January 4, 2002 on Democracy NOW! in Exile
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/exile/dn20020104.html
Guest: Ahmed Rashid, author of the book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil
and Fundamentalism in Central Asia.
Story: THE CARLYLE GROUP: THE MOST POWERFUL COMPANY YOU'VE NEVER HEARD
OF
http://stream.realimpact.org/rihurl.ram?file=webactive/exile/dn20020104.ra&start\
="34:23.3"
We turn now to a story about one of the most powerful companies you've
never heard of. The company is called The Carlyle Group and in the wake
of the events of September 11th, its power and influence have become
significantly stronger. The company operates within the so-called
iron-triangle of industry, government and the military. Its list of
former and current advisers and associates includes a vast array of
some of the most powerful men in America and indeed around the world.
It has also brought together the current Secretary of State Colin
Powell, former President George Bush, and a man named Bakr Bin
Laden-Osama bin Laden's half brother.
In just a moment we are going to be speaking to Dan Briody from Red
Herring magazine. He's written an extensive piece on the company
called: "Carlyle's Way: Making a Mint Inside "The Iron Triangle" of
Defense, Government and Industry." It begins:
"Like everyone else in the United States, the group stood transfixed as
the events of September 11 unfolded. Present were former secretary of
defense Frank Carlucci, former secretary of state James Baker III, and
representatives of the bin Laden family. This was not some underground
presidential bunker or Central Intelligence Agency interrogation room.
It was the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C., the plush setting for the
annual investor conference of one of the most powerful, well-connected,
and secretive companies in the world: the Carlyle Group. And since
September 11, this little-known company has become unexpectedly
important."
"That the Carlyle Group had its conference on America's darkest day was
mere coincidence, but there is nothing accidental about the cast of
characters that this private-equity powerhouse has assembled in the 14
years since its founding… And as the Carlyle investors watched the
World Trade towers go down, the group's prospects went up."
Date: Tue Jan 8, 2002 1:51 am
Subject: Re: [unitednationspatriots] Welcome, New Members
--- osram007 wrote:
> Welcome to the United Nations Patriots group. You
> can probably see
> this is no one-sided site! But it IS a great place
> to challenge
> opposing points of view.
>
> These are critical times, and the U.N. plays an
> increasingly dominant
> role in our everyday lives. I hope everyone can
> feel free to let
> their opinions fly without concern that somebody may
> disagree.
>
> This site is neither "pro" or "con" - (even though
> my views may be
> obvious. But there's no censorship here). It's
> really up to the writer
> to make his or her argument. This is a site for
> "grown-ups". Say what
> you believe and see what happens!
OK, I been busy for a few days, but I'll try this
again. If you are an example of a "grown-up", then I
know what is wrong with America. Is it your way or
everybody else is wrong? I may actually be older than
you. I thank you for at least not censoring my views.
Then again, there is the idea of Freedom of Speech and
other freedoms that people worldwide trying to
acheive.
Here are facts that I read from books. The United
Nations is a worldwide organization whose purpose is
of international friendship and a voice for those who
do not have the same rights we do. It was formed by a
group of nations and it remains such today. The U.N.
can't become a World Government, much less do anything
else, without any support from the United States
because it has the same VETO power over any action as
China, Russia, France and Great Britian.
I will agree with you that the United States may give
far too much support and the United Nations needs
reformed, but I would to know your sources for what
you say.
Yet, I will never agree the United Nations needs to be
disbanned or that the U.S. needs to withdraw. To do so
will be tragic. If you do not believe me, read a few
history books about the League of Nations after WWI.
I can tell you to go by a World Almanac and look it
all up. That was my first step.
From: "osram007"
Date: Wed Jan 9, 2002 2:45 pm
Subject: Re: Welcome, New Members
Anthony Eversole:
My comment regarding "grown-ups" pertained to those fainthearted
individuals who leave a club/group as soon as they
discover some comment that does not agree with their viewpoint -
instead of having the gravel to put together an effective
argument to challenge it. There's too much of that cowardice going on
in other messageboards, and it makes for
dull reading to see a succession of posts from people who just pat
each other on the back.
Now, you seem to doubt that I'm "grown-up" because my views differ
from yours. You're free to make that assessment, of
course. The question is: am I WRONG? If the U.N. is not a
"government", then how is it able to wage wars, effect trade
sanctions and embargoes, and disregard the sovereignty of nations who
oppose it?
Why must U.S. military personnel sign documents pledging their
loyalty
to, and to fight for, the U.N.? Why does the U.N. administer
military bases in the U.S., such as Fort Dix and Fort Polk, and train
foreign & American troops on those bases to fight for
them... if they are not a government?
You're right: The U.N. has no power unless the U.S. gives it to them.
What you seem to be unclear on is that America HAS
given its power to the U.N. And don't hold your breath waiting for
any
nation's "Veto power" to curb U.N. initiatives. Power once
given is difficult to retrieve.
You seem content that you base your opinions on information that you
"read from books". No
doubt the books must have had very impressive bindings to elicit your
credulity on the subjects covered therein. Nevertheless,
no book is above scrutiny, and a good litmus test is to compare the
U.N.'s stated intentions with what we actually see going on
in the world around us. No doubt the "history books" are going to
reflect the opinions that our federally-financed-schools'
purchasing agents will accept.
AGAIN: I assess an organization's character by its ACTIONS, not its
statements. It is sheer
naivete to rely on statements BY the U.N. to determine the intentions
OF the U.N.
I'm not sure what portions of my posts you dispute, but since you
distrust my information, I'll refer you to some other sites
(though I may disagree with their ominous tone, they nevertheless
reveal the intentions of the U.N.'s founders to acquire - and
wield - political & military power):
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2001/10-22-2001/vo17no22_un_not_friend.htm
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Conspiracy/General/inside03.t
xt
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0899un.htm
And from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b01f591121c.htm:
"The UN was founded by Communists and CFR members whose common goal
was a socialist world government. Sixteen key
U.S. officials who shaped the policies leading to the creation of the
UN were later exposed in sworn testimony as secret
Communists. These included Alger Hiss, chief planner of the 1945
founding conference, and the Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury, Harry Dexter White. The Soviet Union under Stalin and the
entire Communist Party USA apparatus worked
tirelessly to launch the UN. Since its beginning in 1921, the Council
on Foreign Relations (CFR) has always worked for world
government. The key CFR founder, Edward Mandell House, in his book,
Philip Dru: Administrator, called for "Socialism as
dreamed of by Karl Marx ...." The CFR was an early promoter of the
UN,
and 43 members of the U.S. delegation at the UN
founding conference were or would become CFR members."
"The U.N. was founded by COMMUNISTS and Communist sympathizers:
Alger Hiss - The U.N.' first Secretary General and later convicted as
a Soviet agent."
http://www.beyond-the-illusion.com/files/Conspiracy/General/inside03.t
xt :
"Added to the listing of communists busily working
to create the UN were 43 current or future CFR members. Men of
prominence in this group included CFR founder House's
protege John Foster Dulles. (67) Also, Nelson A. Rockefeller, Adlai
E.
