thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.
Those who blame all of our problems on party A or party B, or subscribe
with knee jerked enthusiasm to every proposal trotted out by party A or
party B have been duped very badly....and between the two major parties
that probably accounts for a majority of the electorate.

wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the coverup
(of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then having Slade
Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger "just didn't
happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth to
the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run by
shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and PNAC.
;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a
big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent
the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the coverup
(of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then having Slade
Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger "just didn't
happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth to
the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run by
shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and PNAC.
;-)


Let's see....where was Atta from again? I honestly don't recall. Was it
Saudi Arabia?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties
to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the
Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years
before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a
big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent
the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the
coverup (of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then
having Slade Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger
"just didn't happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth to
the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run by
shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and
PNAC. ;-)


Let's see....where was Atta from again? I honestly don't recall. Was it
Saudi Arabia?

Atta lived in several countries in the 1-2 years before 9/11...but Saudi
Arabia wasn't one of them.

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net...

wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties
to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is
illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise
to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the
Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years
before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a
big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at
Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent
the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the
coverup (of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then
having Slade Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger
"just didn't happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth
to the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run
by shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and
PNAC. ;-)


Let's see....where was Atta from again? I honestly don't recall. Was it
Saudi Arabia?

Atta lived in several countries in the 1-2 years before 9/11...but Saudi
Arabia wasn't one of them.

His country of origin, slippery boy. I'm not from Sunoco, but I was just
there this morning.

NOYB wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

thunder wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:24:22 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Grateful? The conspiracy theories keep me up at night searching the
internet. I'd get a lot more sleep if he'd put those uncertainties to
rest by letting those guys speak.

It could be, potentially, embarrassing for all involved. It is illegal
for the Pentagon to spy on American citizens. Does data mining rise to
spying?

Why is it OK to publish the PDB's leading up to 9/11 in the Commission
report, but not information that may have ID'd Atta 1 1/2 years before
9/11? I hope that you now realize that the 9/11 Commission was a
complete
whitewash of what really happened in the decade leading up to 9/11.

I don't see it as a whitewash, at worst, only incomplete. You make a big
deal of this Able Danger, but even if they did have Atta's name, it
doesn't make a conspiracy, it makes a typical, bumbling bureaucracy,
called government. History is full of these "what ifs". Look at Pearl
Harbor. If they had listened to the radar operator, if they had sent the
dispatch urgently, if . . . Able Danger isn't a conspiracy, it's your
government in inaction.


Even if we had Atta's name in 2000, that was long before we decided it
was OK to attack, assassinate, declare war (or make war without
declaration), or otherwise remove entities that might, maybe, could be,
someday, somehow, possibly, threaten the security of the US. There was
a time in the US when people were punished for crimes committed, not
proactively punished for crimes that they just might maybe, could be,
commit in the future.

You guys keep missing the point.

It's not the crime (of failing to act on the Atta intel), it's the coverup
(of leaving the Able Danger info off the 9/11 Report and then having Slade
Gorton and Tom Kean state unequivocally that Able Danger "just didn't
happen".)



Welcome to the realization that there isn't some binary divide of
good/evil
or patriotism/treason between the political parties. They are two
marionettes in the same show, operated by the same crew of puppeteers.

Yes, but who are the puppeteers? You're suggesting that there's truth to
the New World Order conspiracists' notion that our government is run by
shadow groups like the CFR, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergs...and PNAC.
;-)

You don't have to get that arcane to find the puppeteers. Take a
campaign for US Senate, for example. It now costs, in many places,
$10-20 million dollars to stand a 50-50 chance of landing a six-year
job that pays less than $200k a year. The corporations that finance
these campaigns expect their money's worth when the "winner" takes
office. What's interesting is that most of the big-money groups hedge
their bets. Right now the Republicans are temporarily on top of the
heap, so Corporation X will give
65-70% of the political bribery budget to the Republican candidates but
will give 30-35% to the Democrats, "just in case of an upset". (When
the Democrats are back up again, the percentages will reverse). It's
that important to have some money invested in the candidate, no matter
who wins.
The fact that corporations routinely give to *both* sides of a
political contest reveals that those contributions are all about buying
control or at least influence at the congressional level and not in the
least about values or political philosophies.