...storm an embassy!

sorabji.com: Why I oughta...: ...storm an embassy!

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 04:41 pm:

    M'kay...who else here thinks the storming of the Iraqi embassy in Germany by a handfull of men armed only with pepper spray was a bit odd. The building was under 24 hour watch by the Berlin police. No shots were fired. No one was killed. 200 police stormed the embassy to free the hostages.

    It seems like a great excuse to get 200 police officers into the building, ya?

    Remember that Germany was a staging area for many of the 9/11 terrorists. Many "ifs" here, but if there were any connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and if that connection touched on Germany, evidence of it could be in the embassy. So, how does one search for that evidence on sovereign Iraqi soil?

    Massive distraction. Occupy the embassy staff. Disable the security system. Put lots of bodies in the building.

By patrick on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 05:22 pm:

    good thinkin fucko. you should be working for them. Youd have to be pretty dumb to keep physical evidence of such a connection in an embassy in a western nation now wouldnt you though?

    they say that the majority of Americans support the impending war on Iraq.

    Who are these people? Are these the same majority who make up the approval rating for President Dumbass?

    Anyone here support this idea of war on Iraq.

    (yes im derailing your thread)

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 05:29 pm:

    You should be talking. "The plane was DEFINITELY shot down!"

    Derail all you want. I was just throwing an idea out there.

By patrick on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 05:54 pm:


    im giving this is as much consideration as i did the idea that our government shot flight 93, concocted some bullshit "Lets Roll" (fuckers we're listening to Neil Young when they came up with that one) propaganda, get us worked up into some sentimental cripcrap to cover for the fact that some f-15s whirled some AMRAAMs up that hijacked planes' collective asshole.

    are you saying its impossible flight 93 was shot down?

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 06:26 pm:

    It was a mistake to even respond to you.
    Forget about it.

By semillama on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 06:33 pm:

By patrick on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 07:01 pm:


    oh tiggy you're so silly.

    i SAID i thought your idea a good one.

    what you want me to come stroke your ass too?

    one day, it will come out flight 93 was shot down...one day. some good ideas in this article

By Antigone on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 07:08 pm:

    patrick, while you're raising your kid, try to be
    aware of how you express your opinions.

By patrick on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 07:14 pm:

    ok, tiggy, lay it out.

    what exactly in this thread, in how ive expressed my opinion, is ANY different than how someone else might express their opinion at any given time on this board?

    In fact almost all of what i have said here has been just as much tongue-n-cheek as it has editorial.

    and thanks for the advice, my child will be fully aware that his/her papa is a crackpot. i sometimes lookforward to being a raving old fuck off his rocker.

    i still say #93 was shot down.

By spunky on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 08:13 pm:

    "i sometimes lookforward to being a raving old fuck off his rocker."

    For once, we have something in common.
    Seriously, ask Eri.

    I am trying to decide to put my ideas into this thread or not...

By spunky on Wednesday, August 21, 2002 - 08:31 pm:

    I will start with this.
    An interesting read for anyone interested in Journalism.

    For those not interested in reading that much stuff here are a few highlights:
    "“Reporters are interested in the extremes – the doom and gloom of war on one hand, and surfing goat stories on the other. Nothing much in between gets any consideration.” There was little interest, he said, when he suggested a story about women teachers – regularly beaten up by the Taliban when caught teaching at home – who were now working for no pay to bring two million children back into full time education. "

    "Carmen Pedrosa, the veteran Philippines columnist, was fatalistic. “You have to accept that American influence is so strong in my country and stories involving the US are given much greater prominence than anything else – the government has been very critical of journalists who didn’t give their full support to the war against terrorism, for instance.”

    And she pointed out that there are other, far more alarming pressures on Filipino journalists than the disapproval of government. “If you do a story about someone that isn’t entirely favourable, they might just come in and shoot you – we have one of the highest death rates among journalists in the world, and most of the killings happen on our own soil.”"
    "There may be little even the safety industry can do about such random murders, but in Hostile Environments – Must Journalists Die?"
    ": “If anyone who claims the US media didn’t censor itself is kidding you. It wasn’t a matter of government pressure but a reluctance to criticise anything in a war that was obviously supported by the vast majority of the people.

    “And this isn’t just a CNN issue – every journalist in this room who was in any way involved in 9-11 is partly responsible.”

    Uechtritz added ruefully: “We now know for certain that only three things in life are certain – death, taxes and the fact the military are lying bastards.”"
    " “There were 3,500 reporters in Afghanistan – many of them freelances pushing harder than they should for a story. Where was their safety training? Were they properly insured? Absolutely not.”"
    "An Italian woman journalist was shot dead by Taliban fighters, he said, after getting out of a car wearing no head cover, in skin tight jeans, smoking a cigarette on a Friday - the holiest day of the week. "
    "“The reporter might be able to get away with all sorts of things, but what about his driver, his local fixer and their families? We have a collective responsibility to ensure that those people aren’t exposed to dangers we can walk away from, but they can’t.” "

By Cat on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 01:18 am:

    The first rule of journalism, Spunky, or maybe it's the fifty-first, is to question your source. You're bloody quoting from a conference media release.

    Sure, they make some interesting points. But basically it's navel-gazers sitting around in a room pontificating.

By Cat on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 01:21 am:

    And p.s. Pantiphone is right. It's such a conceivable conspiracy theory, it makes more sense than what they purport happened.

    Wouldn't be surprised if they had a tip-off that Bin Laden or other high-ranking terrorist was in the embassy.

    Hey, I just noticed that embassy ends in "assy".

    Anyway, wasn't Atta recruited in Germany?

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 11:49 am:

    he reportedly met with a senior Iraqi official in Germany.

    I want primetime footage of former UN Weapons inspector Scott Ritter who testified yesterday:

    "Their weapons programs have been eliminated, Iraq poses no threat to any of its neighbors. It does not threaten its region. It does not threaten the United States. It does not threaten the world."

    This guy should know, shouldnt he?

    I seem to be harping by myself but..

    Sometimes Trace, i have this wild idea of seeing your supreme boss Rumsfield barking his warmonger head off, rattling off shit he has no idea about, rattling his sabre and then seeing this giant ax ala monty python style just come and chop his head off.

    Where's the opposition? Where's the antiwar protest? Why is no one up in arms in this country? Lackidaisical fucks

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 01:20 pm:

    What are you talking about? The polls in the states? Oh come on, you know he does not listen to those, seriously.
    If Scott Ritter is a "former" UN Weapons inspector how could he testify on thier capability today????

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 01:49 pm:

    It was reported recently on NPR that a recent Pew Research Poll that approx 60% of Americans support an attack on Iraq and that well over 50% of them support it, even if our allies don't.

    They are a well respected survey organization, i generally regard their research as notable.

    Scott Ritter is more qualified on the subject than Rumsfield thats for god damn sure.

    His background is in military intelligence, he was on the ground in Iraq.

    If the US had proof that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction don't you think they would be parading it for the world in order to get this war on?

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 02:00 pm:

    "His background is in military intelligence, he was on the ground in Iraq. "
    I am not debating his back ground, however...
    Rumsfeld, my well educated friend, has also been on the ground in Iraq. As well as Powell, Bush 41,Bush 43, Kissinger, most of the guys at the Pentagon, etc etc etc.

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 02:06 pm:

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 03:02 pm:

    i have no way of knowing if the others have been on the ground in Iraq as you say. Entirely probable, but...I can be fairly confident you that none of them have been on the ground for the sole purpose of weapons inspections. Powell has indeed been there in wartime and he's not exactly calling for action like fuckface Rumsfield and Paul Wolfwitz and the other hawks.

    Yes, that Scott Ritter, who goes points out:
    "Unfortunately, on-site inspections have been tossed into the garbage heap by those U.S. policy-makers who seek not the disarmament of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction but rather the removal of Iraq’s president"

    Like i said, if Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, where's the proof?

    Why all this sabre rattling when there is no proof? Why all this war mongering when there is no emminent threat to the US or even US interests?

    Surely you arent buying this bullshit from the Whitehouse about how its in the "world's best interest" that he be removed are you?

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 03:17 pm:

    No more then Hitler should have been removed.
    But the world had to wait for proof then as well.

    How about for Iraq's best interests?

    The only proof that the UN or most of the EU is willing to accept would be if Saddam himself walked them, holding their hands, to the shit.

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 03:30 pm:

    Who are we to decide Iraq's best interests?

    Last I checked Iraq is still a sovereign nation recognized by the UN and the rest of the world as such.

    The UN and EU bought our proof that Osama was responsible for 9/11 didnt they?

    Even NATO doesnt support going after Iraq.