Stevenson, Edward R. Stettinius, Ralph Bunche, Philip
C. Jesgup, and future CFR Chairman John J. McCloy. (58)There was, of
course, a delegation from the USSR. It was led by
Andrei Gromyko." (More from above listed websites.)
From: "osram007"
Date: Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:32 pm
Subject: Re: Hello, Goodbye
[E-Mail reply from "microm1@yahoo.com"]
Oscar,
I did not run off quickly. It was NOT my intention to join the club
when I went to take a look, but
rather to take a look. I flat out delete the vast majority of
invitations because they have little or no
interest for me, but the U.N. and the U.S. and world politics DOES
interest me. I just wanted to take
a look at the club, what kind of members, the jist of the discussions
etc.. With the new Groups format,
it turned out that by clicking on the club url, I became a member;
not
that that was my intention. Only
if the club had good, intelligent, informed discussion would I
consider joining.
I am a founder in a number of clubs, one of which is U.S. politics.
I
am American, but have lived in
Europe for 13 years, and I plan on staying here. I am from Dutch
heritage as well, and feel very much
at home here. My membership and activities as founder in several
clubs
keeps me more than busy; I
work more than full time, still have two kids at home (8 and 13), so
my life is more than busy. I do not
have time enough as it is for my existing clubs, let alone join a new
one. So I would join a new club
only if it was something special, similar to my political club
(Agenda
2001). And then only post as I
had the time, meaning sporadically.
What I found at your club was some pretty far out stuff, none of it
based on reality, none of it meshing
with my own knowledge and experience, which is not a small amount. I
could not hope to have an
intelligent discussion or debate in such an atmosphere. I am very
aware of American political,
economic and military activity in the world, thus am no push-over for
the "new world government"
theories attributed by some Americans to the U.N.. On the contrary,
the only organization wishing to
become, and perhaps capable of, being "king of the hill" is the U.S.
itself. The past 50 years of actual
events, much of it covert, are evidence enough. The U.N. has no
military, the only military organization
that is international is NATO, and that is also dominated by the
U.S..
No country in Europe has any
military intentions of any kind anywhere in the world; and I speak
from "being here"knowledge and
experience.. The U.N. has no political power either; it does,
however, have rules of membership, of
course. Membership is entirely voluntary.
The U.N. has been able to help people in areas of basic need, as well
as promote and maintain peace
as well as possible in a strife-torn world. No other organization
has
been as successful in these areas.
That it can be improved is true; all organizations can. I know one
of the heads well (Ruud Lubbers,
UNHCR), since he was president of this country for two terms.
Extremely capable man, absolutely no
intentions of power or control, but strong in communicating and
helping people.
My assessment of the club is that I could contribute nothing there,
nor would I get anything out of it. It
is a club seemingly based on conspiracy type theories. Facts seem
to play little role. Sorry, I can't
be a member in such an atmosphere. And I don't have the time, nor
the
craziness, to try to bring some
sanity into such an atmosphere. I foresee only endless arguing over
theories and a neglect of facts and
evidence. Waste of my time.
E.D.
From: "osram007"
Date: Thu Jan 10, 2002 3:34 pm
Subject: Re: Hello, Goodbye
Earl,
In referring to the "United Nations Patriots" Group, your
correspondence bears all the marks of a man
seduced by his own sense of "importance" and "intelligence".
Unfortunately, such seduction blinds the
individual to facts which do not jibe with his opinions, though they
are staring him in the face. And on
that score, you speak of your "facts" and my "theories".
Ask someone in Kosovo, Palestine, Afghanistan, or Iraq whether or not
the U.N. has "political
power". In view of the U.N. "Peacekeeping Forces" operating throughout
the world today, it is sheer
ignorance to proclaim that the "U.N. has no military." Why then do
those "peacekeepers" wear U.N.
insignia on their uniforms as they enforce the U.N.'s agenda with
steel projectiles, bayonets and
missile-laden Black Hawk helicopters?
You're confident that your knowledge is "not a small amount," which I
don't doubt. Sadly, it seems to
be comprised of a large volume of redundant data which only reflects
the bias of your particular side of
the fence.
As to "facts": the U.N. does not make many facts available. EXAMPLE:
Try to find the names of the
U.N.'s founders on their website. NOTHING. They have wisely chosen to
distance themselves from
their Communist creators. The only "facts" they give are those which
benefit the U.N.'s image rather
than its reality. What you call "conspiracy theories" are facts based
on the U.N.'s ACTIONS - they
speak volumes for it, and they're open to all who are willing to see.
"Osram"
From: "DendeCannabist"
Date: Fri Jan 11, 2002 6:07 pm
Subject: "osram700 Club? Glad 2C cheap talk went International!
I'm sure to anyone bored enough to actually read your post through
can attest, I simply skimmed the generalities and "because I said
so's" and skipped to the other boring statement, typically of one with
ones head in the sand, anywhere the sand be. Conspiracy? Eazy buzz
word to discredit while avoiding any debate. Now I admit the
Conspiracy sites are probably conspiracy theories. But the cannabis
debate is a light switch debate. On or Off. It is or it isn't. And
only censoring and avoiding the debate can perpetuate the profits of
the war on cannabis. And keep the competition off of the market
shelves. Shirley you wouldn't debate a machine's tensile strength or a
labs protein levels or omega efa percentages? Or biomass or
construction, paper, clothing sold on this very net, last year
reaching $200 million in sles or medicinal value from doctors and
patients and others without vested interest in avoiding the debate?
The Conspiracy theories and government actions of the past and present
only re-inforce the hard evidence and nobrainer debate. Cannabis is
what I say it is and illegal for the reasons I say it is. Simple
business. Surely you bore me.
adios Goldfinger
Peace, Love and Liberty
DdC
From: "osram007"
Date: Sat Jan 12, 2002 9:32 am
Subject: The Cannabis Twins (DendeCannabist & DdC)
Your posts have nothing to do with the subject of this Group
(although
I don't doubt that some of the U.N.'s membership
employs hemp in some of their aboriginal religious rituals). Also,
much of your content is comprised of cut & pastes of articles
gleaned elsewhere.
It just doesn't belong here. I'm sure there are hemp groups where you
two can talk to each other. If not, start one.
From: "polymath66"
Date: Mon Jan 14, 2002 11:39 pm
Subject: Utopian Potheads Unite!!!!!
What a snore, a den of potheads using a "serious" political discussion
group to lobby for pot. Consider me unsubscribed.
Jim
From: unitednationspatriots@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon Jan 14, 2002 11:45 pm
Subject: New poll for unitednationspatriots
Enter your vote today! A new poll has been created for the
unitednationspatriots group:
Do you think the potheads should . . .
o A) Be banished
o B) Get rehabilitated
o C) Get their own lame pothead club
o D) Get off the drugs to see how deluded they are or
o E) Just get lost - Whoops! They ALREADY are.
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitednationspatriots/polls
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are
not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
web site listed above.
Thanks!
