Syrian / Iraqi WMD's and reactors

[SUBMAN1]

The pieces are all coming together now. We knew the Syrians smuggled Saddam’s reactor parts. Dave Gaubatz said the Iraqis’ and Russians moved them to Syria. In case you forgot that story, you can read it here:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=502

I quote the above article: “…That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learned from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria. The location in Syria of this material, he says, is also known to these intelligence agencies. The worst-case scenario has now come about. Saddam’s nuclear, biological and chemical material is in the hands of a rogue terrorist state — and one with close links to Iran.”

So Israel waited for the parts to be installed in the building, and the reactor coming close to completion to make sure everything was destroyed, and then launched a secret air strike. Do I have it correct now?

Anyway, here are the pics from the site the Isreali’s hit:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/07/middle_east_enl_1193412299/img/1.jpg

Notice that 1. Syrian’s are not complaining too much about it, and that 2. They completely removed the building and scraped the sand of the target area – why? To remove the evidence!!!! If the site were innocent, they would have left the bomb craters for the world to see, but instead they did a mad rush to clean up the place so no one can see what was going on!

So my conclusion is as of this month, Saddam’s centrifuge and reactor parts are now completely destroyed and no longer present a threat, thanks to the Israeli’s. There is a downside – Syria probably learned enough from the parts to construct their own, and will probably have another reactor in 10 years or less.

This is my 2 cents on this situation.

-S

PS. The whole article can be read here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7063135.stm

[waste gate]

All the non statements from the Syrians, Israelis and GWB (US), and the complaints by North Korea, were enough for me to know that something was a foot.

The pictures place the period on the episode.

[elite_hunter_sh3]

and thanks to the israelis they have 200-300 nuclear weapons courtesy of the U.S taxpayers dollars, the near arab countries dont have any nuclear weapons due to israel whining about them... now who can bully them around and be king of the middle east???:roll: when Iran gets nukes.. Israel wont be so stupid as to wage riduculous wars for stupid reasons (ie the lebanon "war" more like genocide, over 2 kidnapped soldiers..:roll:)

Israeli and Palestinian Children Killed Since September 29, 2000
118 Israeli children (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html) have been killed by Palestinians and 952 Palestinian children (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html) have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/children.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/children.html)
Israelis and Palestinians Killed Since September 29, 2000
1,024 Israelis (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html) and at least 4,274 Palestinians (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html) have been killed since September 29, 2000. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/deaths-index.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html)

Israelis and Palestinians Injured Since September 29, 2000
7,633 Israelis (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/injuries.html) and 31,531 Palestinians (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/injuries.html) have been injured since September 29, 2000. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/injuries.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/injuries-index.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/injuries.html)

Daily U.S. Aid to Israel and the Palestinians
The U.S. gives more than $7,023,288 per day (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html) to the Israeli government and military and gives no money (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html) to the Palestinians. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/usaid.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/usaid.html)
US citizens THATS YOUR MONEY!!!!!! :nope:

UN Resolutions Targeting Israel and the Palestinians Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html) and the Palestinians have been targeted by none (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html). (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/un.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/un.html)
Political Prisoners and Detainees
1 Israeli (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/prisoners.html) is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/prisoners.html) are currently imprisoned by Israel. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/prisoners.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/prisoners.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/prisoners.html)


Demolitions of Israeli and Palestinian Homes
0 Israeli homes (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/homes.html) have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/homes.html) have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/homes.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/homes.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/homes.html)

Israeli and Palestinian Unemployment Rates
The Israeli unemployment rate is 9% (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/econ.html), while the Palestinian unemployment is estimated at 40% (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/econ.html). (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/econ.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/econ.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/econ.html)


Illegal Settlements on the Other’s Land Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/settlements.html) built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/settlements.html) on Israeli land. (View Source (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/settlements.html))
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/images/settlemnts.gif (http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/settlements.html)

...

[SUBMAN1]

Way to hijack a thread Elite Hunter. We weren't talking about the Palestinians, and you must analyze why they died anyway instead of throwing up some arbitrary number. Need I remind you that the Isrealies built their own nukes - to much of the dislike of the US. So no, it is not taxpayer funded. Please stick to the topic anyway.

Let me remind you - WMD's in Iraq / Syria, and Reactors. Notice the title topic.

Besides - all our weapons we gave them was well spent - look what job they did on that nuke reactor above. We should give them a ton more money $$$$$$$!!!

