patrick.net

bgamall4 says

I said to leave the word Troofer at the door. If you want to debate, just debate. Don't insult, because that is all you have. You attack the messenger when you can't stop the message.

.... Soooo, when you say 'don't insult', does that include mocking my handle of Average Bear, as well as my logic? You are indeed a thin-skinned, hypocrite. I wouldn't read your eBook, articles or any other rubbish you suggest.

So, as far as the '93 bombing and its blantantly obvious connection to the group of terrorists responsible to 9/11, you'd rather not debate that, because, well, you 'just don't know'...(your words).....

classic.

Who are the good guys, exactly?

"On 8 April, three war correspondents were killed when an American tank fired a shell at the suite on the 15th floor. "

"When the news of the Palestine Hotel attack first came, the American command said nothing until it emerged that the French TV channel, France 3, had filmed the tank aiming and firing.

"But the most telling evidence is that France 3's cameraman had started filming some minutes before the tank opened fire, and his camera's sound track records no shots whatsoever."

"All three organisations concluded that the Pentagon was determined to deter western correspondents from reporting any war from the 'enemy' side; would view such journalism in Iraq as activity of 'military significance', and might well bomb the area. This view was reinforced in the early days of the war in Iraq, when the Pentagon wrote officially to Al-Jazeera asking it to remove its correspondents from Baghdad. Downing Street made the same request to the BBC."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jun/15/broadcasting.Iraqandthemedia

He isn't there to inform, he is there to sell the war.

bgamall4 says

You are lying:

According to its present CEO, Barry McDaniel, the company had an ongoing contract to handle security at the World Trade Center "up to the day the buildings fell down."

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html

And remember his mother saying Marvin Bush was in New York on 9/11?

And his replacement's first day on the job was 9/11 and he died.

Wow, you managed to find an article from someone equally intelligence challenged and having even less knowledge of corporations. A substantial achievement. Marvin Bush was a principal in Statfor? Corporations don't have principals. High schools and grade schools have principals. Corporations have directors, corporate officers, and shareholders. That should have tipped you off right away that nutcase.com wasn't the best source of information.

Since graduation 8th grade wasn't a life priority for you I will have to educate you on some of the things you missed. I'll type really slowly. Statfor is a public corporation. That means they sell stock to the public. There is a government agency called the SEC. They are in charge of public corporations. All public corporations must fill reports with the SEC detailing what the company is doing. Like who they sell to, who works tthere, etc., etc.. These reports are available to the public. That means you and me.

I'm lying about what?

Marvin Bush was a director and resigned June 2000? Try again.:
"Marvin Bush was reelected annually to Securacom's board of directors from 1993 through 1999. His final reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000. Throughout, he also served on the company's Audit Committee and Compensation Committee, and his stock holdings grew during the period. Directors had options to purchase 25,000 shares of stock annually. In 1996, Bush acquired 53,000 shares at 52 cents per share. Shares in the 1997 IPO sold at $8.50. Records since 2000 no longer list Bush as a shareholder."

Directors don't make operational decisions? Sorry, but they don't. Directors are there do give direction to the company not operate it. If you aren't mentally capable of understanding this then I can't help you.

Stratfor was finished with WTC contract in 1999. Let's see what Stratfor's SEC filings say about that. Here is 98 and 99.

"Revenues increased by 108.6% from $5.8 million in 1996 to $12.1 million in 1997. The increase was due to work completed for new clients and an increase in work completed on existing projects. Revenues from the World Trade Center project, which commenced in October 1996, increased from $1.6 million in 1996 to $6.6 million in 1997"
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1037453/0000925328-98-000030.txt

"Revenues decreased by 45% from $12.1 million in 1997 to $6.6 million in 1998. The decrease was due to the closeout of the World Trade Center Project."
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1037453/0000925328-99-000032.txt

The so the SEC filings for Statfor show no income from the WTC after 1997. Were they working pro bono?

Stratfor wasn't in charge of security ever. Again from the SEC filing.
"The contractors for the permanent security system are E.J. Electric and Electronic Systems Associates, both of New York. Securacom, Woodcliff Lakes, N.J., is responsible for system integration."

The word contractor here means designing and installing security systems. Not operating. I don't think I can even begin to explain what system integration means to you so I won't try.