From: "osram007"
Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 8:26 am
Subject: POTHEADS: GOODBYE!
Just a quick note to inform and assure all members of this group that
THE POTHEADS ARE GONE!!!
I encourage everyone to post all politically relevant messages
regarding the U.N. and any related subjects (pro or con). The Group
is still new and I'm working hard to get the bugs out of it and keep
it interesting. (I guess I didn't want to be accused of "censorship",
but you can go too far in being "considerate" of people under the
influence of herbal fumes.)
I am hopeful that we can get a good forum for debate back on track
here and keep the "lunatic agenda" from infecting the discussion.
Sincerely,
"Osram"
From: DdC
Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 1:38 pm
Subject: Liars
Welcome to the United Nations Patriots group - We want to hear your opinions! You will see that
this is no one-sided site. But it IS a great place to challenge opposing points of view.
From: "osram007"
Date: Tue Jan 15, 2002 3:56 pm
Subject: Re: Liars
Your posts have nothing to do with the subject of this Group.
It's off-topic. The subject of the Group is the U.N. and its ability
to become the de facto one-world-government (either PRO
or CON). It's for POLITICAL DEBATE on relevant issues pertaining to
this subject; It's a place for opposing views to be INTELLEGENTLY
ARGUED.
IT'S NOT A MARIJUANA ROUNDTABLE.
Also, you post SEVERAL TIMES PER DAY, with much of your content
comprised of cut & pastes of articles
gleaned elsewhere.
Apparently, every time you find an article in "High Times" you feel
obliged to post it.
It just doesn't belong here. I'm sure there are hemp groups where you
two can talk to each other. If not, start one.
Osram.
From: "anthonyeversole"
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 6:13 am
Subject: Will I be censored?
I wonder who you refer to as "Potheads"? Are you deleted those who share views
other than our own? You seem to like to say those who disagree with you, quoting
the U.N. website. Actually, I am quoting something called a book. Luckily, the
majority disagrees with you So I wish you well in your world. IF you seriously
wish to educate us, just let us know how we can check our information.
From: "osram007"
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 9:54 am
Subject: Re: Will I be censored?
I was very cautious about this. The person in question was posting a
half-dozen or so messages per day, all on the subject of marijuana.
Why was this a problem?
1. Because anyone who checked out the group for the first time would
only see marijuana messages on the Home page... definitely leading to
a wrong impression of the group's subject matter.
2. I posted a message addressed to this individual concerning this
matter several days before (#47). He gave no response. Another member
posted a similar comment even before this, which he also ignored
(#27). I was left with the impression that he intended to blast the
group with his excessive stream of messages regarding his interest in
recreational drugs.
3. One member left the group because of frustration with these
messages (#49).
At that point I had to consider what would best serve the majority of
the group membership and keep the topic focused. It had nothing to do
with disagreement with his political or U.N. views, but rather his
methods. The posts were too excessive and too off-topic.
As to your other comments: If you had read my response (#34)to your
earlier post, you would not be confused on the matter of believing
something simply because you saw it "in something called a book". I
also gave you a list of other websites which contained information
which may explain the subject more clearly to you. It isn't a question
of what the majority agrees with: It's a simple matter of what the
facts say: That is, ALL the facts taken together.
- "Osram"
From: "allipony"
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 10:00 am
Subject: UN actions
While looking into the UN, I have noted several things about the
united Nations. First of all, the UN never really seems to get
anything done, they just sit around and talk. I know that it is
better than nothing but let's not fool ourselves. The only reason
that the UN is still around is that there is nothing else to turn to.
I have been a delegate of a Model United Nations confrence. I know it
is not the same as the real united nations, but it is pretty close.
It is frusterating to debate resolutions for hours and then have it
turned down, or not have it pass. It is like that in the UN. Most of
it is talk, there isn't much action. I do agree, they have done a bit
of work. But the five nations in the security council are given too
much power, there is too much argument in the general assembly.
Now anyways, I just started this to get the debate moving. My views
on this subject tend to be mixed. Today I feel frusturated the the UN
site, maybe another day I will embrace the UN and all their peace
keeping missions.
From: "allipony"
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 10:08 am
Subject: The question of Globalization
This question has been on the UN and other organizations for a
while...Do we want a globalized, united world? Personally, I think
that globalization is good, to some extent. Like with the case of the
Euro, it united Europe as a region of the world so tourists can now
travel easier (there are lost of other benefits aswell). But I do not
feel that being so globalized as to having a mc donalds in every town
in every nation is necessary. Cultural diffusion can help or hurt a
country. My views may seem to contradict each other at first, but
think about it in depth. What are your opinions?
From: "knightstar1112"
Date: Wed Jan 16, 2002 3:32 pm
Subject: The U.S. owes the UN money?
I've heard that America owes the UN a lot of money. I know the US
pays SOMETHING to the U.N., but I never heard any actual figures. I
checked some of the sites you listed at the end of message 34 &
searched some others, and came across some info:
"In 1999 alone the American people have furnished precisely
TEN BILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE MILLION DOLLARS to support
the work of the United Nations. No other nation on earth comes even
close to matching that singular investment."
- (www.unisevil.com)
The United States is assessed 25 percent of the UN's general budget,
double that of any other nation. For years,we've been paying 25
percent of the budget while being treated like a Third World
nonentity. U.S. taxpayers are contributing an estimated $4 BILLION A
YEAR. But the worst part is that they involve U.S. troops and U.S.
risk in faraway places where we have no national security interest.
- (http://www.eagleforum.org/conglet/1997/97-01-07.html).
The U.N. has acquired billions in military bases and equipment,
mainly from the US. If the UN has no interest in governing the world,
why does it have a MILITARY, a CONSTITUTION which the world has to
obey or face "PEACEKEEPERS" coming in to slaughter them?
It looks to me like the only respect for "human rights" the UN has is
just some Public Relations baloney to get the world to agree with
their achieving more power. The very design of the United Nations
seems intended for something close to absolute power. (What ALWAYS
happens when people attain ABSOLUTE POWER - despite "good
intentions?")
Anyway thats my two-cents for now as I read over this information.
From: "dellenia_mae"
Date: Fri Jan 18, 2002 12:37 pm
Subject: Re: UN actions
"All talk and no action" is pretty much S.O.P. for any organization.
It usually takes an emergency of some kind to get any kind of
action.
But if you consider whats going on now in afghanistan, there's some
UN
involvement in that, & theyre getting **something** done. Frustrating
to spend hours & days arguing a point, i'm sure, but its getting the
viewpoint aired thats important, whether or not everyone catches on
right away.
As long as theres some doubt about the UN's intentions, I expect
youll see some foot-dragging in the debating arena. Keep fighting
the good fight!
Dellenia Mae
From: "allipony"
Date: Sun Jan 20, 2002 8:30 am
Subject: Re: The U.S. owes the UN money?
Slight Correction. The UN doesn't have a CONSTITUTION, it has a
CHARTER.
I can see why you are frusturated. If you look back at some of my
previous posts, they go on about how the UN is more talk than
anything else. And yet, they are spending lots of money.
