School wins Muslim dress appeal

[STEED]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4832072.stm

Common sense as won but for how long?

[Sixpack]

What a nice surprise. Some officials didn't bend over for once....

[scandium]

We had a bit of a similar legal challenge here in Canada a few years ago when a Sikh RCMP officer sued claiming that the uniform regulations prohibitted his wearing a Turban and therefore infringed upon his freedom of religion. He won his case.

I'm not sure what precedents that may have set for other forms of muslim headgear/clothing as we have yet (to my knowledge) to get embroiled in the bans/controversies on this that are happening in parts of Europe these days - undoubtedly due in large part to our smaller muslim population. Time will tell I guess.

[The Avon Lady]

What a nice surprise. Some officials didn't bend over for once....
Too tight jeans. As you know, an Italian firm came up with a solution for that.

[The Avon Lady]

We had a bit of a similar legal challenge here in Canada a few years ago when a Sikh RCMP officer sued claiming that the uniform regulations prohibitted his wearing a Turban and therefore infringed upon his freedom of religion. He won his case.

Was this a case of a Muslim or a Sikh? Neither one is like the other.

[Konovalov]

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Firstly I would have to say that the decision by the law Lords was the right one. Simple common sense really and it is a relief that it has prevailed here. Miss Begum had attened this school fully aware of the uniform policy. She had adhered to it until when she decided to start wearing the Jilbab back in late 2002. It is important to note that almost 80% of those attending the same school are Muslims who had no problem with the policy.

Now if I recall correctly from an interview I heard from a person representing the school they denied here request to wear the jilbab on safety grounds and that the school already had a flexible policy with regards to religious and cultural sensitivities. If she wanted to, Miss Begum could have accepted this decision and found another school which would allow such a garment to be worn. There are schools in the UK which permit this I believe.

I suspect that someone got in her ear and said fight this. I suspect that that someone was either a member of Hizbut Tahrir (HT) or had contacts at HT. Certainly HT were quick to jump into the fray supporting Miss Begim with legal advise/lawyers. Quite frankly I think HT, being the parasites that they are, were steering this ship from the beginning for their own agenda.

With regards to the actual debate within Islam over what constitutes Islamic dress there are wide and differing opinions. Hence that is why you will see some Muslim women wear nothing over the head, some wear a loose scarf partially over their hair/head (granny scarf I call this), Hijab, Jilbab, up to the extreme Burqa with gloves (ala Wacko Jacko) and all. My own personal view and interpretation as a Western Aussie Muslim man on this subject is that you can wear whatever you bloody well want in so far as you fulfill your obligation of modesty. I base my opinion off in principle these Qu'ranic verses:

Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that will make for greater purity for them. And God is well-acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarliy) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except before their husbands...(24:30-31)

I hope that this is the end of this story but I wouldn't be surprised if HT and others try to pressure this girl into taking this to the EU Commission for Human Rights or something absolutely ridiculous like that. :damn:

[STEED]

I hope that this is the end of this story but I wouldn't be surprised if HT and others try to pressure this girl into taking this to the EU Commission for Human Rights or something absolutely ridiculous like that. :damn:

Close the latest is she is going to the EU Courts to get the ruling overturned and knowing that lot they will.

[scandium]

We had a bit of a similar legal challenge here in Canada a few years ago when a Sikh RCMP officer sued claiming that the uniform regulations prohibitted his wearing a Turban and therefore infringed upon his freedom of religion. He won his case.

Was this a case of a Muslim or a Sikh? Neither one is like the other.

Sikh, I'm aware of the differences and didn't mean to suggest they were similar, only that we've also had at least one legal challenge (that I know of) involving religious headgear and uniform regulations.

[Pigfish]

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Sadly, Oh so true. :(

[Vinay]

Sikh, I'm aware of the differences and didn't mean to suggest they were similar, only that we've also had at least one legal challenge (that I know of) involving religious headgear and uniform regulations.

I appreciate you for that. Let let me tell you that there is another big difference. In Sikhism the headgear or turban is necessary. It is one of five things that are part of a Sikh). The turban is only removed when a person accepts defeat. A self respecting man is supposed to wear the turban. In sikhism women enjoy the most freedom.