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

let me remind you that a country( who has 300 weapons of mass destruction) technically at war with other countries while they complain about their enemies having nukes.. can you think of a reason why??? so they can have the tactical advantage.. palestine is one of the "battlegrounds" in their little fiasco.... america and former USSR had and still have nukes (now Russia), and are they at war with each other??? no... did they nuke each other to radioactive dust in the 60s and 70s??? no... so why is the middle east any different....:roll:

[SUBMAN1]

let me remind you that a country( who has 300 weapons of mass destruction) technically at war with other countries while they complain about their enemies having nukes.. can you think of a reason why??? so they can have the tactical advantage.. palestine is one of the "battlegrounds" in their little fiasco.... america and former USSR had and still have nukes (now Russia), and are they at war with each other??? no... did they nuke each other to radioactive dust in the 60s and 70s??? no... so why is the middle east any different....:roll:That is where you've got your facts wrong. They are not at war with the other countries, but the other countries are at war with Israel for simply being on Isreal's own home turf - turf it has owned thousands of years BC. And, how many times has Israel been attacked? Notice they don't start the wars, they finish them however. And good for them for bonking those aggressive little heads back to where they belong. These same countries threaten to nuke Israel on a daily basis, and you think Israel is to blame for wanting to defend the right to exist? Maybe they should use their nukes to nuke the aggressors back to the stone age.

So get your facts right or go back to school before replying. It's pretty pathetic.

-S

[waste gate]

The Iranian leader tells us that their nuclear program is for peaceful, non-military, purposes. Are you saying that is not the case elite_hunter_sh3? If so; why do you want to allow a nation which has refuted the holocaust as fiction, expressed on many occasions, the the disire to destroy of other sovergien nations, and a leader with apocolipitic beliefs, the means to carry out those beliefs and desires?

[elite_hunter_sh3]

let me remind you that a country( who has 300 weapons of mass destruction) technically at war with other countries while they complain about their enemies having nukes.. can you think of a reason why??? so they can have the tactical advantage.. palestine is one of the "battlegrounds" in their little fiasco.... america and former USSR had and still have nukes (now Russia), and are they at war with each other??? no... did they nuke each other to radioactive dust in the 60s and 70s??? no... so why is the middle east any different....:roll:That is where you've got your facts wrong. They are not at war with the other countries, but the other countries are at war with Israel for simply being on Isreal's own home turf - turf it has owned thousands of years BC. And, how many times has Israel been attacked? Notice they don't start the wars, they finish them however. And good for them for bonking those aggressive little heads back to where they belong. These same countries threaten to nuke Israel on a daily basis, and you think Israel is to blame for wanting to defend the right to exist? Maybe they should use their nukes to nuke the aggressors back to the stone age.

So get your facts right or go back to school before replying. It's pretty pathetic.

-S

well well look who the aggresor is now.. wanting to wipe out millions of people and a few countries... :roll:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

The Iranian leader tells us that their nuclear program is for peaceful, non-military, purposes. Are you saying that is not the case elite_hunter_sh3? If so; why do you want to allow a nation which has refuted the holocaust as fiction, expressed on many occasions, the the disire to destroy of other sovergien nations, and a leader with apocolipitic beliefs, the means to carry out those beliefs and desires?

they do want to use it for peaceful purposes.. i am also saying they shoud build nukes.. for their own defence agaisnt israel.. id rather have 2 equally matched countries talking smack to each other, then one country having 300 nukes an ther other 0....

[waste gate]

The Iranian leader tells us that their nuclear program is for peaceful, non-military, purposes. Are you saying that is not the case elite_hunter_sh3? If so; why do you want to allow a nation which has refuted the holocaust as fiction, expressed on many occasions, the the disire to destroy of other sovergien nations, and a leader with apocolipitic beliefs, the means to carry out those beliefs and desires?

they do want to use it for peaceful purposes.. i am also saying they shoud build nukes.. for their own defence agaisnt israel.. id rather have 2 equally matched countries talking smack to each other, then one country having 300 nukes an ther other 0....

I haven't heard an Israeli leader advocate the destruction of Iran. If you have I'd like to see the arcticle and source.

The desire to eliminate nations is what tells me that Iran's ambitions should be stopped.

EDIT: The Iranian's have a weapon already, no nukes neccessary................Oil.

[Skybird]

If only there would be evidence for Dave Gaubartz's credibility from an independant source. Ultra-conservative blogs, Israeli lobbyists and friends of a new American Century unfortunately are not under suspicion to be free of bias, and Gaubartz so far offers no evidence for his claims, just his words, and a smooth theory. If that theory is true or conspiracy, I find hard to judge.

If he is right and hoenst, we would have little other reasonable alternative than to destroy Iran, Syria, North Korea completely if wanting to be sure they never can pose a nuclear threat again and also very important: before nuclear devices would be smuggled into european or american cities, one getting blown off, and then demands get dictated to defenseless and practically: totally defeated Western nations under the eternal sieg of nuclear blackmailing. If he is not true, then many scenarios are imaginable, including the one just outlined.

How to decide that?

We simply do not know yet. But I want hard, solid evidence before agreeing to nuclear wipeout of three nations. theories and conclusions are not good enough.

But no matter what's up with Gaubartz, no matter if he is true or if he is just a symptom of the political right that at all costs wants to avoid admitting that Iraq was a mistake and that wants to prove at all cost that it always has been right, the Iraq war nevertheless had not been launched on the premisse of Saddam being linked to 9/11 or constucting nuclear bombs. Ackoridng knowledge was not there, only well-developed, ten year old plans to attack Iraq, no matter ifn there would have been a 9/11 or WMDs being found.

So, I do not decide the issue of Gaubartz right now, but also do not close his file and put it off my table. It just needs much more than blogs by Philips or Malkin to compensate the lack of solid hard evidence and facts in order to rasie the credibility of Gaubartz claims. For the moment, I let him rest in stasis :), and my future attitude towards him is not yet decided. I reject to form my final opinion right now.

[Skybird]

On a principal thing, concerning oil, it should be noted that even if oil runs out, the arab nations are far from being defenseless and without influence. thanks to global economy and corporations being mad for getting listed at stockmarkets, they can spend their billions and multi-billions of dollars to buy themselves into economical keystructures of the West - and they do it, and do it deliberately and on large scale. When oil is running out we may find that we have started to work for industries that significantly are influenced or even owned by Arab clans.

Cheers! :up:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

That is where you've got your facts wrong. They are not at war with the other countries, but the other countries are at war with Israel for simply being on Isreal's own home turf - turf it has owned thousands of years BC. And, how many times has Israel been attacked? Notice they don't start the wars, they finish them however. And good for them for bonking those aggressive little heads back to where they belong. These same countries threaten to nuke Israel on a daily basis, and you think Israel is to blame for wanting to defend the right to exist? Maybe they should use their nukes to nuke the aggressors back to the stone age.

So get your facts right or go back to school before replying. It's pretty pathetic.

-S

Well it was originally Semitic land. But other people (other than the Jews) have lived there for more than 1500 years, and then all of a sudden the Jews showed up. The Jews are now the intrusive population, not the other way around.:shifty:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

I haven't heard an Israeli leader advocate the destruction of Iran. If you have I'd like to see the arcticle and source.

The desire to eliminate nations is what tells me that Iran's ambitions should be stopped.

EDIT: The Iranian's have a weapon already, no nukes neccessary................Oil.

give me some time to find that.. its an old article from a few months ago...

[The WosMan]

You really hate jews don't you?

[SUBMAN1]

You really hate jews don't you?Yes he does. But he also hates any colored skin as well. So, he follows along the lines of White Supremacist, yet what throws me for a loop is he is pro Socialism / Communism, which advocates that minorities are equal.

So, now that everything is black and white, there are only two explanations - 1. being he is simply confused about who he is or where he stands both himself and government, but thinks that white people are superior, or 2. He has nothing more to do with his life than cause arguments at Subsim.com. I am actually of the opinion that it is a slight combination of the two.

Quite frankly though, I am done arguing against the White Supremacy rhetoric. It is not worth my time. Feel free if you want. I am sticking to replies that are 'ON TOPIC'! Crazy.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

If only there would be evidence for Dave Gaubartz's credibility from an independant source...There is - he is a highly decorated American scientist that specializes in this work, and who knows this stuff better than anybody. But, he has controversial evidence to his credit, and it really ticks me off that my government has tried to sweep him under the rug. Problem is, he is so highly impeccable, that they can't make him go away. That has got to be a thorn in their side...

Anyway, why is our most senior weapons inspector ignored today and has been ignored??? If he were falsifying things, it would be in a report, yet everything on what he is saying was documented by my own government and in place long before this issue became a hot potato.

Even Bill Clinton knew Saddam had these things. I blame my country for not going after what D.G. said they should go after before they were removed. Part of the reason why is that there were the big military camps (An island in the middle of a land mass) that the US set up. You can't control a country or stop civil disorder with the way they handled things. You need a presence in the area to keep things calm. If you want to see what the Syrians / Russians/ and Iranians are up to, you need to be there at all times. Only in 2006 did they start doing this. Gave the Syrians 3 years to get everything they need for their reactor. Advanced their program 10 to 20 years plus in research.

Not only is your evidence sitting there from 2003 with D.G., but your Syrian nuclear Reactor that was nearly completed long before it should have been should definitely finalize what D.G. has told you for years. The Syrians took Saddam's reactor components and set about completing what Saddam tried to do himself.

Thank God for Israel. They finished what could have been Americas greatest mistake.

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

You really hate jews don't you?Yes he does. But he also hates any colored skin as well. So, he follows along the lines of White Supremacist, yet what throws me for a loop is he is pro Socialism / Communism, which advocates that minorities are equal.

So, now that everything is black and white, there are only two explanations - 1. being he is simply confused about who he is or where he stands both himself and government, but thinks that white people are superior, or 2. He has nothing more to do with his life than cause arguments at Subsim.com. I am actually of the opinion that it is a slight combination of the two.

Quite frankly though, I am done arguing against the White Supremacy rhetoric. It is not worth my time. Feel free if you want. I am sticking to replies that are 'ON TOPIC'! Crazy.

-S
you have any evidence to support this ridiculous claim...?? after all...that was before i realized capitalism works and socialism doesnt because socialism basically causes the people to be lazy since they know the government takes care of it all...

and automatically you say i am a white supremacist.. you dont know nothing about my political views and views on society, i am a WHITE NATIONALIST.. theres a difference, Us nationalists believe that Multiculturalism does not work, and we believe us as a white population should have a country only for our selves... look at what multiculturalism did to the U.S.. you have blacks, mexicans, all these minorities inducing gangs, violence.

in simple terms multiculturalism is a good thing.. BUT when this kind of stuff happens
http://ca.altermedia.info/civil-rights-droit-civique/white-men-need-not-apply_3456.html

or this
http://sosdfireblog.blogspot.com/2007/10/illegal-immigrants-arrested-for.html

or when these commericials clearly show that whites need to breed with other minorites..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qvaT2XujRH8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=liuwNfx0_9Y

here is a racist commercial against whites.. clearly shown on tv.. but when a racist commercial agianst blacks is whown everyone screams "RACISM!!! RACISM!!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Llh1UXHdOwE

when the country i live in was created by our ancestors, stars having commercials like these, allowing more minorities rights then the majority of a population.. something is wrong, why should we allow people of other nations into our country and allow them to take over??? , a prime example is japan, their immigration policies are stricter then ever.. and look at their society.. world leaders in technology, health , they are rich, have a strong economy.. despite being located near a major volcanic fault line as well as earthquake fault lines...

do i want to kill all blacks?? no, do i want to kill all jews ?? no.. all minorites except whites?? no... i simply dont want them in North America (U.S, Canada) and Europe
hispanics have south america, blacks have africa, asians have Asia, arabs have Middle East.. we deserve our own land.. not to be integrated with other races... after all we are all the same species arent we??? so what makes them so special over us????

and i am done with this thread.. we have gone to far off topic..

[The WosMan]

Here, this is right up your alley http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGp0hCxSg98

[elite_hunter_sh3]

how does that have anything to with WN????????? White supremacists like hitler.. most WN dont but they did recognize his idea of a Aryan only country.. us WN just dont like killing everyone for it..

[The WosMan]

:damn:

[SUBMAN1]

:damn: :rotfl: Perfect response.

To The WosMan - Did I not call it or what?

To Elite Hunter 3 - Yes, you advocated Socialism / Communism in past threads. Specifically the one where we had a discussion of how you would not have your fathers Hummer... Beginning to ring a bell? I don't forget easy. Search it. You will find your answer. Are you reneging on that claim?

-S

[elite_hunter_sh3]

that was alooong time ago... :roll: (so go right ahead use it if you want.. thats in the past.. my views are different)

a interview between a reporter and a MMA UFC fighter who is a White nationalist like me

Sam Caplan: In regard to the swastika that is tattooed to your chest, is that an accurate representation of your views?

Melvin Costa: Yeah.

Sam Caplan: So you're a neo-nazi supporter?

Melvin Costa: I'm a white nationalist. I wouldn't call myself a neo-nazi.

Sam Caplan: Can you go into detail about what some of your vews as a white nationalist are?

Melvin Costa: First and foremost I want the people out there not to mix up love for my own with hate for others. I don't hate any other race. I love my own. That's what I'm about pretty much; the advancement of my people, my culture, (and) my heritage.

Sam Caplan: There have been a few reports that you've had supporters from your shows come out who are also white nationalists. To your knowledge, are those reports accurate?

Melvin Costa: I couldn't say I've seen that, honestly, I really don't.

Sam Caplan: There have also been claims that some of your tattoos are jail tattoos. Is that correct?

Melvin Costa: Yep.

Sam Caplan: So you have served time?

Melvin Costa: Uh-huh.

Sam Caplan: How much time have you served?

Melvin Costa: I've pretty much been locked up since I was 15 up until 18 months ago.

Sam Caplan: What were you sentenced for?

Melvin Costa: A variety of things. Mostly fighting; bodily injuries, assaults, a couple of bulgaries. Mostly fighting though and that's why I'm in the cage now (I'm) trying to direct my energy in a positive path.

Sam Caplan: So your assertion by wearing a swastika is that you're not neccessarily against other races, you're just for the white race?

Melvin Costa: Yes, exactly. A swastika, as far as I hold it true to my own, it stands for the purity of my people's blood. It doesn't stand for hating jews or any other ethnic race. If you look into the meaning of a swastika from a nationalist's point of a view, it's for the purity of our own race. I do believe in the purity, security, and the survival of the white race. I don't believe in hate crimes or going about the cultural advancement of your people in that avenue, but I do believe in supporting your local white boy and being proud of your people and your past. It's a part of who you are. You deny that and you deny yourself.

Sam Caplan: So if a minority attended a show you were fighting on and saw the swastika on your chest and was offended by it, what would you tell them if you were going to talk to them?

