2 x 2 = ? Is it too complicated?

[kent]

2 x 2 = ? Is it too complicated?

I understand that people cannot keep in mind too much  information to analyze it. Therefore I simplified the issue.  Two facts are enough to make a right decision:

First input - G.W. Bush and CIA knew that on 9/11 terrorists will use planes for terracts.

Second input - Not one jetfighter was alerted even one hour after the first WTC building was down. Somebody intentionally to keep all jetfighters on the ground.

(First input) x (Second input) = X (?)

X = G.W. Bush intentionally sacrificed WTC and  3,000 Americans.

Let's guess the purpose:

1. To have "reasons" in front of the World to seize Afghanistan because of oil, then Iraq, then who knows what.
2. To do the famous trick of a typical white crime: they destroyed their own business to cover up the fraud they do. WTC is involved in the biggest financial operation - thus, if they do big schemes - there are many reasons to destroy WTC.

You probably do not know one more fact - the most likely reason why WTC was put down is not the planes directly. In the basement of WTC and the 7th floor was a huge storage of fuel for generators to provide electricity in  case of emergency. All the storages were fireproof. All the storages were blown up.

First question:
Is it possible that the planes did critical damage to the protected (fireproofed) storages through 40 floors of highly durable and fireproofed WTC?

Second question:
Why Motorola's communicated devices of firemen did not work on the exact day of 9/11? Is it because Motorola does not know how to do make these devices properly or because somebody had shut down the frequencies in case firemen were to discover some evidence of what really happened to the storages and say it before they were to die? (A version: people disguised as firemen brought bombs to blow up the fuel storages to make sure that WTC would be completely destroyed and nobody could find any evidence of what white crime was going on in WTC)

Conclusion: G.W. Bush is the No 1 person who is guilty in destruction of WTC and the death of  3,000 Americans. G.W. Bush intentionally committed international crime - he seized Afghanistan using false claims.

If G.W. Bush intentionally sacrificed WTC and 3,000 Americans to seize Iraq - is it possible that he won't attack Iraq?

G.W. Bush accuses Iraq of non cooperating, but G.W. Bush is silly lying because if Saddam won't cooperate (and want to attack any country) - he wouldn't let the UN inspectors to search any place in Iraq they want.  G.W. Bush still has no direct evidence of existence of weapons of mass destruction but he surely will attack Iraq.

According to the rule of justice, there is no reason to go to war against Iraq.   Instead there are many reasons to impeach G.W. Bush and put him in jail.

The most important thing is to bring to justice the people who made G.W. Bush. Why? Because the American people did not elected G.W. Bush. Money elected G.W. Bush (electronic election fraud with participation of Bill Gates). And Money did it because they want more money and power. They must be stopped before WW III will happen.

[voidmain]

Get a fucking life, and take it to a Bush bashing site. This is a Microsoft bashing site.

[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: void main ]

[slave]

quote: electronic election fraud with participation of Bill Gates

I'd like to hear the story behind that one...

But I wouldn't be surprised, Bill G. is behind most of the bad things in the world somehow.

[slave]

quote:Originally posted by void main:
Get a fucking life

Are you saying he's undead?    

[flap]

Who cares whether any of it's true? Put him in prison anyway. And set him on fire.

[slave]

I don't like his faith based funding (my tax dollars going to fund religion makes me ill) and his over-eagerness to attack Iraq, but other than that he's kind of OK.  At least he keeps in shape, unlike  Al Gore (who unfortunately isn't running in '04; I swear if Joe Lieberman gets nominated for the Democratic party I'll have to vote for Ralph Nader or something)

[rtgwbmsr]

To the first person:
Someone who died in the Pentagon attacks husband is going on a shitshuffling fest. Pretty much to answer questions like yours. I'd be curious to see what comes out of it. I agree with less-extreme versions of your opinions.
1) Bush is a war president. A war president makes war.
2) Bush wants oil & money.
3) The US gov't had plenty of prior warning about the attacks.
4) Bill Gates is an evil fuck.
5) Faith based funding is massive bullshit.

Void:
Chill! This is the lounge. I think we need a political discussion forum or something though. Either that, or you can mod the lounge to ax the posts you disagree with

Linux User & Flap:
I agree entirely

Bush & Gates:
We're coming!

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I don't like his faith based funding (my tax dollars going to fund religion makes me ill) and his over-eagerness to attack Iraq, but other than that he's kind of OK.  At least he keeps in shape, unlike  Al Gore (who unfortunately isn't running in '04; I swear if Joe Lieberman gets nominated for the Democratic party I'll have to vote for Ralph Nader or something)

But the money doesn't actually go to funding the religion. It *can* go to religious organizations for things like keeping the homeless fed, helping to get them off drugs, provide shelter, etc. So if you have something against helping the homeless then that is a different story.

As far as wanting to attack Iraq I don't know that is the case. Ensuring they don't have WMD is something that must be done, regardless who is in office. He just happens to be the one that is there now. I don't see any other way at this point  of having those assurances as Saddam is not living up to all of the agreements that were made post Gulf War. I would rather go in and take him out than have any of the tons of unaccounted for Anthrax, VX, etc being unleashed on me.

[xyle_one]

[ January 30, 2003: Message edited by: ecsyle_one ]

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by The Muffin Man:
To the first person:
Someone who died in the Pentagon attacks husband is going on a shitshuffling fest. Pretty much to answer questions like yours. I'd be curious to see what comes out of it. I agree with less-extreme versions of your opinions.
1) Bush is a war president. A war president makes war.
2) Bush wants oil & money.
3) The US gov't had plenty of prior warning about the attacks.
4) Bill Gates is an evil fuck.
5) Faith based funding is massive bullshit.

Void:
Chill! This is the lounge. I think we need a political discussion forum or something though. Either that, or you can mod the lounge to ax the posts you disagree with

Linux User & Flap:
I agree entirely

Bush & Gates:
We're coming!

I will not chill. All of the accusations are bull shit. Saddam needs to comply regardless of who is in office. We just happen to have someone in now with some balls and can make it happen. If people can't handle that, fuck 'em.

[cocoamix]

I hate Bush and Gates more than almost anyone. I know I might be in the majority here, but I think I hate Bush even more than I hate Bill Gates.

Than again, we've had to live with Gates' bullshit for a lot longer than we have GWB's...

[slave]

quote:But the money doesn't actually go to funding the religion. It *can* go to religious organizations for things like keeping the homeless fed, helping to get them off drugs, provide shelter, etc. So if you have something against helping the homeless then that is a different story.  

Faith-based funding funds *faith*-based organizations by the very definition.  I have no problem with the government spending money on solving drug addiction and helping the poor, in fact I am deeply concerned with the plight of all people in those predicaments, but I am massively opposed to giving the money to churches and then asking them to promise never to bring up god or religion.  It just ain't going to happen.  For instance some of that faith-based money is going to Bob Jones University of all places.  Bob Jones is a Christian fundamentalist "college" which teaches creationism to students and bans interracial dating on campus.  How can the government possibly make sure that none of that money will be used to fund religious activities?

If funding religion is *not* the goal of faith-based funding (and by the inclusion of the word faith it seems to me it must) then why not put the money into creating totally secular programs free from religious influence?

Religious charities should remain voluntary charities, for the sake of religion itself in this country if not for the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.  When the government starts funding a church, the church becomes dependent on the government for funds.  So it's bad for churches too.  

What would be funny is if some of the money went to an Islamic charity in the US which happened to be raising money for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  Now *that* would be irony!

There is a lot more to say about this subject.  I suggest going to http://www.au.org/ (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) for more information on religion and the government.

[TheQuirk]

Go away. Stick this in the shit-bin.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
If funding religion is *not* the goal of faith-based funding (and by the inclusion of the word faith it seems to me it must) then why not put the money into creating totally secular programs free from religious influence?

Because many religious institutions already have these programs and it will cost nothing to set them up (except for the accountability of where the money goes). It would cost a lot more to have the government start new programs for this. I think it's better to let people help people. I am certainly not a religious person (even though I was brought up in somewhat of a religious environment). I believe it is great that existing religions already help the homeless regardless of their beliefs. And if they get a little religious preachings on the side and it ultimately solves their problem of being homeless then I can't possibly see anything wrong with that.

   

quote:
What would be funny is if some of the money went to an Islamic charity in the US which happened to be raising money for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  Now *that* would be irony!

Nothing wrong with some of that money going to Islamic organizations for the same purpose. And as long as there is accountability the money->OBL shouldn't be that much of an issue.

[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: void main ]

[slave]

quote: And if they get a little religious preachings on the side and it ultimately solves their problem of being homeless then I can't possibly see anything wrong with that.

That's exactly what's wrong with faith-based funding.  The government shouldn't fund organizations that preach to people about religion, even if it is part of something beneficial.  I know if I were a drug addict looking for help I certainly wouldn't want my only option to be to go to some "faith based drug rehab" program and get harassed to death by Jesus freaks.  I swear, off of one dangerous psychological dependency and onto another.

Besides, there are already secular government programs in existence.  Faith-based funding reduces the funding for those programs too.

I have a feeling that faith-based funding is Dubya's way of paying back all the churches and conservative religious leaders who helped fund his campaign.

[ January 29, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]