In Islam I think it is necessary to cover the head, only while praying.

[Abraham]

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Sadly, Oh so true. :(
Hey Pigfish, ltns! (long time no see!)

I guess some people on this forum suffer from PTSS (Post Terror Stress Syndrome). If Muslim FET's (Fascist/sExtremists/Terrorists) don't mess with the world for a change, they overreact on minor issues or start "What If" threads.
This topic - though by itself interesting enough for this forum - suffers from the overload of postings caused by this syndrome.
The other day I caught myself starting a topic about Muslims walking on the streets of Amsterdam. Nothing interesting of course, but still...
A moderator brought me back to my senses.
:D

[Skybird]

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Sadly, Oh so true. :(
Hey Pigfish, ltns! (long time no see!)

I guess some people on this forum suffer from PTSS (Post Terror Stress Syndrome). If Muslim FET's (Fascist/sExtremists/Terrorists) don't mess with the world for a change, they overreact on minor issues or start "What If" threads.
This topic - though by itself interesting enough for this forum - suffers from the overload of postings caused by this syndrome.
The other day I caught myself starting a topic about Muslims walking on the streets of Amsterdam. Nothing interesting of course, but still...
A moderator brought me back to my senses.
:D

Take a brake, guys - play chess! Or SBP, for a change! :smug:

[scandium]

First post in a long while here. Too many real world things on my plate right now. But found some time to get back here and find that not much has changed. Just the same old repetitive topics except nice to see the chess topics for a bit of variety and even a topic on the blue Traffie!

Sadly, Oh so true. :(
Hey Pigfish, ltns! (long time no see!)

I guess some people on this forum suffer from PTSS (Post Terror Stress Syndrome). If Muslim FET's (Fascist/sExtremists/Terrorists) don't mess with the world for a change, they overreact on minor issues or start "What If" threads.
This topic - though by itself interesting enough for this forum - suffers from the overload of postings caused by this syndrome.
The other day I caught myself starting a topic about Muslims walking on the streets of Amsterdam. Nothing interesting of course, but still...
A moderator brought me back to my senses.
:D

I would say this has more to do with divisive US foreign policy and the war in Iraq than to do with terrorism, which has always been with us. In fact the largest terrorist attack, before 9/11, was no less shocking or horrific (I would imagine) to those directly affected by it. It lacked certain key elements however, which is why after the same amount of time had passed it became a footnote in history rather than continuing frontpage news:

1. The attack was perpetrated by American citizens rather than foreign nationals. Thus there was no foreign enemy to rally a war around.

2. The attackers were white christians rather than "Islamo-fascists". Thus the existing definition of "terrorist" was sufficient and no need was felt to coin new terms like "Islamo-fascist".

3. The attackers swiftly were caught, tried, and subsequently executed as opposed to either dying in the attack or remaining at large. In the former case society's need to see justice served and punishment meted out was satiated, while in the latter case that opportunity had not been present.

There are other differences, but from citing just those three its possible to see that while the domestic terrorist attack was simply a tragedy, 9/11 was both a tragedy and an opportunity for a cynical government that had been dogged by controversy and sinking poll numbers since its election.

Recall that immediately after 9/11 the world was behind the US and the people rallied around its president. But after promising them Bin Laden "dead or alive" he couldn't deliver. Had Bin Laden been captured or killed, or had the US simply used the solidarity following 9/11 as an opportunity for multilateral anti-terrorist efforts on a global scale then there might not be a "FET" today. But solidarity and multilateralism aren't this president's strong points.

Instead in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 his administration saw an opportunity to withdraw from its nuclear nonproliferation treaty (the first of many treaties it would go on to withdraw from). A curious response in the aftermath of a terrorist attack committed by perpetrators armed with box cutters; but a profitable response for the arms merchants its in bed with, enabled, without any public or global outcry, by the events of 9/11.

Then later the attack on Iraq, of all targets, whose links to terrorism were weak, at best, and who had no connection to 9/11. The justification? That they possessed WMD; this after the US itself had only just pulled out of its nuclear nonproliferation obligation. Of course Iraq had no WMD so the justification has changed continually ever since - all the better to blur the original rationale for war. The profits to the arms merchants, again, have probably never been better. While at the same time creating yet another devisive issue that US public could only rally behind because their government had successfully terrified them with visions of "a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" and other such dire scenarios.

This warped divide and conquer strategy has paid dividends with Bush's re-election. Even if the conquering end hasn't worked out so well.

[Abraham]

This topic takes an interesting turn.

Scandium, are you adressing the worst terrorist attack against the USA before 9/11?
I thought that was the Al Qaida attack on the US Embassies in Kenia and Tanzania, in which hundreds of completely innocent Africans, mainly Christians, not Muslims, died for the greater goal of the Muslim fight against the "Great Satan".
POTAS Bill Clinton reacted with firing 75 cruise missiles costing about $ 1.000.000 at the - by then of course - empty training camps in Afghanistan and went to bed, after telling the world he retaliated.

I prefer Bush's reaction after 9/11. The guy took the problem by the horns and went into Afghanistan, kicked the Taliban out, and got Bin Laden neutralised. Brilliant campaign with very few casualties!
Putting myself in Bin Laden's shoes, I think 9/11 was a gross underestimation of the reaction of the USA (courtesy President Clinton). Probably the best move President Bush made to stop Muslim FET's (= Fascists/Extremists/Terrorists) - whatever his Iraq policy will bring.

[scandium]

I left out one very important piece of my sentence which provides the crucial context: the largest terrorist attack on American soil. I was referring to the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building.

[TLAM Strike]

I left out one very important piece of my sentence which provides the crucial context: the largest terrorist attack on American soil. I was referring to the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building.

US Embassies are on American soil. ;)

[scandium]

I left out one very important piece of my sentence which provides the crucial context: the largest terrorist attack on American soil. I was referring to the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma federal building.

US Embassies are on American soil. ;)

Okay you have me there on a technicality, although had I not left out the "on American soil" and mentioned the Oklahoma federal building more specifically, then the rest of my post would still have made more sense. :-?

[The Avon Lady]

In fact the largest terrorist attack, before 9/11, was no less shocking or horrific (I would imagine) to those directly affected by it. It lacked certain key elements however, which is why after the same amount of time had passed it became a footnote in history rather than continuing frontpage news:
If Islamic terrorism is comparable to McVeigh, can you please point out the McVeighite churches in Christianity? Can you please show me where the global movement of Christian McVeighites can be found? Can you explain why there are no such churches or terrorist groups, while Islamic jihadists can be found in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria, Liberia, the Netherlands, and elsewhere?

:zzz:

[scandium]

In fact the largest terrorist attack, before 9/11, was no less shocking or horrific (I would imagine) to those directly affected by it. It lacked certain key elements however, which is why after the same amount of time had passed it became a footnote in history rather than continuing frontpage news:
If Islamic terrorism is comparable to McVeigh, can you please point out the McVeighite churches in Christianity? Can you please show me where the global movement of Christian McVeighites can be found? Can you explain why there are no such churches or terrorist groups, while Islamic jihadists can be found in Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Kashmir, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Chechnya, Bosnia, Nigeria, Liberia, the Netherlands, and elsewhere?

:zzz:

That's a bit of a strawman Avon, as your questions seem addressed at a comparison I never made. The only thing I said they had in common were that both were terrorist attacks aimed at targets on US soil. Beyond that I pointed out the dissimilarities between the two attacks and mentioned that in the case of the domestic attack it was perpetrated by white christians making it distinct from 9/11 which was perpetrated by radical Islamic terrorists. That doesn't mean I equated the two religions or even suggested that religious ideology was the motivation behind the domestic attack; again, my 3 points were to show some of the ways the two attacks differed from one another.

I tried to show my point of view that in the former case, the domestic attack, it was dealt with swiftly, completely, and that justice was served and society has reached closure on it which is why its a footnote in history rather than something that dominated the news for years afterward and significantly impacted the way people lived their lives. (Abraham's "FET" syndrome).

9/11 was nothing new: it was not the first incident of terrorism, not the first time Americans were the target, and not the first attack on American soil (another point of mine). The methods were somewhat novel, but it wasn't the first ever hijacking either. Had the terrorist possessed cruise missles they could have achieved the same ends, but being an assymetrical battle where they were severely technologically disadvantaged they instead made use of American technology (the aircraft hijacked) and converted it into a weapon.

I think in the domestic case things were handled well while in the latter its been largely one screw up after another going back before the attack and continuing on today.

Let's recall a few key historical points and maybe you'll understand why I feel as I do:


Both Bin Laden and al-Qaeda were already known entities. In fact they'd already unsuccesfully tried to blow up the WTC once before, so this was also a known target.

The incoming President's running mate and the new US VP is a former CEO of one of the world's largest oil companies from which he still receives deferred compensation . The newly appointed National Security Advisor (and the current Secretary of State), aside from being an expert on the non-existant Soviet Union, is also a former oil executive and even has an oil tanker named after her. The newly appointed Secretary of state is a former General who played a prominent role iin the 1991 Gulf War. Donald Rumsfeld, among other things, was a strong proponent of missle defence having, after the Republican requested 1995 National Intelligence Estimate determined an ICBM nuclear attack from a rogue state was unlikely within the next 15 years, chaired a second "independent panel" whose purpose was to undermine the NIE's findings and provide the desired findings to support a missle defence program (this is after the first independent panel agreed with the NIE's findings). Wolfowitz and Perle, two other prominent figures who were to play a role in later events were also strong proponents of missle defence.

Now with the actors out of the way, the events:

The new VP holds controversial secret energy meetings with executives from leading American oil companies. From these meetings its subsequently concluded that control of Iraqi oil fields would help fill what's forseen as increasing domestic demand with falling domsetic oil production.

The President goes on a one month vacation in August, what at that time is the longest vacation by an American President. While on vacation he receives an August 6th PDB titles "Bin Laden determined to strike the US." Just days before 9/11 some several billions of dollars are appropriated for a missle defence program while a 600 million dollar request for anti-terrorist funding is denied. 9/11 occurs, on the same day Rice is scheduled to give a speech on missle defence.

Immediately following 9/11, as in within days after it, plans are requested to launch an attack on Iraq. It becomes known that Bin Laden was behind it who is believed to be in Afganistan. With overwhelming support, domestically and internationally, the Taliban is routed and the hunt for Bin Laden begins. Kharzai is appointed "President" of Afghan. He previously served as an advisor to the US effort to negotiate a natural gas pipeline through Afghan. Negotiations broke down, the US offer was rejected, no pipeline is built. Subsequent to his new appointment, however, one of his first acts while in office is to sign a deal for the construction of a natural gas pipeline.

With Bin Laden still on the run and with no support (initially) at home or abroad, the US decides to set its sights on Iraq next which had no connection to 9/11.

Now I've laid enough foundation here that any reasonably open-minded person should be able to themselves connect the dots and see the pattern. For those unable to do so I will spell it out for you: the US "War on Terror" has never been about terrorism. Instead 9/11 simply served as an opportunity for the people in charge, with their backgrounds and ideological agenda, to use it as an excuse to push an agenda that has nothing to do with anti-terrorism and everything to do with increasing the profits to oil and arms companies. Why do you think Bin Laden is a low priority? Why did the US squander so much manpower, money, and good will attacking a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9/11 while Bin Laden was still at large? Why is the US planning to spend 200+ billion on missle defence (which doesn't even work) while fighting a War on Terror and almost nothing securing its borders when terrorist are much likely to come ashore or cross its porous borders with a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb? All of this while telling Americans to buy duct tape and plastic sheeting and spinning the new terror alert wheel.

[The Avon Lady]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

[scandium]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."

[The Avon Lady]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."
It's obvious that you suck in evrything that you read in the morning papers as gospel truth.

Good luck to you! :rock:

[scandium]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."
It's obvious that you suck in evrything that you read in the morning papers as gospel truth.

Good luck to you! :rock:

Ok, I'll assume this is meant tongue in cheek since my position has never been the mainstream one ;)

[The Avon Lady]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."
It's obvious that you suck in evrything that you read in the morning papers as gospel truth.

Good luck to you! :rock:
Ok, I'll assume this is meant tongue in cheek since my position has never been the mainstream one ;)
Just strengthens the point.

[scandium]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."
It's obvious that you suck in evrything that you read in the morning papers as gospel truth.

Good luck to you! :rock:
Ok, I'll assume this is meant tongue in cheek since my position has never been the mainstream one ;)
Just strengthens the point.

Which point is that?

[The Avon Lady]

Great stuff for a movie.

:zzz:

And then everyone laughs at Hollywood.

There's no need for one when you have only to pick up a newspaper or turn on the news for the latest installment in the "War on Terror."
It's obvious that you suck in evrything that you read in the morning papers as gospel truth.

Good luck to you! :rock:
Ok, I'll assume this is meant tongue in cheek since my position has never been the mainstream one ;)
Just strengthens the point.

Which point is that?
Let's learn by example:
The new VP holds controversial secret energy meetings with executives from leading American oil companies. From these meetings its subsequently concluded that control of Iraqi oil fields would help fill what's forseen as increasing domestic demand with falling domsetic oil production.
If these meetings were secret, who revealed them?

Name the executives present?

Who are the witnesses that claim 1st hand knowledge that the emphasis was on the US meeting domestic petroleum demands?

What this the main topic or a side point? If a side point, just about what percentage of these meetings was devoted to this topic? And was it discussed as a goal or a potential effect/outcome? Hint: context matters. :yep:

Please document all of this. I'm sure the next Bob Woodward would love the limelight.

[scandium]

Please document all of this.

Fair enough, this is easy to do and I'll append sources at the end of my post for your own confirmation. First:


If these meetings were secret, who revealed them?

The Bush Administration’s struggle to keep secret the workings of Cheney’s Energy Task Force has been ongoing since early in the President’s tenure. The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, requested information in spring of 2001 about which industry executives and lobbyists the Task Force was meeting with in developing the Bush Administration's energy plan. When Cheney refused disclosure, Congress was pressed to sue for the right to examine Task Force records, but lost. Later, amid political pressure building over improprieties regarding Enron’s colossal collapse, Cheney's office released limited information revealing six Task Force meetings with Enron executives. (1)



Name the executives present?

Since May 2001, the administration has repeatedly refused to turn over the documents the General Accounting Office seeks: lists of people present at each meeting of the national energy task force, and lists of the people who met with each member of the task force, including the date, subject and location of each meeting.

In February, the office sued Mr. Cheney for the documents.

Last summer, the administration turned over 77 pages of documents to the accounting office related to the costs of the task force. But Mr. Walter said those documents did not provide the identities of the industry executives who had advised the task force. (2)

However the identies of the participants are beginning to emerge; a partial list:

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff.

[snip]

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien. (3)


Who are the witnesses that claim 1st hand knowledge that the emphasis was on the US meeting domestic petroleum demands?

Last week former State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson dropped a bombshell. “What I saw,” he said, discussing the inner workings of the Bush administration and its run-up to war, “was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.”

[snip]

More illuminating was when Wilkerson spoke to one of the dark, and largely hidden secrets of the Bush administration. He discussed earlier “policy planning about actually mounting an operation to take the oilfields in the Middle East.” While Wilkerson didn’t mention the specific timing of these policy planning discussions, he didn’t really have to. (4)


What this the main topic or a side point? If a side point, just about what percentage of these meetings was devoted to this topic? And was it discussed as a goal or a potential effect/outcome? Hint: context matters. :yep:

There were many meetings and undoubtedly many points. The context is in how much these meetings shaped US policy, who were the winners and losers, and why were such lengths taken to conceal even the particpants of an energy task force? Some "context" for you:

A key task-force meeting, sources tell Time, was held by Cheney in the White House on May 3. Among attendees were two lobbyists for electric utilities: former Montana Governor and now G.O.P.chairman Marc Racicot and former G.O.P.chairman Haley Barbour. Two weeks later, Cheney's report gave the lobbyists much of what they wanted, including a re-evaluation of a costly clean-air rule, called the new-source review, which requires new pollution controls when power plants are expanded. While he was lobbying for these energy interests, Barbour was also raising at least $250,000 for a May 21 G.O.P.gala honoring President Bush. The group of utilities Barbour was representing, led by Southern Co., gave $150,000 to the event. The night before the gala, Cheney held a glitzy reception at the vice-presidential mansion for hundreds of the fete's sponsors and longtime party donors.

Another company that had entree to the Cheney task force was Peabody Energy, a coal behemoth whose holding company and top officer have given nearly $200,000 to the President and his party since Bush took office, including $25,000 for the May gala. Sources say Peabody chairman Irl Engelhardt and other energy executives met in March with two task-force members, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham and Bush economic adviser Larry Lindsey. Cheney's group also heard in March from officials from the nuclear-energy industry—whose trade association, the Nuclear Energy Institute, contributed $100,000 to the Bush event. Both coal and nuclear power got major endorsements in the task-force report. (5)

Some of these sources I linked to more for convenience than because they're authoritative. The truthout link, for example, is actually to a NY Times article that they're mirroring but to view the original you need a NY Times login. If you have one they link to it on their page. I've also included the Washington Post and Time.

All of the articles are worth reading in full to see the big picture. Beyond that you'll have to do your own research as I generally don't do other people's as none of this is "news" to me. At any rate there's a pattern here and you only need to read the news or watch it on TV, and add in a bit of critical thinking, to see it. Of course its much easier to simply deride people as being conspiracy nuts.




Sources:

1. http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html

2. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30C.cheney.argue.p.htm

3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html

4. http://flyer.blogmemphis.com/?p=5

5. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html

[The Avon Lady]

Sources:

1. http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html
There is nothing documented there. Not a single source quote. You are parroting what they are parroting. Polly wanna cracker?
2. http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.30C.cheney.argue.p.htm
Note that this news article states:

From February to May last year, Mr. Cheney and the task force held a series of meetings with as many as 400 people from 150 corporations, trade associations, environmental groups and labor unions, to devise a new energy policy for the nation. The task force report recommended more drilling for oil and gas, and promoted the need to build 1,300 to 1,900 electric plants to meet the nation's projected energy demand over the next two decades.

Sounds slighlty different than "secretive Cheney meets with oil tycoons to dominate the oil world, doesn't it?
3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
So this article mentions separate meetings with literally a handful of oil industry reps, while the previous article you linked to mentions meetings with 400 people from 150 different organizations.

And your point is? :zzz:
4. http://flyer.blogmemphis.com/?p=5
I love the way we can assume the "specific timing of these policy planning discussions."

And was this discussion within the administration in the context of a determined plan or a "what-if" scenario? Mr. Wilkerson doesn't seem to say and neither do all those that repeat him, yet they all assume what you want to here. Context? Context, anyone?

Incidentally, go googling for "Strategic Assessment 1999", the report prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration. Looks like earlier presidents pictured such scenarios as well. Surprise!
5. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,198862,00.html
What we have here are the usual political connections and networking. Annoying yet totally unexiting.

I've got to go now. I'll leave it for others to assess themselves what's true here versus what are puff pieces.

[scandium]

There is nothing documented there. Not a single source quote. You are parroting what they are parroting. Polly wanna cracker?

It sufficed to answer your question concisely. The contributors are cited at the top of the article and its only a summary of the many other articles written on the same subject.

Note that this news article states:

From February to May last year, Mr. Cheney and the task force held a series of meetings with as many as 400 people from 150 corporations, trade associations, environmental groups and labor unions, to devise a new energy policy for the nation. The task force report recommended more drilling for oil and gas, and promoted the need to build 1,300 to 1,900 electric plants to meet the nation's projected energy demand over the next two decades.