Since go to MUN confrences, I have looked into the charter of the UN.
Although I have not read all of it (I don't have the time these days)
it outlines some basic points, like the workings of the UN, how they
get things done, etc. etc. It also points out that all nations in the
GA (General Assembly) are represented equally, with the same vote.
Remember, however, that the US holds a strong position in the
security council, along with France, Russia, Britian, and China (I'm
pretty sure I got those right). Still, that is a ton of money.
So, where does all the UN money go?
Alli
From: "osram007"
Date: Tue Jan 22, 2002 12:13 pm
Subject: Re: The U.S. owes the UN money?
(Actually, the U.N. does have a Constitution in addition to its
Charter. See: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/decade/decad049.htm
or
http://www.tradersclub.com/justweights/theunitednationsconstitution.shtml)
As to the matter of the United Nations owing money, Roscoe Bartlett,
a congressman from Maryland, introduced the "The United Nations
Erroneous Debt Act" and came up with the following figures:
[From: http://www.cwfa.org/library/nation/2000-07_pp_un-debt.shtml]
Between 1946 and 1996, the United States contributed in excess of $32
billion to the United Nations.And, as Rep.
Christopher Smith (R-New Jersey) notes, "We have also paid at least
$22 billion since 1992 in additional costs in support of
U.N.-authorized peacekeeping." [Christopher Smith, "Uncertain
problem," The Washington Times, 21 October 1999.]
Who Owes Whom? In 1997, this issue made headlines when Rep. Roscoe
Bartlett (R-Maryland) introduced the United
Nations Erroneous Debt Act. Bartlett pointed out that, according to a
1996 General Accounting Office (GAO) Report for
fiscal years 1992-1995, the United Nations actually owes money to the
United States. Between 1992 and 1995, the United
States spent $6.6 billion on peacekeeping activities in Haiti, the
former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Somalia. Of this amount, the
United Nations reimbursed the United States for only $79.4 million.
And of the original $6.6 billion, the United Nations was
only willing to count $1.8 million toward U.S. dues.1 Hence, the
congressman did some calculations:
$6 .6 billion - U.S. voluntarily paid for peacekeeping
- $1 .8 billion - U.N. counted toward U.S. dues/assessments
$4 .8 billion - U.N. owes to U.S.
- $0 .079 billion - U.N. paid to U.S.
$4 .7 billion - U.N. owes to U.S.
- $1 .3 billion - U.S. "debt" to U.N. (according to Kofi Annan,
Secretary General of the United Nations*)
$3 .4 billion - final figure: U.N. owes to U.S.
From: "osram007"
Date: Fri Jan 25, 2002 10:17 am
Subject: U.N., "Debt," & U.S. Payments
Kofi Annan has made it his mission to retrieve money supposedly owed
to the U.N. by the United States and other nations. But
he never mentions the GARGANTUAN SUMS ALREADY being paid yearly by
the U.S. This is understandable once we take a look at those figures.
It is difficult to credibly claim "poverty" whole receiving TEN
BILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY NINE MILLION DOLLARS
($10,179,000,000.00)
a year.
We in the U.S. also give the U.N. land, bases, military equipment
including tanks, planes, Black Hawk helicopters and other
vehicles of war. That's quite a smokescreen, that protest of the U.S.
being delinquent in its dues, when in actuality the United
States is pumping its Life's Blood into the U.N. with the American
tax dollars it is already squeezing from us.
Another surprise is that the U.S. is assigned a higher PERCENTAGE of
U.N. expenses than other countries - so they can say
we're "in debt" simply because they DREAM about what the
"appropriate" amount of cash should be from Santa Claus
America. It seems that Kofi Annan and his friends like to keep
secrets. Of course, that's nothing new.
The list of names of those who wrote (and otherwise contributed to)
the "U.N. Charter" is ABSENT from any mainstream
information source. (I'm still searching; will post names and
political affiliations as soon as I am successful). It would be
embarrassing for this "humanitarian" organization to be seen as the
offspring of Communist and Socialist parents.
Almost all U.N. supporters regard the organization as a benevolent
peacekeeper, a helper of the poor, hungry, oppressed, and
politically powerless. the actions of the U.N., however, involve
pressuring other governments for ever more money and more
power to "commandeer" other countries' military forces in order to
enforce the U.N.'s wishes in any nation which would rather
not be invaded by this intrusive organization.
Are people just imagining that the U.N. is a peace-loving debating
club? When you read the statements of the people who
originally planned it, it appears to be nothing less ambitious than a
(prospective) world government. (The "Dumbarton Oaks"
conference on October 16, 1944, revealed as much in its preliminary
description of the structure and purpose of what would
become the United Nations:
"The new world order will be named the United Nations..."
"...It is intended that all nations will belong..."
"The United Nations should have armadas of 'national air force
contingents immediately available' to send against an aggressor"
(Time magazine, October 16, 1944)].
Even in its earliest inception, the founders of this body intended it
to be a global government, so it is sheer ignorance to consider
the U.N.'s intentions to be anything other than a world political &
military power.
Everything we can read about the original founders of the U.N.
indicates they intended it to be just that: to reduce each nation's
sovereignty by a measure, and to ASSIMILATE that measure of sovereign
power to itself. By this means, the U.N. has indeed
acquired its own military force to fling into battle anywhere
throughout the earth.
Kofi Annan has openly declared his intention to disregard national
sovereignty, thereby declaring the U.N. to be INTERNATIONALLY
SOVEREIGN. Kofi himself has put THAT debate to rest.
Now it's probably time to begin discussing WHAT the U.N. intends to
do
with this political and military power!
From: "osram007"
Date: Sat Jan 26, 2002 9:50 am
Subject: New poll: HOW DO YOU SEE THE U.N.?
Enter your vote today!
A new poll has been created for the
United Nations Patriots Group:
HOW DO YOU VIEW THE U.N.?
1. A group of nations working together for world peace
2. An attempt by the U.S. to pressure other nations to follow its
policies
3. An attempt by socialists to pressure capitalist countries
4. A virtuous, yet frail, system that needs more time before it can
produce effective results in establishing peace
5. An attempt by the world's largest bamking houses to create a
one-world government
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitednationspatriots/polls
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes are not
collected via email. To vote, you must go to the Yahoo! Groups
website listed above.
Thanks!
From: "knightstar1112"
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 12:56 pm
Subject: NEW POLL: PROPHESY & the U.N.
From: unitednationspatriots@yahoogroups.com
Date: Mon Jan 28, 2002 2:33 pm
Subject: New poll for United Nations Patriots
Enter your vote today! A new poll has
been created for the
United Nations Patriots group:
PROPHESY & the UN: What do the
following verses
mean in relation to the UN:
Revelation 13:7 - ...and power was
given him over all peoples, languages, and nations.
Revelation 13:4 - And they worshipped
the beast, saying, Who is like the
beast? Who is able to make war with
him?
Luke 21:35 - For as a snare shall it
come on all them that dwell on the face
of the whole earth [not suspecting a
'peace' organization to turn on them].
Daniel 8:25 - And through his policy
he shall cause deceit to prosper in his
hand; and...by PEACE destroy many...
1Thessalonians 5:3 - For when they shall
say, PEACE and safety; then sudden
destruction will come upon them,... and
they shall not escape.
o It is pure coincidence that the U.N. continually proclaims "peace"
while it builds up an international military
o That the U.N.'s founders read these verses and deliberately
patterened the U.N. after the antichrist
o It is a prophetic warning to believers in this present day
o It seems to correspond to the U.N. and/or present day world
politics & wars, but I still have my doubts
o What if those verses ARE referring to the U.N.... what are we
supposed to do about it?
To vote, please visit the following web page:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitednationspatriots/polls
Note: Please do not reply to this message. Poll votes
are not collected via email. To vote, you must go to the
Yahoo! Groups web site listed above.
Thanks!
From: "timberland_fighter"
Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 11:13 am
Subject: Re: POTHEADS: GOODBYE!
--- In unitednationspatriots@y..., "osram007" wrote:
> Just a quick note to inform and assure all members of this group
that
> THE POTHEADS ARE GONE!!!
> I encourage everyone to post all politically relevant messages
> regarding the U.N. and any related subjects (pro or con).
...
I take it, your a drinker. Maybe a drunk?
Fact is, drinkers cause more deaths & crime than "Potheads".
30% of the general population between 18 & 50 are pot users. They are
not a threat to anyone. Most are laid back folks.
Go jump on the crack users, dealers, and alcohol users who cause
problems. There should be stiffer laws on the drinkers. Alcohol is
more dangerous than pot.
Thats just my opinion.
From: "osram007"
Date: Fri Feb 1, 2002 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: POTHEADS: GOODBYE!
Read posts #68 & #70.
Neither a drinker or doper, thanks. The problem, ONCE AGAIN, is that
this person was posting 6 or more messages a day all on the same
subject: marijuana. Other members of the Group complained, some left.
I posted replies to the person in question. He didn't respond. At
least take the trouble to read what I've posted already in response
to
this question before you complain.
Is there something about the description of this Group that gives the
impression that it's about drugs and booze? What's the confusion
here?
If you're so proud of smoking dope, why don't you and the other dude
start a hemp group & see what kind of a draw you get.
WORLD POLITICS: That's the topic! The world's getting a bit
chaotic...
has anyone noticed? 9-11? Suspension of constitutional freedoms, wars
and rumors of wars... DOES ANYONE CARE ABOUT ANY OF THIS?
Osram
From: "tflemingwfa"
Date: Tue Mar 5, 2002 7:08 am
Subject: Dinner with Benjamin Barber
Dear Global Activists --
The World Federalist Association Spring Assembly is taking place
March 9-12, 2002 on Capitol Hill. The theme this year is "Terrorism's
Challenges to Sovereignty & Security."
Join us for dinner and discussion with Benjamin R. Barber, best-
selling author of "Jihad vs. McWorld: Terrorism's Challenges to
Democracy" on Sunday evening, March 10th at the Capitol Hill Club in
Washington, DC. Dr. Barber will be addressing the concerns
surrounding globalization and the need for democratizing
international decision-making institutions - the "second front" in
the war on terrorism. Copies of "Jihad vs. McWorld" will be available
for purchase and signing with Dr. Barber. The event begins at 6:00pm
at the Capitol Hill Club, 300 First Street SE, Washington, DC --
directly across the street from the Capitol South Metro Station and
Cannon House Office Building. The booksigning and talk is free and
open to the public (Dinner $35).
Additional events during the Assembly include --
* Norwegian Ambassador Knut Vollebaek will discuss "The Nobel Prize,
the United Nations and the Road Ahead," with Cora Weiss
(International Peace Bureau), Anne Bader (The Fund for Peace) and
others on Saturday, March 9th.v
* Inspired by Richard Falk and Andrew Strauss's article in Foreign
Affairs journal, students from across the country will simulate the
challenges, debates and possible solutions foreseeable in a
Preparatory Commission to Establish a Global Parliament, throughout
the conference.
* Victoria Holt, Senior Researcher with the Stimson Center, will
discussing the urgent reforms in UN peacekeeping to allow
intervention before a conflict escalates into genocide, Sunday, March
10th.
* World Federalist Association members and supporters will receive in-
depth global issue briefings and meet with their Members of Congress
on Capitol Hill.
For more information, call 1-800-WFA-0123 or download Lobby Day
information and registration forms (including a appointment request
form for your Member of Congress) at
http://www.wfa.org/terrorismschallenges
From: "nighteyes1991"
Date: Wed Mar 13, 2002 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: Benjamin Barber
Benjamin R. Barber takes more time to avoid making a point than
anyone I've read. (Check out:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/barberf.htm - what do YOU
think? Anyone?)
But it's
your shindig. If that satisfies your curiosity about the direction
our world is going in, what can I say? He'll still be babbling on
about some inconsequential point when the 22nd century is looming
over the horizon.
nighteyes
From: "osram007"
Date: Mon Apr 1, 2002 10:36 am
Subject: SUMMARY of the GROUP
When "United Nations Patriots" began on Nov 19, 2001, it was my
intention to spark a discussion between Pro & Anti U.N. voices. This
hasn't occurred, and for several probable reasons:
The Pro-U.N. people are so concerned about world peace that they see
no danger in creating a single agency to superintend such a peace.
They don't seem to believe that a world-wide governing body could
become the world's greatest TYRANT. (Who would they have to answer
to?)
The Anti- U.N. people resign themselves to the idea that a One-World
Government is inevitable, and there's no point in arguing against it.
They feel that the only solution is to privately prepare to live in
seclusion in some frontier setting, hoping for it to blow over.
The two sides have NO CLEAR POINT TO FOCUS THEIR DIFFERENCES UPON.
The Pro-U.N. people are NOT saying, "World tyranny is good," and Anti-
U.N. people are NOT saying, "World peace is bad." As an "independent
survivalist", I had hoped to reveal just how powerful the U.N. has
become militarily and politically, and that their original agenda was
formed by Communists. The Pro-U.N. people would either refuse to
believe this, or else regard it as good news because it meant that
the U.N. could enforce its "peaceful" agenda.
The Anti-U.N. people didn't care about such reports because they
already heard them and believed them, so they didn't comment on them.
Some were just suspicious that the Group was some undercover
operation by the U.N. or the Feds looking for names
of "Survivalist/Militia" people.
At least I learned something about the thought processes of each
side. PRO-U.N. PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY SATISFIED THAT the mainstream
media is unbiased, that the government is free of hidden
conspiracies, and that the "LUMINARIES" WITHIN EDUCATIONAL CIRCLES BY-
AND-LARGE LEAD THE HUMAN RACE TO AN AGE OF PEACE AND ENLIGHTENMENT -
provided that they are not encumbered by "ignorant" religious types
and those who'd prefer to live free from being monitored by "society"
(government).
Conversely, THE ANTI-U.N. PEOPLE HAVE NO WISH TO NETWORK WITH OTHERS,
nor even design a plan for their own society which could stand the
test of time. Individually, they are intelligent and have good
insights into our future. As a group, however, THEY LACK SHREWDNESS.
They make no "5-year-plans", much less any plans for a social
structure that would last into the next century.
The U.N. WAS BUILT BY people who labored over intricate plans for 200
years or so, through the Illuminati, Freemasonry, and THE LARGEST
BANKING HOUSES IN THE WORLD (e.g., the Rothschilds), and they have a
multi-faceted structure of financial coercion (through the FEDERAL
RESERVE BANK and their sister banks in other countries) that WILL
FORCE THE PUBLIC TO GO IN THE DIRECTION THE HEADS OF THESE BANKS WANT
THEM TO GO. Public opinion goes where the gold is.
It's too bad the independent survivalists cannot find it within them
to persevere with a 100-YEAR-PLAN for social change of their own: To
RE-ESTABLISH A CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, eliminate the Federal
Reserve and back money with gold, to limit the power of the Federal
government over the states, and perhaps MOST of all: GIVE THE U.N. A
MUCH DESERVED KICK IN THE ASS OUT OF THE COUNTRY, and make it clear
to the world that our country will not abase its sovereignty to any
other body.
But it doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon. Maybe
small bands of survivalists will form societies unto themselves to
wait-out whatever mess the U.N.'s tyranny tries to throw the world
into. And maybe that's the best we can hope for.
Let's see if we can move ahead in a new direction, both in this
Group, and also in changing the world to something more in keeping
with the individual freedoms America's founding fathers had
envisioned.
Oscar Rutherford
"Osram"
From: "Tony Fleming, Director of Communications"
Date: Tue Apr 2, 2002 7:30 am
Subject: Re: SUMMARY of the GROUP
You've neglected to account for those of us who are neither Pro-UN as it is
currently structured nor Anti-UN because we know that some problems cannot
be adequately addressed at the national level. I am a confirmed Federalist -
understanding that sovereignty ultimately resides in We the People,
regardless of our nationality, government or political affiliation, and that
from that origin, We delegate power to various levels that most effectively
address problems and meet our needs. The closest example of this process is
the United States of America, in which we have delegated sovereignty to our
local town councils, county and state governments and to a central
government. I also feel that if We the People so desire, it is our
sovereignty right to delegate to other levels, below or above those
mentioned, whether you take that from a theoretical interpretation or
derived from the Ninth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The current UN structure suffers from the same problem our government did
under the Articles of Confederation. Despite increasing common concerns, it
suffers from a substantial democratic deficit. Where in the UN are We the
People represented? Where are the checks on the ambitious TWO by the
Security Council, or on the actions of peacekeepers by the World Court? The
Confederation Congress was almost overrun by soldiers not being paid for
Revolutionary War duty during the Newburg Conspiracy. Today, millions die as
the Security Council debates which nation will contribute troops and
supplies to stop a genocide. Is this anyway to govern a society that freely
and enthusiastically trades and travels between its members, taking that
almost as a given right of a free people? Can capitalism and democracy
survive independent of each other?
Personally, I feel there are problems (globalization, terrorism, etc) that
our national government have been unable and will continue to be unable to
address because they're national authorities trying to impose rules at the
global level. This is why I support We the People being able to stand up and
delegate authorities on the global level to address these global problems
and meet my needs as a citizen when my national government has failed to do
so.
This is why I am a world federalist.
Tony Fleming
http://www.wfa.org
[satirical msg]
From: "chiefofstaffcea"
Date: Thu Apr 4, 2002 8:36 am
Subject: The Anglo-American Taliban
American-Based Terror Groups Captured With Enemy Fighters
by Jon Chance
jpchance@egroups.com
April 4 — A group of American-based terrorists were captured
with the Taliban forces in Afghanistan last fall, the CEA has
learned,
and US officials are trying to decide what to do with them.
The terrorist group that calls itself the Council on Foreign
Relations,
is being held captive in New York City and Washington DC. The
terror group originated from the British Empire. Therefore, the CFR
has dual US and British "citizenship" unless they renounced their
US "citizenship".
US officials say the CFR was swept up near Mazar-e-Sharif,
Afghanistan, in the fighting last fall. But the terror group has
been claiming US origin since 1921 and controlling the CIA,
the NSC and other terrorists prior to 1947.
The CFR http://cfr.org is apparently the eleventh American-based
terror group found among the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters captured
during the US-led campaign in Afghanistan. Sources told UPI that
the CFR will likely be tried in criminal court, just like Enron,
Citigroup,
the Blackstone Group, the Carlyle Group, the JDL, the Federal
Reserve Corporation and other American-based terror groups.
The CFR faces over 100,000 charges of conspiring to murder US
nationals, providing support and services to foreign terrorist
organizations
including al Qaeda and using firearms and destructive devices during
crimes of violence. Three of the charges carry a maximum life
sentence; the other seven have prison terms of up to 900 years.v
Ventura Denies Torture Talk
In Minnesota, Secretary of Defense Jesse Ventura defended the way
the US is handling the case of prisoners said to be members of Osama
bin Laden's inner circle. Officials told UPI that Henry Kissinger,
John Deutch, Joseph Lieberman, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld,
Rudolph Giuliani and other terrorists are being held in American
compounds and that they are not expected to be transferred to
Guantanamo Bay right away.
Ventura said US intelligence officials will try to get everything out
of captured top al Qaeda lieutenant George Herbert Walker Bush
that he knows, but denied reports that the man would be tortured
to make him talk.
"Torture is un-Constitutional, so perhaps we'll just exile Bush and
other terrorists to Iran," he said at a Defense Department briefing
on Wednesday.
Ventura said Kissinger and Cheney, "are receiving medical care.
And we intend to get every single thing out of them to try to prevent
terrorist acts in the future.
"They will be properly interrogated by proper people who know
how to do those things... we will be responsible for that
interrogation.
Not we the Department of Defense, we the United States of America,"
he said.
Sources told UPI that Bush is being transferred to a Middle Eastern
country where torture is often used on prisoners, perhaps to deceive
him into thinking he will be tortured. Officials said they will not
allow torture, and Bush will be questioned by people who are not
American, or at least do not appear to be.
They also said they did not want Bush to have contact with other
prisoners and hope to keep him in "extreme isolation" as part of a
psychological warfare effort to get him to reveal information.
Kissinger is the highest-ranking member of al Qaeda captured since
the US-led coalition began its military campaign in Afghanistan on
Oct. 7. He allegedly took over the day-to-day operation of al Qaeda
after it became too dangerous for bin Laden and his top lieutenant,
Bush. Officials believe Kissinger was organizing a new round of
attacks at the time of his capture.
While the capture of Bush may be a coup for the US-led anti-terror
campaign, it does not mean that the threat presented by al Qaeda
has appreciably diminished, officials said.
"We believe the threat of terrorism is high still," FBI Director
Robert Mueller said. "Their ability to carry out terrorist acts has
been hampered around the world … nonetheless there is ability
there … so we still have to be alert."
`A Tactical Pause'
Meanwhile, a British terrorist said Taliban and al Qaeda fighters
still on the loose in Afghanistan may change their tactics, but they
are not likely to give up their fight against the World Bank Group's
troops in that country.
"The threat to the Bank of England and the World Bank Group
here is very real," Tony De Reya, a gunman with the British, said
after the arrival of roughly 100 British terrorists at Bagram Air
Base, north of Kabul.
He described the Taliban and al Qaeda as being in a "tactical pause,"
but said that there is no doubt they are planning more attacks in a
"variety of commando styles."
He said the threats range from limited conventional attacks with
small arms and more sophisticated weapons or attacks on individual
targets with mines, grenades and improvised bombs. Even such
small-scale operations as ambushes, assassinations and kidnappings
are possible, he said.
De Reya confirmed the string of reports over the last two weeks
that al Qaeda and Taliban loyalists are regrouping in eastern
Afghanistan. British terrorists told Reuters that the gunmen would
not have been sent to Afghanistan if there was not a serious threat
in the country.
"We've got an idea on groupings, we've got an idea on sizes,"
he said. "There are large groupings of al Qaeda-Taliban in certain
areas of operation."
As many as 700 British terrorists are expected to be in Afghanistan
by mid-April. They will train for about two weeks as they adjust
to the high altitude and the weather conditions before they see any
combat, the CFR admitted.
Congressman: US Should Consider Bombing Israel
The US government should "seriously" consider the claims of
Palestinians who lost family members to Zionist bombs, Rep. Ron
Paul, R-Tex., said during a visit Wednesday to the war-torn country.
There has been no definitive count of how many innocent civilians
lost their lives to bombs that missed their intended targets, with
estimates ranging from several hundred to the thousands.
Most governments have said the US should consider compensation,
or simply invading Israel and removing the Stern Gang and other
fanatical Zionists.
http://egroups.com/group/jpchance
From: "osram007"
Date: Fri Apr 5, 2002 11:47 am
Subject: Re: SUMMARY of the GROUP
The World Federalist Organization's goal of democratizing the U.N. is
a worthy one. The problem, I believe, is that the U.N. is wholly
disinclined to accept an elected body of representatives to form its
"legislature". The U.N. was established without the consent of the
people, and its founders and present leaders are not likely to open
themselves up to democratic influences which could interfere with
their long-term intentions, such as they are.
I appreciate your viewpoints on the WFA, but I'm concerned about
their absence of any references to "freedom" ...rather, they only
speak of "peace". Peach can be achieved, theoretically, under a
tyranny, wherein the people are simply afraid to make a move and
conduct themselves "peacefully". also, the WFA equates peace with
strong government.
WFA: "We believe that peace is not merely the absence of war, but the
presence of justice, of law, of order - in short, of government and
the institutions of government."
Freedom entails an element of risk, and that makes it distasteful to
some. That's acceptable. Those who wished to take the risks of living
free 200 - 300 years ago came to this continent and tried,
eventually, to engineer a government that "governed least" -
affording the lack of interference necessary to permit individual
liberty.
I think the U.N. is attempting to persuade people to accept the
surrender of their freedoms for the sake of peace.
I suspect that, as the U.N. increases in power, it will toss a bone
here and there to political interest groups to appear "democratic",
perhaps they'll give the WFA a nominal role in superficial U.N.
administration, but free of any real influence. They'll do the same
with religion, where we'll be given the choice of "approved" beliefs
within the World Council of Churches - (who won't interfere with the
people's seeing the U.N. as their "supreme being"... And similar
facades of democratic "concession".
Anyway, I can understand your interest in the WFA's desire to improve
global influences.
Thanks,
Osram
From: Michelle Galin
Date: Sun Apr 28, 2002 3:05 am
Subject: Reality
Goliath asphyxiating the Palestinian David
People are looking for FREEDOM to worship, FREEDOM to speak their mind, FREEDOM to live their
lives, this is not possible until human rights for all are respected whether we call the land
Israel or Palestine. Racist acts of destruction and killing perpetrated by immigrants, from the
beginning of the 1900s is the problem, racism is the problem, respect for human rights is the
solution.
I doubt the Palestinians will conduct a terrorist attack on the US. Of all the countries in the
world, Palestinians have the highest rate of Ph.Ds. Education is so important to them that
parents will go without food to get their children educated. These are very smart people. Their
nature is also very peaceful. They would never do what the Israelis are doing.
Their reaction to Israelis oppression is very indicative as to how terrible the Israelis really
are to them, how evil zionism really is. I seriously doubt that even US citizens would not uprise
in far worse mass violence to even the slightest attack. As a matter of fact, US citizens already
do. Notice that the Islamists have refrained from targeting Jews outside of Palestine. In
history, the Arabs and the Muslims never experienced the Dark Ages
If it hadn't been for the Crusades going into the Middle East and taking what they did from the
Middle East back to Europe, the Dark Ages might never have ended. Arabs and Muslims in their own
right have long been a progressive culture. The West may be so progressive in many ways, but
Western attitudes in many other ways have never left the dark ages. In the Dark Ages fear was the
one thing used to control the masses.
Palestine was part of Canaan when the Jews first invaded it after they fled from Egypt 470 years
after Abraham went from Ur in Sumer (Iran ?) , through Canaan, to Egypt where he went and lived.
I think the whole world should mobilise against this murderous Israeli occupation of Palestine,
not just Arabs and all Muslims, but also every country who wants to make it clear that bulldozing
people's homes, ethnic cleansing, masse murder of civilians or unarmed men, and physical abuse of
captives are not tolerable, but immoral and criminal, and all perpetrators must be immediately
prosecuted.
Thousands of Palestinian civilians remain under curfew; communities are still suffering from a
lack of food, water and medical supplies; and humanitarian aid workers continue to be prevented
from providing assistance to besieged communities,
Since the beginning of the Intifada on 29 September 2000, DCI/PS has documented the cases of 266
Palestinian children killed by the Israeli military or settlers. This figure does not include
children killed in Nablus and Jenin over the last 3 weeks for which accurate information is
currently unavailable.
On 22 April at around 9pm, Israeli soldiers in a military jeep drove into the Old City of
Ramallah and began destroying cars located next to the Arab Bank.
www.davidduke.com
From: "mfreudigmann"
Date: Sun Apr 28, 2002 3:49 pm
Subject: Anti-semitism
Not for one moment do I condone the way Israel is seeking to defend
itself from a perceived threat, but I think we need to look at the
facts rather than just post propaganda.
I don't have the statistics with me (I'll try to find them this
afternoon and post them here if I get the time), but from memory,
Israel, which before 1948 was offically called 'Trans-Jordan' and
unofficially, 'Palestine' was predominantly Jewish (according to the
World Census Bureau) because it was against the law to be a Jew and
live in Jordan. Even if it wasn't, the international community gave
Israel the land and you cannot deny that for the last 54 years Israel
has been attacked again and again and again, sometimes the enemies
were external, sometimes internal. Never-the-less, I repreat that I
do not condone what Israel has done.
Let me paint this picture for you.
On September 11, 2001, America was attacked by several sucicide
bombers who used aeroplanes to kill about 3500 Americans. America
(rightly, or wrong I don't know, I don't know the evidence) then
fingered bin Laden, and demanded that the Taliban, the ruling party
of Afganistan, hand over bin Laden. Afganistan refused for two
reasons: (1) they weren't holding him, (2) they wanted evidence,
which America refused to give (for various legitimate reasons). For
two weeks they negiotiated with Afganistan at which point America
refused to talk anymore and said, in effect, "we're going to come in,
bomb the crap out of you, pull down your party etc etc". Afganistan
asked to further negiotiate and America refused. Four weeks after
Sept 11, 2001, America and its allies invaded Afganistan, a soverign
nation in pursuit of a suspect. In doing so, they displaced hundreds
of thousands of people and the onset of winter in a land that was
already inhospitable. After several months of bombing they discover
that bin Laden wasn't there. Was there any apology to the Afgani
people for the death and distruction and invasion of a soverign
nation? has there been any compensation given? Don't give me the
crap about food aid, look at the cost of that verses the cost of the
campaign. America and her allies (of which I am one) has killed more
people in Afganistan than were killed on September 11.
.......
Perhaps what Israel is doing is WRONG but neither you or I can jump
up and down after what our countries have just done!
The UN is not imparital, they carry their idealogies from their
respective countries...let's not deceive ourselves ok...let's not
believe everything we read that confirms our own perspective.
From: "mfreudigmann"
Date: Thu May 16, 2002 2:39 am
Subject: OSRAM007 please mediate here!
Osram007, I hate to ask you do do this, but can you please mediate
this discussion some more? I'm not asking you to boot Michelle or
censor her posts, because frankly I'm not convinced I've behaved in
the most gracious manner.
Is there some way we can make some rules (or enforce them if they
already exist) that will prevent this situation from happenning?
I'm not asking you to take sides, I'm just wanting to encourage
activity and discussion on the board I have felt that Michelle's
discourage that. So, if the solution is that I just shut-up...I am
willing to do that...but please intervene here a little.
Michael
From: "osram007"
Date: Thu May 16, 2002 9:21 am
Subject: Re: OSRAM007 please mediate here!
I agree, some of the views are frustrating to read. On the other
hand, that's sort of the purpose of the group: If someone doesn't
think a viewpoint holds water, then its up to that party to make his
or her argument against it. I realize it's a problem if one member
posts several propagandistic messages a day; I don't think it's come
to that just yet.
"peacemaiden2002" has posted a good amount of Palestinian history
(something that's hard to find in mainstream history books, and hence
has led to the erroneous opinion that Arabs have NO claim to the
area).
Your replies have effectively argued that her motive may be
predominantly a one-sided condemnation of Jews. I think each side is
a "big boy" and can tolerate the the slings and arrows of debate (I'm
speaking generally, not referring to members of this group). The onus
is on each to validate their respective arguments with fact and/or
opinion.
For my own two cents on the matter: I believe Israel has a valid case
for a homeland. However I think they were "tricked" somewhat by the
United Nations when the state of "Israel" was established: it was
done in such a way as to guarantee constant turmoil in the region, by
failing to negotiate with the Arab states at the time. And just when
Israel was fairly solidly established, the U.N. couldn't leave well-
enough alone and pushed for a Palestinian state headed by Arafat (one
would have to be brain-dead to believe that such an arrangement could
exist side-by-side in perpetual peace).
(UNANSWERED QUESTION: WHY would the U.N. deliberately want to create
a condition of turmoil? Maybe to justify the enlargement of the
United Nations military organization, to justify more funding, or to
increase the political power of the U.N. organization in general...
[or all of the above])
So maybe BOTH of you hate my take on the issue, I don't know. But I
hope the Group is strong enough to maintain continued discussion on
the subject. I look forward to any input you may have.
- Osram
From: "mfreudigmann"
Date: Thu May 16, 2002 10:03 pm
Subject: I'm off for two weeks on prac!
Sorry to leave you all...but I'm going away on prac for two weeks.
Let's see how it's gone when I get back huh? I'll try and get on-
line but I don't know if I'll make it.
Michael
PS...Michelle...where did the timeline come from? Would Jews agree
with it? If not, why not? Is there one that both Jews and Arabs
agree on?
I personally think that the timeline left out some critical aspects
such as the Jacob/Esau dispute and God giving the land to Abram. To
what degree do you think that those events impact the views held
today?
From: Hank McIntyre
Date: Wed Aug 7, 2002 3:30 pm
Subject: CONSPIRACY 101
CONSPIRACY 101
The Leaders of the New World Order rule over things the way the leader of a 3-Ring Circus runs
his show. They don't directly control each individual motion of the performers, they just give
cues to each ring in turn, and let the inclinations of the respective performers run their
course.
Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Kings aren't given a promise of privileged position simply
because they belong to the right club. Neither are perpetrators of "Terrorist" acts chosen
directly by the shadow government to disrupt some area of society.
All these players are dogs in a kennel run by the International Bankers. When one dog shows the
proclivities of a wolf, the NWO takes notice, and marks its name for future use against a target
"sheep". Another dog shows leadership within the pack, proving himself out in silly political
debates. If he gains the public's interest, the NWO mark his name for gracious press reportage -
while burying his opponents in benign obscurity.
When the NWO wants to take away personal freedoms from the citizens, they know they have to
shake up the population with a "crisis". The Globalists don't conspire with the perpetrators of
the attack: They simply put the "bowl of kibble" where it will attract the appropriate dog. The
know Muslim Extremists hate Judaism and Western Capitalists, and that they're willing to die to
kill off a few of their enemies. So, money gets funnelled (by ordinary-looking means) to enable
them to procure weapons, planes, and training.
At the same time, Leaders of Government Security Agencies are circumspectly "clued-in" that they
will be promoted given favor if they "don't pay particular attention" to a certain area of their
watch on a given day. This lets the dogs slip beneath the radar "accidently-on-purpose". The dogs
are just following their wolfen proclivities. No prior arrangements had to be made between them
and the NWO Financiers. And the heads of security departments are following their natural
proclivities to seek favor from those who can advance their careers - (or destroy them with a
phoney "scandal") Neither the Security Department Leaders, the "Terrorists", nor their NWO
Financiers have direct contact with each other. Yet they're all chess-pieces in the same game,
each being mobilized into his respective role by the gold strategically placed hi his path by the
International Bankers, who are confident in the greed, rage, or fear that's inherent in each of
the "dogs" they're unleashing.
So, if you're one of those who laughs when they hear the word "conspiracy", take note that it's
not as clear-cut a situation as you may think. The players in these scenarios are blissfully
unaware of each other. The Rothschilds and the rest of the Globalist Bankers know world politics
moves in whatever direction they place the pot of gold - and the "dogs" take care of the rest.