Marvin Bush didn't have a replacement because he was gone from Startfor in June 2000.

Do you have any legitimate source for the CEO's quote other than nutcase.com says so? I've never seen one.

John O’Neill was head of security for the WTC. He started on August 23rd. So Sept 11th was not the first day on the job.

Absolutely useless to type any of this. I will say however that dealing with bgmal4 is the best cure for insomia I've found to date.

Recent Dow day is Tuesday, August 27, 2013 __ Level is 94.4

No theyre not; houses arent money.

Kerry; newest tool of the War Machine.
What the hell happens to these people?

bgamall4 says

David Losh says

So will we invade with Obama at the helm? I don't think so. He might box them in, but getting boots off the ground is what got Obama elected.

That is correct. Israel, UK, France are hot for war, but Obama knows better. I hope he sticks to his principles on this. America and her soldiers cannot afford another big war, nor can we take the change that Russia will make a stand in Syria. I believe Russia will do just that.

The UK and France are incapable of conducting a ground war in Syria. They are not 'hot for war.' They have, however discussed arming the opposition, which even you may be able to perceive is not the same thing.

In one word: Neolibs
Robert Sproul says

Kerry; newest tool of the War Machine.

What the hell happens to these people?

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The UK and France are incapable of conducting a ground war in Syria. They are not 'hot for war.' They have, however discussed arming the opposition, which even you may be able to perceive is not the same thing.

No, I think they are hot for us to go to war. I read where they may assist the US warships, that could be destroyed by Syrian missiles BTW.

Obama needs to put a stop to all of this before it is too late.

You seem to like to change your argument every time you post. Twist much? No Western power wants to put boots on the ground. All they are talking about is a very limited response. No ground troops and nothing of the scale of the Libyan bombing campaign.

Do you ever consider alternatives to what Infowars tells you?

egads101 says

3. canadian real estate is so valuable, the US could sell it all to fund the war, to chinese, and make a profit.

Now you're talking sense, like Milo Minderbinder. For even more profit, we could replace Canada's government run, socialized medical insurance with Obamacare. The AHA, AMA, and PhRMA would reward the politicians who supported the war with patronage jobs paying millions of dollars annually. It's win-win-win! It's a no-brainer! Charge!

Institutional investors have spent massive amounts of money on single-family homes. When they hit their magic price or find a prettier precious, other house buyers are screwed.

egads101 says

the serbs are white.

Klinton's Kosovo Kaper was the only war of the past 65 years which Conservatives found Un. Con. Sti. Tutional. Sensible Conservo-Libertarians just knew that war was NOT in line with the wishes of the Founding Fathers. I believe we know why.

If that is the reason for a war, then the US should invade Canada:

And yet we don't. What's different about the people living in Canada? Hmm...

Policeman of the world is anxious to test new generation drones which are necessary to promote a new bestseller.

Bizarre to see the democrats frothing at the mouth, at the chance of more death and destruction

errc says

Bizarre to see the democrats frothing at the mouth, at the chance of more death and destruction

I'm still seeing Priuses with both "O" and "End this endless war" stickers on their bumpers during my commute. I wonder which sticker will they peel off first.

errc says

Bizarre to see the democrats frothing at the mouth, at the chance of more death and destruction

Democrats also started the Viet Nam draft, and Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat. I used to be a loyal Democrat, until Obamacare made me realize that both major parties are imperial patronage networks. The Democrats' neo-liberal coercive "generosity" is their answer to Republican neo-conservatives. Both sides try to save people from themselves, because that's a hopeless (and therefore endless) rationale for more money and power. The Capitol is an auction, and each faction needs a more expensive set of policies to beat the other faction. At least to the Democrats' credit they're not as nasty and hateful as the Republicans. Democrats appeal to principles like compassion (though Nixon's bipartisan drug war isn't really compassionate), while Republicans campaign on naked bigotry, fear and loathing.

I liked the flaming duck much more - it represented the current "on fire" real estate market better...

:)

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

The UK and France are incapable of conducting a ground war in Syria. They are not 'hot for war.' They have, however discussed arming the opposition, which even you may be able to perceive is not the same thing.

No, I think they are hot for us to go to war. I read where they may assist the US warships, that could be destroyed by Syrian missiles BTW.

Obama needs to put a stop to all of this before it is too late.

Why do you think Obama is not hot for war? It wouldn't be hard for him to avoid war.

half off Renter,

Even though I am a life long Bay Arean, I am not a Cool-Aid drinker.

That said,

How old are you?

How long have you lived here in the Bay Area, Cool And Hip?

Do you work in the trenches of "tech"?

Have you worked (boots on the ground, not for meetings at palaces of potentiates) on assignments in Asia?

How connected are you to local K -12's, which like nothing else are a window to the community?

Just asking.

But it costs $400,000 to pay off the bureaucrat extortionists, environmental lawyers, and politicians, so after a minor 20% profit, we are at $520k average.

bgamall4 says

Prof, you wonder why Bob would take so much time defending a murdering piece of neocon crap.

Because I had absolutely nothing else to do while not able to sleep. Just reading your crap is usually a good cure for insomnia, but it doesn't always work. Responding to your stupidity always works. Where is your proof that refutes the SEC's filings? Oh right whackjob.com says it's not true. Do your parents know you are up so late using their computer. It's time for milk and cookies so you can get to 9th grade in the morning.

Are you and the professor dating? Take it off patnet and get a motel room please.

CaptainShuddup says

Get used to the Cure for all of America's problems being solved by corporations monetizing the situation.

Well said Captain. People need to wake up to the fact that America is being ruled by Banks, Corporations and Israel. And Not by the neocons or the liberals that the media have us believing in or has us divided.

bgamall4 says

Bigsby says

No Western power wants to put boots on the ground.

You don't know Republicans would have settled for no boots on the ground. And you don't know what risk a limited strike would spawn.

I don't read infowars, but I do know about Britam Defense and you need to know more.

You know next to sweet fa about Britam except that they were hacked and someone created a fake email (and have stumbled across the story a good 7 or so months after it happened, well done). Of course you think the email is real because that is your default position on anything like that.

John Bailo says

Builders could create new homes for $50,000 per unit

The house itself is not the major cost--it's the land below the house. I'm pretty sure lots in decent areas in CA. cost well north of $50K.

This whole thing is incomprehensibly foolish. We have no business sending military forces to Syria on unproven reports of small scale chemical weapons use against a faction that hates us, and will outlaw Christianity as soon as they come into power.
Why did we elect this moron? Oh right, the alternative was a wealthy blowhard who would do exactly the same thing. We are so effed, no matter what.

tatupu70 says

John Bailo says

Builders could create new homes for $50,000 per unit

The house itself is not the major cost--it's the land below the house. I'm pretty sure lots in decent areas in CA. cost well north of $50K.

Yep. Case in point. An average sized lot went on the market a couple of houses down from me the other day. $850K, for less than a quarter acre. Build a 2,500SF house at a low end $300/SF and presto, a 1.6M dollar house...Plus the builder has to make a profit so will sell for 1.8M at a minimum but probably more like 2M.

It's the United States of America, not the United States of Arabia.

Here is some commentary about these impending war crimes by the old Reagan Storm Trooper (who has since taken the Red Pill) Paul Craig Roberts:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

Update:
"The war criminals in Washington and other Western capitals are determined to maintain their lie that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. Having failed in efforts to intimidate the UN chemical inspectors in Syria, Washington has demanded that UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon withdraw the chemical weapons inspectors before they can assess the evidence and make their report. The UN Secretary General stood up to the Washington war criminals and rejected their demand. However, as with Iraq, Washington's decision to commit aggression against Syria is not based on any facts."

This war or child beating as it really is, is nothing more than a ploy to bring down the markets, and raise the commodities back into unaffordable levels so Bernanke doesn't feel like a lying sack of shit, when he keeps telling people and reporters that know better, that he needs to stay the course with QE.

No, it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.
Get your foot in the door with Syria.
Cut off Hezbollah's supply lines..
Isolate Iran as we isolate NK...
The nukes are coming to Iran, quicker than you think.
Syria is just our door into disrupting Iran without bombing the shit out of them.
If Iran goes nuclear, the only strategy short of war is isolation.

CaptainShuddup says

This war or child beating as it really is, is nothing more than a ploy to bring down the markets, and raise the commodities back into unaffordable levels so Bernanke doesn't feel like a lying sack of shit, when he keeps telling people and reporters that know better, that he needs to stay the course with QE.

It's none of what you state.
The real objective is isolating and strangling Iran.

Quigley says

This whole thing is incomprehensibly foolish. We have no business sending military forces to Syria on unproven reports of small scale chemical weapons use against a faction that hates us, and will outlaw Christianity as soon as they come into power.

Why did we elect this moron? Oh right, the alternative was a wealthy blowhard who would do exactly the same thing. We are so effed, no matter what.

SoftShell says

it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.

Wasn't that the goal of invading Iraq while still occupying Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on two fronts? Most Americans can't even find Iran on a map, and we seem to be getting farther away with each attempt.

Probably one of our goals.
But it did not stop the flow of arms to syria and hezbollah.
Time to try a different angle...
Or we can just give up and let israel and iran have at it.
and then pay 20 per gallon..
and watch the world economy go down the tubes, making today's economy seem like a boom cycle...
From a moral pov, it sucks, but in the end the needs of the many (the world) outweigh the needs of the few (arab states).

curious2 says

SoftShell says

it is an indirect method to take down the Iranian regime.

Wasn't that the goal of invading Iraq while still occupying Afghanistan, surrounding Iran on two fronts? Most Americans can't even find Iran on a map, and we seem to be getting farther away with each attempt.

SoftShell says

the needs of the many (the world) outweigh the needs of the few (arab states).

I think you meant to say, the campaign "donations" from the merchants of war outweigh the lives of everyone else.

The Afghan and Iraq wars didn't need to be botched, but they were, and that should tell you something about who was really in charge and what their goals were. In the wake of the cold war, the U.S. has become the world's largest exporter of weapons, everything from ATF gunwalking (how many thousands of Mexicans have been killed by that now, and Congressmen pretend to be outraged about one American?) to foreign "aid" that consists almost entirely of yet more American weapons.

War always has a constituency, because it involves so much money and power. The worse the strategy, and the more complicated and vulnerable the logistics, the more money and power the war can make. So yes, after failing to reach Iran after surrounding it on three sides, of course we are told that we need "a different angle" through Syria instead.

SoftShell says

one of our goals

War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.
Raytheon, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Honeywell, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and DynCorp always win.

I think Iran going nuclear trumps the war machine. Remember, nuclear states cannot be attacked by conventional weapons. Cold wars form. syria goes under the Iranian nuclear umbrella. whose gonna attack them at that point?

You think Israel will keep it's syrian attacks up, with iranian nukes pointed at it?
Once the umbrella forms, the doors wide open for hezbollah to flourish without threat of israeli attack.

The war machine sells conventional weapons. More states under the nuclear umbrella of others will deter conventional attacks, thus the war machine loses customers.

Better for the war machine to eliminate the possibility of nuclear umbrellas forming...top priority is to take out Iran. Syria is just a stepping stone to this objective.

curious2 says

War always has a constituency, because it involves so much money and power. The worse the strategy, and the more complicated and vulnerable the logistics, the more money and power the war can make. So yes, after failing to reach Iran from next door, on both sides, of course we should "a different angle" through Syria instead.

It doesn't fix anything. It is not designed to.
It is designed to legitimately get our foot ( and our allies ) in the door so we can gain more influence and justify further attacks down the line, this time hitting arms convoys going from Iran to Syria, or taking out some syrian leadership 'accidently'. Once we start the bombing, we just start changing targets.

Granted if they go through the russian port, we have no influence there. Maybe the higher ups are privy to intelligence that the majority of arms are not going through that russian port.

Straw Man says

I fail to see how dropping couple of Tomahawks on Damask fixes the problems of open eastern border and free passage through Iraq territory as well as Russian cargo ships able to freely go into their Tartus naval base.

They won't win if Iran goes nuclear, and provides the umbrella to syria and other hostile states in the region.

Robert Sproul says

War is the goal. "Winning" is beside the point.

Raytheon, KBR, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumann, General Dynamics, Honeywell, General Electric, Pratt & Whitney, and DynCorp always win.

We support your 'War of terror!' ;)