Sounds slighlty different than "secretive Cheney meets with oil tycoons to dominate the oil world, doesn't it?

I didn't write that headline. But why keep it all so secret? Why only begin to turn things over in bits of pieces after demands from the GAO, Congress, and a succession of lawsuits?

So this article mentions separate meetings with literally a handful of oil industry reps, while the previous article you linked to mentions meetings with 400 people from 150 different organizations.

And your point is? :zzz:

I don't know if an exhaustive list has been compiled - that's the problem with secrecy - but those were some of the participants.


I love the way we can assume the "specific timing of these policy planning discussions."

And was this discussion within the administration in the context of a determined plan or a "what-if" scenario? Mr. Wilkerson doesn't seem to say and neither do all those that repeat him, yet they all assume what you want to here. Context? Context, anyone?
Yeah we're all assuming the same thing. The context is in the administration's actions.

Incidentally, go googling for "Strategic Assessment 1999", the report prepared for the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense under the Clinton administration. Looks like earlier presidents pictured such scenarios as well. Surprise!

Okay... reports prepared by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defence are one thing. If they're done with the input and collaboration of Big Oil then that's another. Or do you not see the difference?


What we have here are the usual political connections and networking. Annoying yet totally unexiting.


I guess this is what it comes down to: you read about that, shrug your shoulders and think business as usual. I read the same thing, conclude that at a minimum there's the appearance of impropriety, and wonder just how much legislation is being written and how much policy is being determined by big corporate money - just how many politicians are bought and paid for? With so many republicans either recently indicted, convicted, or being investigated on corruption charges its not like this is purely an excercise in abstract thinking.

[scandium]

Here's a recent piece of news that caught my eye, as it ties into what I've been saying here about opportunism and profiteering. Of course, you're free to dismiss it as coincidence, but here are some quotes:

"Bush's Uncle Earned Millions in War Firm Sale


WASHINGTON — As President Bush embarks on a new effort to shore up public support for the war in Iraq, an uncle of the commander in chief is collecting $2.7 million in cash and stock from the recent sale of a company that profited from the war.

[snip]

A report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission shows that William H.T. Bush collected just under $1.9 million in cash plus stock valued at more than $800,000 from the sale of Engineered Support Systems Inc. to DRS Technologies of New Jersey.

[snip]

Before DRS purchased it, Missouri-based ESSI experienced record growth as a result of expanded U.S. military contracts — many to supply U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[snip]

Bush, known as "Uncle Bucky" in the president's family, joined ESSI's board in 2000, several months before his nephew became president"

Full article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bucky23mar23,1,1874375.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

That might be merely a curiousity were it not for the fact that GWH Bush was also part of the Carlyle Group (before retiring in 2003), which has extensive holdings in arms companies. With two of his family members so involved in Arms companies while the country under his direction is fighting two wars (the most costly of which, by far, was purely an optional undertaking no matter how you spin it), we move out of the realm of the curious and into something - to me - a little shadier.

[The Avon Lady]

So are you accusing someone of insider trading, rigging bids or going to war for profiteering?

This is really unimpressive.

Stock tip: Allied Defense Group (ADG).

[scandium]

So are you accusing someone of insider trading, rigging bids or going to war for profiteering?

This is really unimpressive.

Stock tip: Allied Defense Group (ADG).

I'm suggesting:

a. Bush intended to invade Iraq long before March/03 and with or without any international support.

b. The reasons for the invasion had nothing to do with those given prior to it (WMD) nor after (liberation).

c. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and was not a central front in the War on Terror until the US turned it into one.

d. That based on the above invading Iraq did nothing to further achieve anything in the War on Terror, but rather it diverted considerable manpower, money, and other resources away from it.

e. That therefore this administration seems to consider the War on Terror to be little more than a sideshow whose aim is only to ensure that American citizens and the Democratic opposition (for whom dissent equates being "soft on terror", and worse) give the government free reign to do as it pleases. To quote Goering, since its as true now as it was then: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

f. Finally we arrive at the real agenda of this administration: war for profit and nothing else. Their speeches, their actions only serve one of two aims: either to keep the people distracted by the sideshow and subservient to their agenda, or to directly further that agenda by pushing through legislation and Executive Orders that keep the profits coming to the right family members, friends, lobbyists, and campaign contributors.