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 03:46 pm:

    OK. Whatever.
    Whatever he is up to, you will not see any evidence of it for about a year. Maybe longer.
    But in this world we have to wait until someone slams a plane into a building before anyone decides to do anything about it.
    There is about the same amount of evidence that Iraq is up to something as there was about the terrorist attacks on 9/11.
    This nation has been in a fury over the fact that the government did not connect the dots and stop it.
    But what choice are we left with today?
    Arrest 19+ people for a conspiracy charge? Oh, think of the fights we would have had over that.
    We have, with Padilla.
    Maybe we should have waited until we saw the suspect's planes they were in completely off thier routes, then scrambled jets and blew them out of the sky? Imagine the outcry that would have caused. They would say either we were acting pre-maturely, or why did we not arrest them before they got on the plane?

    Double edge sword.

    So the sad truth is that the Politcally Correct respone is to let hundreds of people die before you say you have enough evidence. And even then, you must try to negotiate some treaty before you try anything at all.

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:18 pm:

    Good, then we wont be going to war for another year or two then. That suits me fine.

    When they have evidence, present it before Congress and the UN, i will be content.

    Trace do you know what Tonkin Bay was? Do you know the significance?

    The uproar over 9/11 was the fact that the bureaucracy and general ineptitude of some of our leaders prevented the dots from being connected and thereby acting. Others are in an uproar because they think our government intentionally didnt do anything for various reasons.

    9/11 was an attack on the US on our own soil. you can't compare the situation in Iraq to that. Iraq poses no threat to the US or US citizens what so ever.

    Iraq is about attacking a sovereign nation on their soil unprovoked.

    You tell me, what exactly is American about attacking Iraq unprovoked trace?

    and stuff it with the political correct nonsense. I know rush likes to shove that down your throat as an excuse when anyone might question the sanity of the conservative, warmongering right, but this has nothing to do with policitcal correctness and everything to do with behaving like Americans and not launching unjust pain and suffering on the world simply because we can (or junior wants to please papa with revenge)

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:23 pm:

    stuff it with saying my views are not my own.

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:26 pm:

    I cannot debate you if you continue on that horse shit lie.

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 04:31 pm:

    trace what exactly about my opinion is "political correctness"? what exactly is "politicaly correct" about not wanting to get involved with an unprovoked, unsubstantiated war?

    start with that and we'll go from there.

By The Dinner Lady on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:19 pm:

    "No more then Hitler should have been removed.
    But the world had to wait for proof then as well."

    And remember kids, the US didn't bother to get into that little fray till we were actually attacked. Europe was being swept while the US sent love notes saying "Good luck!"

    Also, re:
    "It was reported recently on NPR that a recent Pew Research Poll that approx 60% of Americans support an attack on Iraq and that well over 50% of them support it, even if our allies don't."

    The best part is these numbers drop sharply off when the question is changed to 'Do you support an attack on Iraq if there are US casualties and we use ground troops'. The idea that Americans think a war can be waged with no endangerment of American lives is naive and distressing.

    Without the allies we are looking at a very dangerous situation. To my mind this impending war (and gee, what a sneak attack we're doing, talking about 'will we won't we' all the time in the media) shows just how far Bush will go to try to get people to not notice the entire US economy is falling apart and he hasn't the faintest clue or smallest interest in fixing it.

By Nate on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 05:52 pm:

    Churchill said that if it weren't for US involvement in WWI there wouldn't have been a WWII.

    and i don't think he meant because we saved the all the good people from the tyranny of evil minds.

    polls are bunk because the american people are too stupid to know what is good for them.

    war with iraq is coming, there is nothing we can do about it. the purpose of the war is not to remove the sodamizer. the purpose of the war is to flex our hegemeny.

    flex it, baby.

    we're the best. no one can stand up against us. we could take on the EU, China, Russia. anyone.

    come and get us, fuckos. we'll knock your tardass into the stoneage.

By patrick on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 06:20 pm:

    you get that feeling when Rumsfield speaks don't you nate?

    as John Stuart put it, he almost wants you to come kick him in the balls or stomach to show you he can take it and deliver it back 10 fold.

    "And remember kids, the US didn't bother to get into that little fray till we were actually attacked. Europe was being swept while the US sent love notes saying "Good luck!"

    not exactly. i mean there were bombs, guns amo and other supplies attached to those little love notes.

By Nate on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 07:27 pm:

    and IBM built a whole punchcard system for the NAZIs. most of the US was pro-germany, which is why pearl harbor had to happen.

    get it folks?

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 08:53 pm:

    We gave Germany a SHIT LOAD of money just before the war.

By spunky on Thursday, August 22, 2002 - 09:07 pm:

    Great White Brotherhood
    Argentium Astrum (Silver Star)
    Order of One
    Invisible College
    Custodians of the Plan
    The Lords of Compassion
    Guardians of the Grail
    Society of Illumined Minds
    World Mind
    Council of Masters
    Order of the Perfectibilists
    The Council of All Beings
    Invisible Order
    Secret Brotherhood
    The Brain Trust
    Crusaders of the Green Cross
    Seekers on the Threshold
    Masters of Wisdom
    The Hierarchy
    Council of Nine
    Fraternitas Saturni
    Hermetic Brotherhood of Light
    'There has not been and there will not be a place for the unfit. The fit will lead, and if the unfit are not coming along there is no place for them....In the Age of Enlightenment there is no place for ignorant people. Nature will not allow ignorance to prevail.'

    ~Transcendental Meditation guru Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

By The Dinner Lady on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 12:55 pm:

    The largest European ancestry Americans cite is German. I read it in an in-flight magazine so it must be true!

    I suppose this is why we put Japanese Americans in internment camps while letting German Americans run wild during WWII

By J on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 03:19 pm:

    I'm sure if Ashcroft had his way,there would be camps for Americans of middle eastern decent here now.

By The Dinner Lady on Friday, August 23, 2002 - 03:52 pm:

    Word up J

By No on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:41 pm:

    "Channel Six News has learned former UN Weapons Inspector and Delmar resident Scott Ritter was arrested during an Internet sex sting operation. But it turns out police caught Ritter months before, but declined to press charges. Sources tell us Ritter tried to meet a 14 year-old girl he chatted with online. He was instead met by police officers, who let him go. Ritter was arrested in June of 2001 for allegedly trying to lure a 16 year-old girl he met online to a Burger King. But that girl was really an undercover cop- surfing the web as part of a police sting operation. Ritter was charged with attempted endangerment of a child. But the charge was dismissed and the case sealed. That means, essentially, that it never happened. Ritter searched Iraq for weapons in the years following the Gulf War. More recently, he's been speaking out against President Bush's policies on Iraq and is frequently seen on local and national television.

    The almight Ritter is at it again!

By patrick on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 01:48 pm:

    dood. he WAS a Marine before he was a Weapons Inspector.

By Antigone on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:51 pm:

    When powerful forces are trying to ruin someone's public reputation, look for sex scandals like this to pop up. They're easy to manufacture, hard for the generally tech ignorant public to verify, and are highly inflammatory. ("Fry the fuckin' pedophile!") I find it interesting that the charges against Ritter were dropped and sealed, though. Also, strangely, this hasn't become national news. He must have some powerful friends on his side.

By No on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 02:55 pm:

    OH MY GOD, THE POWER OF THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Because it is only the radical left who care about a 29+ year old man trying to seduce 14 and 16 year old girls, right?

By Antigone on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:01 pm:


    Here is a news article on it. (Cut and paste. THe URL has commas.)

    Look at the sources of the news article: Anonymous "published reports," an assistant district attorney who was fired and has no telephone directory listing whom they could not contact, and a district attorney who said, "I can't comment on any sealed case."

    Hmmmm...seems awfully newsworthy to me. Open and shut. I'm suprised Drudge didn't break the story first.

By No on Tuesday, January 21, 2003 - 03:05 pm:

    Everytime someone is arrested in an "Internet Chat Room Sting" out here for indecent solicitation of a minor, thier name and who they work for is broadcast on the nightly news.
    It's usually just a 30 second clip, but it does not matter who the suspect is, they report it anyway.

    I personally have always thought it was an invasion of privacy to publish names and employers of offenders.

    In Clinton Missouri, the most popular fm rock station gave a morning report of all court cases that were tried before, the names, what they were accused of, and the verdict. Sometimes comments added in...

By wisper on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 08:26 pm:

    i'm just wondering what him being a pedophile (or not) has to do with his credibility as a weapons inspector...?

    Who cares?

By trace on Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:59 pm:

    Him getting money from Saddam, now that has a lot to do with his credibility as a weapons inspector.
    He is the ONLY American to address the Iraqi Senate.

By dave. on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:17 am:


By Nate on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:25 am:

    boy dave. you're sure sounding like a traitor these days.

By dave. on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 09:53 am:


By patrick on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 11:35 am:

    I think Rumsfeld and/or Cheney have met with Saddam during the Reagan era.

    fucking traitors.

    they we're probably following up the delivery spores for anthrax that we sold him.

By Antigone on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:01 pm:


By Antigone on Friday, January 24, 2003 - 12:02 pm:

    "Him getting money from Saddam, now that has a lot to do with his credibility as a weapons inspector."

    Back it up with facts, bitch!

By Rowlf on Sunday, January 26, 2003 - 08:43 pm:

    I believe trace is referring to the past allegations that Ritter a) had trips to Iraq paid by the Iraqi government and b) he appeared in a documentary that was funded by the Iraqi government. There has been no evidence in support of this claim, but plenty of speculation of course pops up on right-wing sites to sort of quickly brush off Ritters credibility. And of course Ritter has denied all allegations. There is an interview posted below and you will find another one between Ritter and Paula Zahn in CNN's archives. He corrects Zahn about the '98 inspection pullout in that article.

    Trust me, if the right wing had evidence about him taking money from Iraq, it would be big news. This is why they are going the "pedophile" character assassination route.

    ASMAN: That's why people, when they see you in Iraq with these Iraqi government officials, they wonder what the heck is going on.

    RITTER: I went to Iraq on my own initiative. I made the decision to approach and say I think it is time for me to deliver a message to the Iraqi government that if they don't allow ...

    ASMAN: Paid for out of your own pocket?

    RITTER: Hell, yes. Or by an anti-sanctions group in the case of South Africa, they didn't spend a single damn penny. I wouldn't accept their money, it is against the law.

    ASMAN: Some people say that some of this money has come from Iraqi-Americans, there's one Iraqi-American in particular, who is perhaps not pro-Saddam but at least people say he's against the U.S. position towards Iraq, that that in itself kind ... of [proves that] Iraq is giving people money to do their bidding.

    RITTER: ... He's a Detroit-based American businessman. An American citizen. He has family in Iraq. People have to put this in perspective. They are looking death and destruction in the face. You can't blame a guy that is trying to prevent a war.

    ASMAN: He has no contact whatsoever with anybody in the Iraqi government?

    RITTER: I didn't say that. How do you think I got the government with him? He can get me the audience. I take advantage. ... I am waging peace in the same way other people wage war -- I am trying to stop a war that doesn't need to be fought. This is not anti-American.

    [Unintelligible] ... put my life on the line for my country. And I would do so again if the cause is just, if the cause is founded. If there is a threat worth dying for, make the case, Mr. Bush. And I will support your war with Iraq to the hilt. But until you make that case, all we have is speculative rhetoric and that is not justification.

    ASMAN: We have clear rhetoric coming from Iraq. Arabs have the duty to attack and kill Americans even on U.S. soil. They are saying that. The vice president said it this week. Don't you think they are the enemy?

    RITTER: The situation that's evolving there's definitely an atmosphere of conflict between us and -- United States and Iraq. I'm not going to defend a damn word they say.

    ASMAN: You're taking money from a guy affiliated from the foreign minister/deputy prime minister.

    RITTER: I'm not taking any money. It's not going into my pocket.

    ASMAN: They paid for the trip to Iraq.

    RITTER: It was paid for by the Public Institute of Accuracy.


The Stalking Post: General goddam chit-chat Every 3 seconds: Sex . Can men and women just be friends? . Dreamland . Insomnia . Are you stoned? . What are you eating? I need advice: Can you help? . Reasons to be cheerful . Days and nights . Words . Are there any news? Wishful thinking: Have you ever... . I wish you were... . Why I oughta... Is it art?: This question seems to come up quite often around here. Weeds: Things that, if erased from our cultural memory forever, would be no great loss Surfwatch: Where did you go on the 'net today? What are you listening to?: Worst music you've ever heard . What song or tune is going through your head right now? . Obscure composers . Obscure Jazz, 1890-1950 . Whatever, whenever General Questions: Do you have any regrets? . Who are you? . Where are you? . What are you doing here? . What have you done? . Why did you do it? . What have you failed to do? . What are you wearing? . What do you want? . How do you do? . What do you want to do today? . Are you stupid? Specific Questions: What is the cruelest thing you ever did? . Have you ever been lonely? . Have you ever gone hungry? . Are you pissed off? . When is the last time you had sex? . What does it look like where you are? . What are you afraid of? . Do you love me? . What is your definition of Heaven? . What is your definition of Hell? Movies: Last movie you saw . Worst movie you ever saw . Best movie you ever saw Reading: Best book you've ever read . Worst book you've ever read . Last book you read Drunken ramblings: uiphgy8 hxbjf.bklf ghw789- bncgjkvhnqwb=8[ . Payphones: Payphone Project BBS

sorabji.com . torturechamber . px.sorabji.com . receipts . contact