Melvin Costa: It depends on what race they are. If you're a black man saying that I would say "Are you ashamed of Malcom X?" Because Malcolm X pretty much held the same views that I do, except for his own people. To the Mexicans, I would say there's a lot of Latinos out there that hold the same views that I do: the cultural advancement of their people. I'm not trying to downplay them or do anything to alter their way of living; I'm trying to advance my people's way of living. That's what I hold true.

Sam Caplan: If a jew came up to you and expressed concern about the swastika, what would you tell them?

Melvin Costa: I'd tell them to look at their own people. Be proud of who they are. Their people are doing a lot to advance their own people. What avenues do the whites have now a day to be proud of who they are? None. There ain't no people out there going "White power. White pride." But you have all sorts of other races that have their own month. Maybe I'll stop wearing a swastika on my chest when we have a white heritage month. Until then I'm proud to be white and that's pretty much all that needs to be said.

Sam Caplan: I know you are entitled to your views of believing in the advancement of the white race, but don't you feel that maybe there's another symbol you could have chosen to represent your views other than a swastika?

Melvin Costa: You've got to understand the way that I grew up. My past is through jail. What other tattoo could I have gotten to represent as strongly as it does how I feel: white power, pretty much in one symbol? When I come down that ramp and people see me when I go to fight they know I'm white power. What else could I have put that people would have said "Oh, he's white power?" It's pretty much putting out there who I am and what I'm about.

Sam Caplan: Has anyone ever approached you in the fight game about either getting the swastika covered up or removed?

Melvin Costa: No.

Sam Caplan: If someone did, what would your response be?

Melvin Costa: You know, it's America (laughs). Like I said, the reason why I don't hold myself to be a neo-nazi is because I do believe in a lot a things our forefathers believed in. I believe in freedom of speech (and) I believe in freedom of press. I believe in all of that. I don't believe in communism or none of that repressing our views and our way of living.

Sam Caplan: Can you talk more about the difference between a white nationalist and neo-nazi?

Melvin Costa: A neo-nazi holds Hitler's beliefs to be true down to a T. I don't. I believe in Hitler's point of view as far as racial consonance but I don't believe a lot of things as far as controlling an economy. He wanted to control every single aspect of people's lives. He wanted to control the press. He wanted to control what people wore. I don't believe in none of that. I think that we should be allowed to live freely.

I think that today in our day and age I think the white race isn't able to have as many opportunities as other races have. Therefore I believe that we should start sticking up for ourselves to get the things that we need in society. I'll give one example. You've heard of (Barrack) Obama running for president?

Sam Caplan: Yes.

Melvin Costa: Well, why is it that he's gone on record as saying that "I'm for consonance in all my people, putting in civic duties for my people, and advancing my people" but he's not labled a racist? Why am I when I say the same thing labeled a racist?

Sam Caplan: Do you want me to answer that?

Melvin Costa: Yeah, go ahead.

Sam Caplan: I think some people feel that African-Americans are a minority and that the playing field is not equal for minority Americans in this country and that to help level the playing field there needs to be empowerment and that the white race is the majority and that they don't need some of the same advantages that African-Americans might be getting.

Melvin Costa: But as a president should those be the first on his list?

Sam Caplan: I'm just trying to give a different perspective here; it's not neccessarily one that I do or do not believe. But there's the belief that there isn't a level playing field when it comes to race in the United States and that minorities do need certain advantages in order to even the playing field with the majority.

Melvin Costa: I see what you're saying. I read a lot of articles in the press and I'm pretty mindful of what's going on in the world. But speaking solely for myself, I've never seen that. I grew up where I was a minority. I grew up getting picked on because I was white, okay? So I can't say what they've gone through but I know what I've gone through and the way it's portrayed to me through the media is we're the majority? I've never seen that. I've been beat up because I was white (and) I've been picked on because I was white. So for me solely when I tattoo a swastika on my chest it's saying that I'm against everything I've been through in life and that I'm trying to empower my people and I want the white kids to know that they can be proud to be white.

Sam Caplan: For the record, what area did you grow up in?

Melvin Costa: San Bernardino (Calif.).

Sam Caplan: There's also been speculation about another one of your tattoos. In the picture that's circulating, you're also shown with a spider web tatoo on one of your elbows. I'm not sure if this is true, so I wanted to ask you, but that's a prison tattoo that represents someone who has killed an African-American?

Melvin Costa: I don't know nothing about that. I got my tattoo when I got out. I got this tattooed last year. If that's true then it wasn't a part of my knowledge when I got it.

Sam Caplan: Is there anything else that you wanted to say for the record?

Melvin Costa: As I said earlier, I'm not out there trying to hate other races. I'm for the advancement of my people; racial consonance amongst my people. Be proud to be white. That's all that it is.

[Skybird]

If only there would be evidence for Dave Gaubartz's credibility from an independant source...There is - he is a highly decorated American scientist that specializes in this work, and who knows this stuff better than anybody. But, he has controversial evidence to his credit, and it really ticks me off that my government has tried to sweep him under the rug. Problem is, he is so highly impeccable, that they can't make him go away. That has got to be a thorn in their side...