[The Avon Lady]

So are you accusing someone of insider trading, rigging bids or going to war for profiteering?

This is really unimpressive.

Stock tip: Allied Defense Group (ADG).

I'm suggesting:

a. Bush intended to invade Iraq long before March/03 and with or without any international support.
No proof. Indeed suggestive is the right word.
b. The reasons for the invasion had nothing to do with those given prior to it (WMD) nor after (liberation).
No proof.
c. Iraq had no connection to 9/11 and was not a central front in the War on Terror until the US turned it into one.
I suggest you start looking up the quotes from people like Clinton (both Mr. & Mrs.), Albright and even Kerry that all publicly announced their assessments that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US and others.
d. That based on the above invading Iraq did nothing to further achieve anything in the War on Terror, but rather it diverted considerable manpower, money, and other resources away from it.
There is a separate argument here as to the strategy employed but military blunders aren't usually anything but just that.
e. That therefore this administration seems to consider the War on Terror to be little more than a sideshow whose aim is only to ensure that American citizens and the Democratic opposition (for whom dissent equates being "soft on terror", and worse) give the government free reign to do as it pleases. To quote Goering, since its as true now as it was then: "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
Yada! Yada! Now the old Goering quote. Bu****ler! Bu****ler!

By the way, I am not a fan of Bush, I think there are tons of US military and intel failures and things are not coming up roses in Iraq.
f. Finally we arrive at the real agenda of this administration: war for profit and nothing else. Their speeches, their actions only serve one of two aims: either to keep the people distracted by the sideshow and subservient to their agenda, or to directly further that agenda by pushing through legislation and Executive Orders that keep the profits coming to the right family members, friends, lobbyists, and campaign contributors.
Your delirious rantings are typical of people who what a story to convey the facts rather than the facts conveying the story. Once again, pathetic.

[scandium]

Yada! Yada! Now the old Goering quote. Bu****ler! Bu****ler!

By the way, I am not a fan of Bush, I think there are tons of US military and intel failures and things are not coming up roses in Iraq.
f. Finally we arrive at the real agenda of this administration: war for profit and nothing else. Their speeches, their actions only serve one of two aims: either to keep the people distracted by the sideshow and subservient to their agenda, or to directly further that agenda by pushing through legislation and Executive Orders that keep the profits coming to the right family members, friends, lobbyists, and campaign contributors.
Your delirious rantings are typical of people who what a story to convey the facts rather than the facts conveying the story. Once again, pathetic.

First off, quoting Goering doesn't equate to calling Bush Hitler. Nowhere on this forum have I ever done so.

Secondly, I will happily debate with anyone who has an opposing view to my own (as clearly we do), provided they can do it with civility. However, your persistent habit of attacking me personally (in this thread and others) by calling my posts "delirious rantings" and "pathetic" makes further debate with you pointless and I have no intention of continuing it.

[Abraham]

Your delirious rantings are typical of people who what a story to convey the facts rather than the facts conveying the story. Once again, pathetic.
@ The Avon Lady:
I know you're a fierce debater, but words like "Your delirious rantings" and "pathetic" are a little bit too offensive and personal towards scandium. Please choose your words more carefully.

The two of you are also quite off topic...

Abraham

(with moderator cap on)

edit: I didn't know scandium's reply yet when I posted this.

[Konovalov]

First off, quoting Goering doesn't equate to calling Bush Hitler. Nowhere on this forum have I ever done so.

Secondly, I will happily debate with anyone who has an opposing view to my own (as clearly we do), provided they can do it with civility. However, your persistent habit of attacking me personally (in this thread and others) by calling my posts "delirious rantings" and "pathetic" makes further debate with you pointless and I have no intention of continuing it.

Well said and well done in not dropping down to that level. :yep:

[The Avon Lady]

My apologies to Scandium and everyone else. Even though it might appropriate for SubSim, I went overboard. :down:
:lost: