlines. When push came to shove, Bush sold out the victims for a few millionare airline CEOs." Once again, he's just making things up. The airline bailout package included a provision that a person must surrender their right to sue the airlines in order to receive survivor's benefits from the federal government - otherwise they are free to do so, as several already have. Moreover, the financial bailout of the airline industry proves nothing about Bush's motives in the bombings - it's just another example of how Rall's theory is built on circumstantial evidence twisted into inflammatory emotional appeals. Rall closes his column with a chronology of negotiations that may revive the pipeline project. He writes, "Unocal-related discussions began while the bombs were still falling last October and picked up steam after Bush appointed an ex-Unocal consultant, Zalmay Khalilzad, as his special envoy to Afghanistan." Here he is intentionally confusing one result of the bombings (discussions of reviving the pipeline project) with the purpose of the bombings. By such logic, any outcome - intentional or not - becomes the reason for the military actions: the rise in Bush's approval rating, the resumption of opium production or the pipeline project all become equally valid causes. Rall, as he does throughout his column, fails to give us any reason other than our preconceptions about Bush to believe his elaborate theories. Like all good conspiracy theories, Rall's is impossible to prove or disprove without access to information that is not available - in this case, internal deliberations or even thoughts in Bush's mind. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that the war in Afghanistan is overwhelmingly motivated by a desire to fight terrorism, and only secondarily about other issues such as oil. Rall's flimsy evidence and cheap debating tactics all suggest his conspiracy theory is just that - a theory, and nothing more.

Socialism works.. Kidding:)

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You guys kill me... I kinda hope it is true so it can pay for the rebuilding of Afghanistan...

I know.. I sware I would give money to see that bitch on Hannity and Colmes evenn Alan would think he is NUTZ..

It was joke bro chill... But to answer your theory Ted.. Me and many of freinds can place the U.S. on a globe are we controlled by the government? I can also decide my own political views does this mean that somehow I averted the evil plan of the govt to brainwash me that this war was just

There you go again with the conspiracy thinking...

***Bump for the anti-liberation heads*****

French, This not towards you just just my opinion... If this is the guy who is on Bill Maher periodically I have to say one word for this punk.. LOON.. I sware that every time I see him he makes my blood boil still harping about the 2000 election and the BIG BAD REPUBLICAN party.. he is such a bitchass..

BinLaden can be handing out AK's in Bahgdad and noone would beleive they harbor terrorists

Beat it...

I got this from a website...This makes so much sense.. The world is a crazy place.. Bush=DICTATOR Saddam-VICTIM JUST=Allow Iraqis get raped, tortured, oppressed UNJUST=Give Iraqis Freedom, Future, Human Rights PROVOKED=Killing of 3,000+ Americans on 9-11-01 UNPROVOKED=Invading Kuwait MORAL=kill 1.5 million Muslims, gas the Kurds, raped, torture, oppression IMMORAL=Liberate Iraqis, Dissarming Iraq, provide aid to Iraqis LOOTING=Oppressed Iraqis taking back the stuff Saddam bought with the people's wealth NOT LOOTING=Clintion administration stealing and destroying things from the White House FREEDOM OF SPEECH=Anti Bush, Anti American, Anti Liberation OPPRESSION OF SPEECH=Speaking your opinion of those who are hiding behind the Freedom of Speech TERRORIST ON OIL=Islamic Defenders TERRORIST IN USA=Arab American being descriminated TERRORIST COMMITING TERROR=Martyrs, Freedom fighters AMERICANS PREVENTING TERROR=Imperialist, Infidels AMERICANS LOVE TO KILL IRAQI CHILDREN AND CIVILIANS HOMOCIDE BOMBERS WANTS TO GET TO KNOW ISRAELI CIVILIANS BETTER Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Communism, and Nazism, WAR HAS NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING!

I hope it IS all about oil because if we didn't sanction Sadam and he had the resources that lets say Saudi Arabia has you want to know what ? you guessed it, WE WOULD NOT BE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW.... The US would be a crater so THANK GOD they sanctioned this prick and removed him from power.. Bin Laden is a perfect example of sitting back and ignoring a maniac before he got to strong....You wanna know something else I hope we uproot every fucking dictator in the region... flex this muscle we have and earn some respect because heaven knows they don't respect weakness...

Hey loon Iraq didn't gas Iran in the 80's???