That is not evidence, that is reputation, and the credibility you are willing to give him for that reputation is subjective belief - your belief. I read about Gaubartz too over the past months, so he is no unknown. and still - no hard facts, only hints that get interpreted. and nthere, the circle is clising wioth regard to what credicility you are willing to give him in order to come up for the lacking hard facts and evidence.

that is not meant as an attack or critizism, Subman. I just want to make clear that a man's reputation is nothing more than this - his reputation. Evidence is something different. the standards to judge the issue must be extremely solid in this case, because the issue at hand would in worst case call for consequences of the worst kind and bring millions into misery. Before I accept to will a mass killing of that scale, I demand solid, hard undeniable evidence. Gaubartz may be a fine man or not, it does not matter. His reputation and interpretations shall not be allowed to decide this.

[Onkel Neal]

Now some people saying openly they are something that can't be labelled as Racist, but is really going too far. White supremists, white nationalists, black nationalists, Eskimo nationalists: not here. We're seeing a growing trend of long cut-n-paste topics on this subject by a few, let's give it a rest. If the GT forum continues at this pace, we will soon see someone saying that Hitler and the Nazis were like the Boy Scouts, only their ideals got misunderstood.

Now, please follow Skybird's example and stick to the topic.

Neal

[SUBMAN1]

That is not evidence, that is reputation, and the credibility you are willing to give him for that reputation is subjective belief - your belief. I read about Gaubartz too over the past months, so he is no unknown. and still - no hard facts, only hints that get interpreted. and nthere, the circle is clising wioth regard to what credicility you are willing to give him in order to come up for the lacking hard facts and evidence.

that is not meant as an attack or critizism, Subman. I just want to make clear that a man's reputation is nothing more than this - his reputation. Evidence is something different. the standards to judge the issue must be extremely solid in this case, because the issue at hand would in worst case call for consequences of the worst kind and bring millions into misery. Before I accept to will a mass killing of that scale, I demand solid, hard undeniable evidence. Gaubartz may be a fine man or not, it does not matter. His reputation and interpretations shall not be allowed to decide this.I hear ya. I know it's not an attack. I'm am just saying however that you forgot again that his evidence and intelligence was already submitted prior to it becoming a hot potato. Regardless of his reputation, this is the very reason no one can call him a rogue or say it is not true.

-S

[Skybird]

what evidence...?

To quote the essay by Phillips:

"He should know because he found the sites where he is certain they were stored. And the reason you don’t know about this is that the American administration failed to act on his information, ‘lost’ his classified reports and is now doing everything it can to prevent disclosure of the terrible fact that, through its own incompetence, it allowed Saddam’s WMD to end up in the hands of the very terrorist states against whom it is so controversially at war."

So he was certain of something, and a report was lost. Well, I once was certain that pink elephants do exist, but I lost my notes on it. - no evidence.


"Between March and July 2003, he says, he was taken to four sites in southern Iraq— two within Nasariyah, one 20 miles south and one near Basra — which, he was told by numerous Iraqi sources, contained biological and chemical weapons, material for a nuclear programme and UN-proscribed missiles. He was, he says, in no doubt whatever that this was true."

Has anyone ever denied that Iraq once had chemical weapons and used them during the 80s? Obviously they were stored somewhere, and such places could be found. The war was founded on the argument that he still had these and other weapons in 2003, and that he was close to get nuclear weapons as well. Word was of Iraqi missiles soon reaching England within 30 minutes. :lol: I personally own a garage, which came with my flat when I bought it. Is that evidence that I also own a car at the time I bought the property? I do not have a car, and never had one, btw. - No evidence.


"There was no doubt, with so much effort having gone into hiding these constructions, that something very important was buried there’, says Mr Gaubatz."

Yes indeed, somthing once was there. what, and when? Would the assumption that it were chemical weapons from the possessions he once had of these weapons, or the nuclear program he once ran, would that be too far-fetched? - No evidence.


"‘They explained in detail why WMDs were in these areas and asked the US to remove them’, says Mr Gaubatz. ‘Much of this material had been buried in the concrete bunkers and in the sewage pipe system. There were also missile imprints in the area and signs of chemical activity —gas masks, decontamination kits, atropine needles. The Iraqis and my team had no doubt at all that WMDs were hidden there’. "

See above.


"That, he says, is precisely what happened. He subsequently learned from Iraqi, CIA and British intelligence that the WMD buried in the four sites were excavated by Iraqis and Syrians, with help from the Russians, and moved to Syria."

Again, this rates as a statement, not as an evidence. An intel service told him. fine, maybe it is true, maybe not. but it is no evidence.


"To his horror, however, when they tried to access his classified intelligence reports they were told that all 60 of them —which, in the routine way, he had sent in 2003 to the computer clearing-house at a US air base in Saudi Arabia —had mysteriously gone missing. These written reports had never even been seen by the ISG. "

Mysterious, and worth further investigation, but for the time being: no evidence for anything. not even for that there ever have been 60 reports and somebody took care of them.


"One theory is that they were inadvertently destroyed when the computer’s data base was accidentally erased in the subsequent US evacuation of the air base. Mr Gaubatz, however, suspects dirty work at the crossroads. It is unlikely, he says, that no copies were made of his intelligence. And he says that all attempts by Messrs Hoekstra and Weldon to extract information from the Defence Department and CIA have been relentlessly stonewalled. "

One theory. A man suspecting something. A statement of being stonewalled by others. Maybe true, maybe not. No evidence.


"Mr Gaubatz’s claims remain largely unpublicised. Last year, the New York Times dismissed him as one of a group of WMD diehard obsessives. The New York Sun produced a more balanced report, but after that the coverage died. According to Mr Gaubatz, the reason is a concerted effort by the US intelligence and political world to stifle such an explosive revelation of their own lethal incompetence."

I would love to give Bush and gang the credits for this conspiracy, but I couldn't: no evidence. That it sounds tempting for my wishful thinking of having another reason to bash Bush does not turn it into evidence.


"The problem the US authorities have is that they can’t dismiss Mr Gaubatz as a rogue agent — because they have repeatedly decorated him for his work in the field. In 2003, he received awards for his ‘courage and resolve in saving lives and being critical for information flow’. In 2001, he was decorated for being the ‘lead agent in a classified investigation, arguably the most sensitive counter-intelligence investigation currently in the entire Department of Defence’ and because his ‘reports were such high quality, many were published in the Air Force’s daily threat product for senior USAF leaders or re-transmitted at the national level to all security agencies in US government’"

I already said it: a man's reputation is no evidence, but not more than this: his reputation.


"Of course we don’t know whether any of this is true. But given Dave Gaubatz’s testimony, shouldn’t someone be trying to find out?"

On this I totally agree. Investiagte it all, try to find out. Try to find the evidence. what we have right now, is no evidence, only reasoning, a linking of thoughts, subjective interpretations, statements of concern.

An evidence is a hard, solid, undeniable fact. Something like the pictures showed to the Russians during the Cuba crisis that immediately made them stopping to deny there would be any missiles at all. evidence is something that undeniably decides wether something is true, or untrue. nothing of what has been written about Gaubartz over the range of this year 2007 qualfiies for that definition, nuetrally said, it is all hear-say, reasonable in sounding, but unproven. Aggressively said, it could very well be a cleverly constructed conspiration theory of people who could not accept that the cause for the Iraq war was not true.

Due to the seriousness of the object, we cannot afford to leave it all alone. So like Phillips said, "let's find out" the facts, and find the evidence. If it is true it is vital for all of us to find it out. If it is untrue, there is no evidence that we could find.

[August]

I personally own a garage, which came with my flat when I bought it. Is that evidence that I also own a car at the time I bought the property? I do not have a car, and never had one, btw. - No evidence.

Not to disagree with your general point but if you were the one who had originally built the garage it's a pretty safe bet you had a reason for it.

[Skybird]

I personally own a garage, which came with my flat when I bought it. Is that evidence that I also own a car at the time I bought the property? I do not have a car, and never had one, btw. - No evidence.

Not to disagree with your general point but if you were the one who had originally built the garage it's a pretty safe bet you had a reason for it.
Probably yes. But who has ever denied that Iraq once had chemical weapons, in the 80s and early 90s? not me, not anyone else. If the weapons and porgrams still were there, still were active in 2002 and 2003 - that decides wether striking Iraq had a valid reason, or only blind guessing as excuse.

However, if Gaubartz would be right right, it has consequences of much greater seriousness than just striking Iraq. If these former Iraqi informations and/or installations are now programs in Syria, Iran, and maybe elsewhere, too, and if they are hidden in the ground and mountains like the Iranians have hidden their parts, sooner or later we would talk about nuclear strikes not only in Iran, but the whole region if force is considered a legitimate option to get these programs being shut down, for I am still sure that the Iranian program cannot be reached and sufficently crippled by conventional military action alone. We also need to see that such action would erase last remaining scruples with the use of nukes on ALL sides, and open pandora's box. it is an extremely nasty scenario, and eventually it could turn into the beginning of our end. Eventually.

And that is the reason why i am so adamant about evidence being shown before attacking syria, or any other nation with regard to the possebility of these nations developing nukes. their thread doe snot lay in nuclear missiles, and I think the whole concept of a US missile shield therefore is of no real use. What I worry about is nuclear devices being smuggled into or better: constructed in Western nations, hidden in western metropoles - and then one bright and loud demonstration, followed by one warning that there are others, and all the West is totally defeated and unable to act, eternally blackmailed. It is Skybird's precious little nightmare scenario, far more effective than nuclear missiles.

If I were the bad guys, that'S how I would do it. Smuggling the devices or needed material into Canada, and then via the wide open, wonderfully long and mostly totally unguarded border into the US. Spend some years, if needed, to get the constuction done by homegrown Muhammedans, not raising suspicion by importing foreigners. 4-6 nuclear, if possible "dirty" bombs hidden in SF, LA, NY, Washington, Chicago and let'S say Houston, blowing one up, have some hundred thousands dead and some millions dying in the following years, and tell Washington that if they do not as I I want them to do, bomb number two would go up. That would be the end of the US, and the end of a free, non-Islamic Europe.

A first rate top class nightmare.

We need EVIDENCE.

[August]

If I were the bad guys, that'S how I would do it. Smuggling the devices or needed material into Canada, and then via the wide open, wonderfully long and mostly totally unguarded border into the US. Spend some years, if needed, to get the constuction done by homegrown Muhammedans, not raising suspicion by importing foreigners. 4-6 nuclear, if possible "dirty" bombs hidden in SF, LA, NY, Washington, Chicago and let'S say Houston, blowing one up, have some hundred thousands dead and some millions dying in the following years, and tell Washington that if they do not as I I want them to do, bomb number two would go up. That would be the end of the US, and the end of a free, non-Islamic Europe.

A first rate top class nightmare.

Indeed, although the response may not be as you envisioned. No society could allow such a situation to exist for very long and surrender would not be an option because the first detonation would begin a massive search for the rest, both by the government and by amateurs. It wouldn't be long before one or more are detonated either by accident (a homemade bomb isn't the most stable thing) or to prevent capture.

Once there is a second detonation their value as blackmail is gone. It then becomes a matter of them or us and large parts of the region the terrorists came from would be wiped out.

[Skybird]

but it can go different, too. That a second bomb is blown up if the government does not obey not to leave the vulnerable capital. Or to make all demands in public, so that the public is aware of the government and the communal institutions not obeying. If then more bombs get blown up, and scores of people get killed, large areas contaminated, and millions will suffer from radiation for the next decades, people will loose their courage fast and demand that it it better to show obedience, than to get nuked. It's only a question of how many needs to die before that result is acchieved. A government then resisting - would either been wiped out by one of the follow-up bombs, or would sooner than later be confronted by rebellions and violent resistance by the population. Civil war that makes us destroy our own society. Exactly what terrorists want: the destruction of known society.

Also, if just half a dozen cities in the US or europe gets nuked, the ones I mentioned, or for example London, Rotterdam, Frankfurt, the Ruhrgebiet, Paris, etc, it would change the face of the continent for decades to come. Economic paralysis, global recession. Nations needing to arrange themselves with major parts of their heartlands being contaminated, maybe with key installartions of energy, industry, finance. Or: nuclear powerplants. Imagiine somebody blows up the Hoover dam! compared to the death toll that would cause, a small nuclear bomb's immediate kill rate maybe looks even tame.

The US and europe no longer being a serious rival to russian and chinese global trade politicies. The West flaling back behind these, more and more.

And you certainly do understand that the threat of nuclear retaliation against those countries where such terrorist would have come from (if they are no well integrated homegrown west-compatible citizens of europe or the US!) is not a deterrant against a bunch of fanatic religious dumbheads. Even in the West some people live by the belief that the final armageddon cannot be avoided anyway, since it is imagined in any scripture, and thus it would be blasphemous to eternally want to avoid it.

During the cold war, "sleeper agents" were "transplanted" into the other nation'S social structure. they sank in, married, founded families, lived their all Russian or all-american lives for years and sometimes decades, waiting for activation. Why assuming that islamic terrorists would not think about such longterm planning, too? They have powerful structures and factions backing them, with unlimited supply in money. Djihad could afford to think in years and decades, in fact it even thinks in centuries. Also, as the developement in europe shows, especially the third generation of immigrants is especially prone to radicalisation, and it seems that material welath and social milieu of the family has little to do with it, and these groups in large parts today are more conservative and hardcore Islamic than the first generation. You do not need to support and transfer personnell into the target nation. you can just reap your recruits amongst those who had been sown in the past years before, send them to university, even having a career, learn how to build nuclear bombs. All you need to smuggle is the fissal material. even more eager to prove themselves in this way are - converts, who live under pressure to proove themselves in the context of the new ideology they have choosen. The phenomenon is nothing new in all religions, for example, but in case of Islam and the context of this thread it leads to extremely unpleasant consequences. The terrorists who were arrested in Germany some weeks ago, planning to laucnh a series of bomb explosions with almost one ton of selfmade explosives - were europeans germans from unsuspicious middle-class families. and they had converted to Islam just some years before. BKA analysts say that these converts and the third generation offsprings from Islamic families are the risk group with the highest terror threat level for Germany.

Da habe ich wohl wieder mal was politisch Unkorrektes gesagt... :roll: