News Groups

Google Groups

2006-03-17T10:32:00.000-05:00

In the future you will have to visit "Google Groups" in order to see my news posts.

http://groups.google.com/groups/
profile?user=momi%40stofanet.dk&qt_a=Look+up+author

You can always find a link to this, in the sidebar on "MOMIBLOG US"

Muslim Riots In Europe Were US Provocation (2)

2006-02-15T03:54:00.000-05:00

cajunmousetrap@gmail.com skrev:

http://peaceinspace.com wrote:

Another Russian MP Says Muslim Riots Were US Provocation

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | February 13 2006

Echoing the comments of Liberal Democrats leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky,
another Russian MP has gone public with his contention that the recent
Muslim riots were a staged US provocation in order to swing public opinion
in Europe beind supporting an attack on Iran.

There is nothing "staged" about radical religious Muslims.

Each one of those persons rioting CHOSE to do so. They were not forced
to burn buildings or hold up signs advocating violence.

You are right in saying, they are of course also responsible.

If there was some neocon plot behind the provocation the religious
zealots fell right into their trap.

Or maybe more than was intendet?
If there has been some kind of plot, it seems to have backfired.
No one seems to really *control* it now.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Danes and the Quran

2006-02-15T03:52:00.000-05:00

So, do the Danes burn the Qur'an in the streets?

No, they absolutely do not - they are doing the exact opposite!

I just heard in the Danish "radioavisen" (radio news) that you cannot buy the Qur'an at the Danish book stores - because they are all sold out. Because people want to read it, that is. The publishing houses have to print more of them in a hurry.

I suppose you cannot find it in our free and public libraries too, for the same reason. I myself read some books about Islam when I was young - many years ago.

Maybe it is time for me to refresh my memory?

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Muslim Riots In Europe Were US Provocation

2006-02-14T04:52:00.000-05:00

http://peaceinspace.com skrev:

Another Russian MP Says Muslim Riots Were US Provocation

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | February 13 2006

Echoing the comments of Liberal Democrats leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky,
another Russian MP has gone public with his contention that the recent
Muslim riots were a staged US provocation in order to swing public opinion
in Europe beind supporting an attack on Iran.

Gennady Zyuganov told a news conference that the publication of the
offensive cartoons was a "well thought-out major provocation using
newspapers and magazines to aggravate the situation, the relationship
between the European countries and the Muslim world.”

Zyuganov (pictured below) said that the riots could only benefit the US and
that they were "not advantageous for Europe but those who have raised this
hysteria, insulted religious feelings of one and a half billion of Muslims,
are pushing Europe into the arms of the American military clique.”

Last week, Vladimir Zhirinovsky said that the publication of the offensive
cartoons was a planned psyop on the part of the US and aimed to “provoke a
row between Europe and the Islamic world”.

“It will all end with European countries thanking the United States and
paying, and giving soldiers,” said Zhirinovsky.

Although the riots have largely calmed, the build-up to a military strike on
Iran is intense, with newspapers today reporting that the Pentagon had
significantly advanced in its planning for bombing raids and
submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks on the country.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/
february2006/130206usprovocation.htm

A certain Daniel Fried from the US State Department has just
visited Denmark, apparently in order to prepare us for war on
Iran:

http://mogmich.blogspot.com/2006/02/daniel-fried.html

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Euro Governments KNEW About Outsourced "Torture" Yet Did Nothing

2006-01-24T11:11:00.000-05:00

B1ackwater skrev:

(cnn)
STRASBOURG, France (AP) -- The head of a European investigation into
alleged CIA secret prisons in Europe said Tuesday that evidence
pointed to the existence of a system of "outsourcing" of torture by
the United States, and said it was highly likely that European
governments knew of it.

But Swiss senator Dick Marty said there was no formal evidence so far
of the existence of clandestine detention centers in Romania or Poland
as alleged by the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

"There is a great deal of coherent, convergent evidence pointing to
the existence of a system of 'relocation' or 'outsourcing' of
torture," Marty said in a report presented to the Council of Europe,
the human rights watchdog on whose behalf he is investigating.

"Acts of torture or severe violation of detainees' dignity through the
administration of inhuman or degrading treatment are carried outside
national territory and beyond the authority of national intelligence
services."

The report said that extraordinary rendition -- transferring terror
suspects to countries where they may face torture or ill treatment --
"seems to have concerned more than a hundred persons in recent years."

"It is highly unlikely that European governments, or at least their
intelligence services, were unaware," it said.

Human Rights Watch identified Romania and Poland as possible sites of
secret U.S.-run detention facilities.
. . . . .

Hmmm ... who's naughtier - the US for sending selected terrorists
to east-european hell-holes, or the west europeans for bashing us
constantly in the media yet energetically ignoring what we were
doing ? Gee, you'd think european leaders actually WANT us to put
the screws to terrorists - yet WANT to make their (lefty) citizens
believe the opposite ..... tisk, tisk ... talkin' out both sides
of their mouths like that. Of course they also KNEW what was
going on in Bosnia and did nothing ...
Face it, they KNOW that the terrorists will get around to THEM
soon enough - and are willing to do what they feel is necessary
(or let someone ELSE do it so they won't dirty their nice
clean hands) - but at the same time they must play up to the
voters. Such duplicity reveals much about the nature of politics,
that greater realities lurk behind the glossy public image.
Now as for US ... it's we're "outsourcing" torture or anything
vaguely like torture then we either oughtta quit it - or stand
up for it. Going around the system like that shows that there
is plenty of duplicity and dual reality going on in the USA
as well. Let someone ELSE get the actual blood on their hands
so WE can pretend to be 'pure' and chivalrous.
These terrorists are rough and tough fanatics from rough and
tough countries and it's unlikely that milk and cookies and
re-runs of Baywatch on the big-screen prison TV is gonna make
'em tell when the next airliner is gonna come crashing down.
If we've gotta squeeze 'em a bit, let's just ADMIT IT to ourselves. Besides, we've now got the technology to detect
deception and lies just by reading brain-waves ... not much need for the hot irons and thumb-screws of yesteryear. So, if
anyone IS using hot irons and thumbscrews - it ain't for
getting vital life-saving info, just for petty vengance - and
THAT ought to be stamped-out hard and fast.

You might be interested in knowing this:

1. Denmark's "statsminister" Anders Fogh Rasmussen has just said
on a weekly press conference, that the Danish government has NO
knowledge of these CIA-flights.

2. Our "udenrigsminister" (=Secretary of State, Foreign Minister)
Per Stig Møller recently said on a meeting in Greenland, that "If
U.S. government say, no such CIA-flights has taken place, then
this *proves* that it hasn't taken place" (cit. from memory).
Møller happens to be a member of the Conservative Party here in
Denmark.

3. A *Conservative* Danish member of the EU-parlament Gitte
Seeberg, who is in the EU-committee investigating this, has just
condemned it, stating - corretly - that the governments in each
country are legally bound by EU to do something about it!
(regardless of what the U.S. government think about it).

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Bush's Mother Tongue is NOT English

2006-01-17T10:49:00.000-05:00

Logician skrev:

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test."

If Bush got a puncture the air would escape!

Check out Bush trying to articulate:

http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/like/
you_teach_a_child_to_read-and_he_or_her_will_be/339134/

He needs to stick to his mother tongue - probably Spanish.

What if in reality he is some kind of anti-semantic fascist?

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

There is no Al Qaeda

2006-01-09T17:21:00.000-05:00

ausstu@primus.com.au skrev:

If there was a real organized and well funded Al Qaeda, then there
would have been more significant terrorist attacks in the USA since
9/11. While there have been a few isolated terrorist incidents around
the world, there is no evidence that any of these are coordinated
attacks with a central command and control.

I suspect that what was Al Qaeda, Bin Laden in power in Afganistan was
pretty well wiped up in recent years. What you now have is some
isolated terrorist cells run by fundamentalist Islamist. Al Qaeda is a
spent force, but the Bush administration will still claim they exist to
make good mileage out of Bush's one strength with voters, that he is
tough on terrorism.

As you might know, there has been some threats against Denmark,
because we have soldiers in Iraq. Some of those threats were
actually from the top of Al Qaeda. But normally they don't give
any warning at all, when they plan and execute a terror attack (like the 911-attack). So it looks like they might not be *able*
to plan and execute a terror attack in Denmark. Instead they try
to "inspire" independent cells of fanatics to do it on their own.

Of course this doesn't mean there is no danger, but if Al Qaeda
is in fact weakened this way, they are probably not able to use wmd's at all (?)

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Assurances

2005-12-12T15:00:00.000-05:00

Somebody: I really would like to send president Bush to hell!

Lawyer: That would be an illegal act. Satan would torture him, and that is illegal.

???

Somebody: What if I *obtain assurances* from Satan, that he will not torture him?

Lawyer: Then it is legal.

Somebody: OK!

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Where can we watch President Clinton Speech on Climate (Montreal) ?

2005-12-10T08:23:00.000-05:00

AC skrev:

Does anyone have a link to President Clinton's speech on Climate on Dec
09 ? All I can find is the press conference :

http://unfccc.streamlogics.com/unfccc/agenda.asp

Thanks,
AC

There is a link here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515898.stm

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Yes boss? (2)

2005-11-19T19:20:00.000-05:00

Lars Eighner wrote:

In our last episode, <437fb23b$0$11698$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net>, the lovely and talented Mogens Michaelsen broadcast on alt.politics:

The TV-station sends to millions of Kurds the world over.

But you don't seem to understand. To get the use of Turkish
bases, Bush had to promise to suppress the Kurds.

Did cross my mind, actually.

Officially they want ROI closed down because they *know* that the TV-station is connected to terrorists.

But as we all know: the official motives given by Bush & co.
doesn't have much to do with the *real* motives.

Since 911 the common fear of terror-attacks have clearly been
misused politically.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Yes boss?

2005-11-19T18:41:00.000-05:00

At the moment the U.S. is trying to press the Danish government
to close down a TV-station sending from Denmark - in spite of the
fact that:

1. The TV-station is fully legal in Denmark.
2. The Danish constitution forbids the government to do that.
Only a court-decision or a new law can do that.

According to the Danish paper "Berlingske" the government has
received what is called a demarch from USA saying: "We strongly
urge the Danish government to close down ROI TV".

Apparently the U.S. government doesn't respect the sovereignty of
other countries, not even a country having soldiers in Iraq.

If you are interested, here is a link to ROI TV's homepage:

http://www.roj.tv/en/default/index.php

The TV-station sends to millions of Kurds the world over.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

Something wrong in the State of Denmark?

2005-11-07T12:36:00.000-05:00

At the moment Ultra-Right-Wing bloggers are trying to misinform the world about what is going on here in Denmark. The trick is to deliberately translate an article in a Danish newspaper in a manipulative way to English, and spread it (very few people understand Danish!)

You can find my documentation here:

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=1966

--
Mogens Michaelsen
http://mogmichs.blogspot.com/

info

2005-11-05T18:47:00.000-05:00

The date for each post is the time of copying, not the original date of the post. From now on I will make a copy here immediately after publizicing the post on the news group.

George Bush: Iran's best friend

2005-11-05T18:33:00.000-05:00

J wrote:

In the 1980's, Iran and Iraq fought a war -- Iran attacked Iraq, Iraq defended, and the resulting war dragged on for almost eight years, took one million lives.

Iran had three objectives in this war:
1. Remove Saddam Hussein from power.
2. Ensure that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction.
3. Install Shiite majority rule in Iraq, replacing the minority Sunnis (Saddam is Sunni).

Now, almost three years after the US attack on Iraq, we find that George Bush has handed Iran a major victory by achieving all three of their objectives:
1. Saddam Hussein has been removed from power.
2. We determined that Iraq has no WMD and we have ensured they will have none.
3. The US-engineered Iraqi constitution ensures a Shiite majority.

Not exactly what the Bushitters had in mind. But, then, when you base your foreign policy on lies, deceit, and forgeries, what do you expect?

Obviously Bush is not the only liar in this world!
It was not Iran that attacked Iraq, but the opposite, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

Your text is an exact copy of another post from you, to which I
have replied. Why don't you answer that?

It seems to me, that you deliberately try to manipulate this
group in order to discredit Bush on the basis of repeated lies.
What is the purpose of that? There are more than enough *facts*
to critizise Bush to hell. You don't have to lie...

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

George Bush: Best friend Iran has

2005-11-05T18:31:00.000-05:00

Joe S. wrote:

In the 1980's, Iran and Iraq fought a war that lasted almost eight years, cost 1 million lives, and drained the two nations. Iran attacked Iraq, Iraq defended, and the war essentially became a stalemate.

Iran had three objectives in this war:
1. To overthrow Saddam Hussein.
2. To ensure that Iraq did not develop WMD.
3. To establish a Shiite majority in Iraq.

Now, after three years of George Bush's war in Iraq, we find that Bush has accomplished each of Iran's objectives.
1. Saddam Hussein has been overthrown.
2. We know that Iraq had no WMD and we have ensured there will be none.
3. The US-sponsored Iraqi constitution now ensures a Shiite majority in Iraq.

Yep, ol' George Bush is the best friend Iran has and he and his advisors are too damn dumb to see what they have done.

JS

I think you got it all wrong - it was Iraq that attacked Iran in
that war! See the article in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_war

By the way: Saddam Hussein had "positive relations" to USA at
that time, some might even suggest it was an american war with a
substitute (Saddam).

Today there are american military present on a massive scale in
two of Iran's neighboring countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. So
maybe you should ask yourself if not *any* government in Iran
would consider getting nuclear weapons?

Why give the disgusting theocratic regime in Iran some kind of
excuse to try to develop WMD - unless it is war that you want?

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

intelligent design of evolution! (2)

2005-11-05T18:30:00.000-05:00

Randy Cox wrote:

"Mogens Michaelsen" wrote in message news:4307fafd$0$1158$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

Randy Cox wrote:

Intelligence, IQ, is defined as the ability to solve problems. The problem solving process involves taking action to solve the problem, observing the results of that action, adjusting the action to get better results, repeating the process until the problem is solved.

I think you are confusing intelligence and scientific method.
Scientists use their intelligence to make theories (Einstein).
Other scientists use experiments to verify or falsify the theory.
Both are essential in science.

That is what intelligent people do to solve problems. It's a pretty intelligent thing to do.

No, intelligent people try to figure things out before acting.

You are confusing meta level process with primary level process. Meta level action is the action that takes place internally. An intelligent being thinks of the action to solve a problem, takes the action internally (in his mind) observes the probable results (via accessable stored memories and associations from past experiences )then keeps adjusting those meta level actions until one gets the meta level result he wants. That is the intelligent person tests his proposed action as far as he is able internally. Then from all the possible actions he discovers in this manner, he choices one to implement on the primary level.....the level outside himself....reality, ourside world whatever you want to call it.

You reduced the mental action, observation, and adjustment process to words "figure things out". It is really the same process on the meta level as it is on the primary level which is where you first see the action as an action.

You could take a dogmatic stance and dismiss my thoughts as rubbish if you wish to be dogmatic.

It is also the way evolution approaches problems. The species is adjusted until it become more adept to the conditions. That's a pretty intelligent design process.

That is exactly what it is not.
Evolution *lacks* intelligence, that is why the cosmic process of
creation takes millions and billions of years.

Excellent point! Let us examine your point and learn from it. You and I have the sense of a timeline of life being about 120 years (120 circles of our earth around the sun) Even knowing that, our sense of time porportion is still different based upon our ages. A one year old child experiences a day as 1/365 of his lifetime to that point--a significantly longer day relative to his existence than a day is to a 58 year old man such as myself. We can exterpolate a sense of time based on our expected lifetime.

Your point above brings with it a certain accusation of inefficiency as if "intelligence" would have shortened the cosmic process of creation. Don't rush into defending your position. Hold off a moment. We can both learn from it. The religeous creationists make a similiar mistake. They have the same finite sense of time, and they equally infer that an intelligent creation would not take millions of years. So they reduce it down to six days with a rest on the seventh day, then they add the begets and come up with about 6,000 years of existence for this universe. Their story has the sun being created on the third day. They don't bother explaining what the first days were before the existence of the sun. A full half of the timeline of their understanding of creation falls apart, but they are more comfortable with 6,0000 years than they are with billions and billions.

Now, you and I think a little more expansively. We don't box ourselves into a six thousand year universe. Still, we can hardly escape our sense of lifetime. We are "intelligent" beings. We have a sense of urgency for those things we want to accomplish, including our own thoughts and understandings. We don't feel as if we have billions and billions of years to waste. So if we are intelligent and we can't afford to waste billions of years, then it is hard to imagine an intelligence that could afford that much time. Therefore the creative force that takes billions of years must not be an intelligent one.

Wait! I know this is not the single ruling authority of thought that goes into whatever thought process that brings us to whatever conclusion we may have about intelligence and creation. I'm not really trying to say that it is. I am pointing out and examining one of many such internal biases that may affect our conclusions.

I'm not trying to say I've got it all figured out either. I am aware of the gap between the awareness and will of a creative force and the one of accident. I can't know the full face of the cosmos anymore than I can know the full face of God.

Very quickly, I point out that in the models of chaos they are now seeing predictable and repetitive patterns of order develop among purely random and unpredictable individual events. In other words the number of purely 50/50 probablities that have such a magnitude of effect ever which way they fall that prediction can't be determined; yet the collective results of these random probablities still gather into predictable larger patterns. There is order and chaos.

Intelligence dominates our discourse. It is primary! Right or wrong, we are both aware of that which we are aware of and that which we are unaware of. At the highest levels it is our awareness and our intelligence that processes all the things touching your world and all the things touching mine. As Descartes pointed out. Our senses may get the experiences wrong. We can't know for a certainty that things we experience are real, but we can know we think. We can't be fooled into thinking we think....unless somehow we are made to think. Thinking is intelligence and it is the one thing we can be sure is real. All else may be real or imagined. The whole of existence might be nothing more or less than a huge endless thought. If it were...it would be none the less real.

If we are self-aware of our own intelligence, then how can we ignore the likely hood of intelligence in the force that moves the universe and all its components one to the other. Of course, we can not prove it, but it seems more likely than not, and it is within the scientific
method to accept the most simple explanation as the most likely.

Time is only the space relationship between the objects moving around in the universe. There is no waste or inefficiency....there is only movement

Randy R. Cox

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Your thoughts is quite interesting, I think. A little diffent
from other posts about I.D.

The reason why I expressed myself in a rather "compressed" form
is that this newsgroup is about politics, not philosophy.

I understand that for americans "Intelligent Design" and other
kinds of Creationism has become politically relevant, because
some fools doesn't understand the *danger* in polluting science
with religion (or political ideology).

Not saying that *you* are a fool, but the president surely are.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

intelligent design of evolution!

2005-11-05T18:28:00.000-05:00

Randy Cox wrote:

Intelligence, IQ, is defined as the ability to solve problems. The problem solving process involves taking action to solve the problem, observing the results of that action, adjusting the action to get better results, repeating the process until the problem is solved.

I think you are confusing intelligence and scientific method.
Scientists use their intelligence to make theories (Einstein).
Other scientists use experiments to verify or falsify the theory.
Both are essential in science.

That is what intelligent people do to solve problems. It's a pretty intelligent thing to do.

No, intelligent people try to figure things out before acting.

It is also the way evolution approaches problems. The species is adjusted until it become more adept to the conditions. That's a pretty intelligent design process.

That is exactly what it is not.
Evolution *lacks* intelligence, that is why the cosmic process of
creation takes millions and billions of years.

The only thing missing in the theory of evolution is the observation that happens between changes in action via the natural process.

Descartes proved that thinking (observation or awareness) existed at least for him, because he knew he could be fooled into thinking things around him were real when they might only be a dream or hallucination, but no one could fool him into thinking he thought without him thinking. "I think; therefore I am!"

So with a little dialogue even the most die hard atheist will usually agree that they can think........observe.....be aware.

Now, since it follows in logic that a thing created is not likely (science always chooses the most likely, the most simple explanation) to be greater than the force that created it, it can be scientifically postulated that if the creative force creates something with intelligence then that force must have had intelligence.

That is simply not valid logic. But it *is* correct, that there
is no scientific proof that there is no "creative force" having
some kind of intention or will - but that is a question of faith.

Now we know intelligence exists in the result...it seems most simple that intelligence existed in the first cause.

So here we have two seemingly divergent ideas needing the other to make sense. Evolution is both extant and intelligent.

I can't understand why two sides oppose each other. That is like people on one side saying George is President, and folks on the other
side saying Bush is President.

I'm just the fool! I say George Bush is the Emperor.....and he has no clothes!

Randy R. Cox

Well, both of them, George and Bush, have a policy consisting of
military try-and-error, much like ants have. *Intelligence* is
something you fix in order to mislead people.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Now here's a little something to chew on

2005-11-05T18:27:00.000-05:00

Joe S. wrote:

http://www.wokr13.tv/news/national/
story.aspx?content_id=422B960A-26BA-4891-9E60-21C8818788D4

QUOTE

Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction

United Press International

A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President
Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

If that story is true it must be a violation of the Geneva
Convention, as far as I can see. According to this it is
prohibited to humiliate a POW in public.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Perhaps the Blue states should leave the Union

2005-11-05T18:26:00.000-05:00

E.L. Chamberlain wrote:

Since the conservatives hate the liberal blue states so much I suggest
we leave and start our own country. I'd be pretty happy; all the
technology industries would be with us, we'd have the major ports, and
Europe would be our ally.

I guess you don't mean this "country" should become a full member
of EU? But some kind of association would be possible, I think.
By the way: the inuit people of Greenland and Canada might be
positive.

All the red states can grow corn and spuds and teach their kids
"intelligent" design and have religion in school every day of the week.

And keep their women at home, much like the Talibans?

As for having a contiguous state, I'm sure something could be worked
out with the border of Canada. After all, they would happy to help, as
would the red states at the north of the US who want to get rid of us
nasty "liberals".

The Red states will be called the Christian States of God, while the
Blue states will be New America. Both sides would be happy.

Maybe you are joking a little bit? Hope so.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Russia, China open first joint military exercises

2005-11-05T18:22:00.000-05:00

"Peace Mission 2005" has started:

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
=worldNews&storyID=2005-08-18T042244Z_01_SPI806560
_RTRUKOC_0_UK-CHINA-RUSSIA.xml

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

NSA update

2005-11-05T18:20:00.000-05:00

National Security Archive Update, August 17, 2005

State Department experts warned CENTCOM
before Iraq war about lack of plans for
post-war Iraq security

Planning for post-Saddam regime change
began as early as October 2001

http://www.nsarchive.org

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Russia opposes use of force against Iran

2005-11-05T18:17:00.000-05:00

The following text is from Reuters:
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type
=worldNews&storyID=2005-08-17T120101Z_01_MCC741080
_RTRUKOC_0_UK-RUSSIA-IRAN.xml

strange thing: the Iranians have a nuclear power plant
called *Bushehr* !

---QUOTE---

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia opposes using force to stop Iran's nuclear programme, the Russian Foreign ministry said on Wednesday.

"We favour further dialogue and consider the use of force in Iran counter-productive and dangerous, something which can have grave and hardly predictable consequences," a statement posted on the ministry's web site www.mid.ru said.

The West fears that the ultimate goal of oil-rich Iran's project to develop its own nuclear power sector is to develop atomic weapons.

Iran angered the European Union and the United States by resuming work at a uranium conversion plant earlier this month, rejecting an EU incentives package offered in return for giving up its nuclear programme.

The ministry statement did not say where threats to use force had come from and referred to unspecified media reports.

Earlier this month U.S. President George W. Bush said military force remained a last resort to press Tehran to abandon its nuclear programme.

Russia, which has constructed a nuclear power plant for Iran and is hoping for more such contracts, has criticised Tehran for restarting the uranium conversion.

Moscow says that there was no technical need for Iran to convert its own uranium since Moscow had agreed to supply all necessary nuclear fuel for the Bushehr power plant due to go into operation next year.

But it has been traditionally opposed to applying blanket pressure against Tehran.

"We consider that problems concerning Iran's nuclear activities should be solved through political and diplomatic means, on the basis of international law and Tehran's close cooperation with International Atomic Energy Agency," the Russian statement said.

---QUOTE---

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

First Sino-Russo wargames

2005-11-05T18:15:00.000-05:00

First military exercise involving Russia and China starting.
See details in this article from Aljazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/
E15F03BD-6A03-4C77-AB34-5FDD34764D26.htm

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

No mastermind behind London bombs?

2005-11-05T18:13:00.000-05:00

From Reuters RSS i received the following article. Makes you
think about certain other possibilities, doesn't it?
---

By Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) - Groups behind the July London bomb attack that killed 52 people and a failed attempt to strike again soon after appear to have been acting independently of an al Qaeda mastermind abroad, a newspaper reported on Saturday.

The Independent, quoting police and intelligence officials, said it was also likely that four July 7 suicide bombers were probably not linked to another group of four who failed to blow up explosives on buses and underground trains two weeks later.

But some of the report's conclusions were questioned by a terror analyst, who said it would be difficult for Islamic militants in Britain to prepare and set off explosive devices without some training in Pakistan, Afghanistan or elsewhere.

The newspaper said police and intelligence sources felt the fact there was no leader from abroad showed how other "self-sufficient" units could be hiding in Britain.

"All the talk about 'Mr Bigs' and al Qaeda masterminds looks like something from a film script at the moment," the newspaper quoted a police source as saying.

"Of course, things could change if new intelligence comes through, but it looks increasingly as if these people were largely working on their own. It is not something we expected."

Four young British Muslims blew themselves up on three London underground trains and a bus on July 7, killing 52 people. An apparent bid to repeat the attacks on July 21 failed and police have arrested four people they say were behind it.

The newspaper report quoted one counter-terrorist source as saying: "the key point is that the events were not connected. It appears they were self-contained, rather than being organised by some kind of mastermind."

The attacks have raised alarm in Britain that militants are living and operating in the country. Police have yet to establish whether they are acting alone or being directed by international networks like al Qaeda.

CRUDE DEVICES

A police spokesman said they were investigating several lines of inquiry and would not comment on the details of the newspaper report. He would not rule them out either.

But a terrorism expert who did not want to be named said it took time and knowledge to prepare such attacks, and would not rule out the involvement of a foreign-trained mastermind putting the plots together either, possibly from inside Britain.

"They're crude devices, but I think there is a mistaken belief that you can just go on the Internet and download these things," he said.

"It was possible that they (the two groups of bombers) are not linked, but it's inconceivable that you could just spontaneously get a group of people together in two weeks, get the material, build the devices and carry out the attacks."

He said that "the old al Qaeda" had been "shattered" after U.S. military action in Afghanistan and the crackdown on militant groups in neighbouring Pakistan since 2001.

But that did not mean that people who lived and trained in those countries could not now be operating in Britain.

He said both sets of men suspected of being behind the attacks were not particularly well educated and described them as "misfits".

"People like that generally aren't capable of building bombs. There is definitely someone who has catalysed them, who has given advice on materials, provided technical expertise and maybe paid for all this," he said.

"I wouldn't rush to discount the idea that there is a mastermind or puppet master somewhere, it just may not fit the traditional description.

"The ringleader may be someone who lives in this country and spent sometime in somewhere like Pakistan or Afghanistan where they honed these skills."

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Liberal Beatle John Lennon: "Woman is the nigger of the world"

2005-11-05T18:12:00.000-05:00

The Conservative Intelligencer wrote:

"Bush War is for GOP Profit" wrote in
message news:1123900693.152181.186720@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

It was not written in that context you stupid ass, my God are you
stupid..

When have you liberals ever cared about context??? You take President
Bush's statements out of context all the time.

Besides, what "context" can be justified for such outrageous lyrics???

The Conservative Intelligencer

What context? Bush-statements typically sound like if they were
chosen more or less at random by a computer - without any
understanding of the world.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

'Sweet' Neo Cons Now Attacking Sir Mick Jagger

2005-11-05T18:11:00.000-05:00

smutt butt wrote:

Neocon Oil Cheerleaders Wrote:
'Now the Fascists at Fox Are After Mick Jagger

Here we go again. First it was the Dixie Chicks,
then Eminem, then Bruce Springsteen, and then...
the list goes on and on. Now it's Mick Jagger's
turn to be slapped around.

According to Fox's Neil Cavuto, who saw fit to
air two segments about this looming crisis today
(August 9, 2005), Jagger took a 'big jab at the
White House' in a 'very controversial tune called
'Sweet Neo-Con' in which "Mick Jagger calls the
President a hypocrite and worse. A lot worse. . . .

.. . . Fox then showed a graphic with these lyrics:

You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite.
You call yourself a patriot.
Well, I think your are full of s**t!
How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con.'

source News Hounds
We watch FOX so you don't have to:
http://tinyurl.com/8gkfn

Be sure & BUY a copy of the new Stones CD

why would anyone care what elderly drug addicts from another country
think about anyone from america?

There are also some "anyones" living outside U.S.

Even "elderly drug addicts" have freedom of speech.

England is another *country* not another planet.

The President of USA isn't just "anyone" - he is the most
powerful idiot in history.

America is not just USA (I'm not Canadian).

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Nineteen Eighty Be4?

2005-11-05T18:07:00.000-05:00

When war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Bush Appoints John Bolton as UN Ambassador

2005-11-05T18:05:00.000-05:00

wrote:

Charles Farley posted:

Bush said that Bolton's nomination had been supported by a majority of
the Senate but that "because of partisan delaying tactics by a handful
of senators, John was unfairly denied the up-or-down vote that he
deserves."

As Bush concluded speaking, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, praised the
president for using his authority "to end the obstruction against John
Bolton."

phhhhht.

~~

If there's a positive side to President Bush's appointment of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations yesterday, it's that as long as Mr. Bolton is in New York, he will not be wreaking diplomatic havoc anywhere else. Talks with North Korea, for instance, have been looking more productive since Mr. Bolton left the State Department, and it's hard not to think that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's generally positive performance in office is due, in part, to her canniness in dispatching Mr. Bolton out of Washington.

But the appointment is, of course, terrible news for the United Nations, whose diplomats have heard weeks of Senate testimony about Mr. Bolton's lack of respect for their institution and his deeply undiplomatic, bullying style of doing business. Senator George Voinovich, the Ohio Republican who became one of Mr. Bolton's strongest critics, said yesterday that he planned to send the new ambassador a book on how to be an effective manager. It couldn't hurt, but this may be the first time a world superpower has used its top United Nations post as a spot for the remedial training of a troublesome government employee.

And maybe the *last* time a superpower does that? It seems to me
Bush is doing what he can to make USA weaker as a superpower.
That is probably not the intention, so the conclusion must be
that he is the worst president at the worst possible time, not
only for americans but for the whole world - since his faulty
decisions have severe consequences for us all.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Why Did Two Republican Adminstrations Fund UBL?

2005-11-05T18:04:00.000-05:00

Haximus wrote:

Glen Hallick wrote:

Why did TWO Republican administrations fund Osama bin Laden??? Seems to
me the GOP were the ones that created the monster. Not surprising GOP
lapdogs are trying to lay blame elsewhere.

Foreign policy during Reagan was "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." America trained and armed the Mujihadeen, along with bin Laden, to repel
the Soviets from Afghanistan. America also took Iraq off the list of
states sponsoring terrorism, and gave him billions of dollars, while Saddam
was fighting Soviet prospect Iran. I guess the big lesson America should
learn from this is "the enemy of my enemy IS NOT my friend."

I think you have a point there, in that it is a serious mistake
to say that the enemy of your enemy is your *friend*

But it is often clever strategy to help, cooperate with, or even
make a (temporary) alliance with a minor enemy against a major
one. A clear example of this is WW2, where USA+UK made a
necessary alliance with USSR against Nazi Germany.

Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda probably did much the same:
first to cooperate with the americans in order to throw the
russians out of Afghanistan - and then attack the enemy USA.

In order to calculate these things correctly, you need to
understand the world as it is. This is where Bush & co. is simply
incompetent.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (4)

2005-11-05T18:03:00.000-05:00

Joe Delphi wrote:

"Mogens Michaelsen" wrote in message
news:42ec2d2a$0$7374$ba624c82@nntp02.dk.telia.net...

Joe Delphi wrote:

Sound like you are at war with all the muslims in the world?

No, just the extremists. But its getting harder to tell the extremists from
the rest of the Muslim world. Based on the events of the past few years,
it is starting to seem like many more Muslins are extremists than I first
thought.

JD

Just made me reflect on my first and only visit to London. It was
back in the summer of 1982 - in the middle of the Falkland war.

One thing you can say about that war: it was extremely easy to
identify the enemy, and to see what should be done - very unlike
the situation now. Of course this uncertainty frustrates people.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (3)

2005-11-05T18:02:00.000-05:00

Leo wrote:

Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

Anon wrote:

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with
them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

5. Exactly what they are sentenced to by the court.

Well said! But it's a sad state of affairs when Vikings have to remind
Brits about civilised behaviour as regards the law.

Well, the oldest democracy in the world is Iceland - home of
Vikings from Norway, which for a very long period was a part of
Denmark öö

I must admit though, that the British *parlament* is the oldest
one in the world :-)

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards (2)

2005-11-05T18:01:00.000-05:00

Joe Delphi wrote:

"Anon" wrote in message
news:vaqdnc1QJo_IR3bfRVn-sQ@giganews.com...

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with
them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

Regarding Option #1:

I don't know what goes on in the UK prison system, but in the US prisons
Islam is alive and well. It is not at all uncommon for a prisoner to enter
incarceration either as a Christian or non-demoninational and then exit the
prison system as a devout Muslim. In other words, there is a lot of
Islamic "recruiting" going on in the prisons. So I think that sending
someone to jail for 5-10 years so that they can come out even more Muslim
than when they went in, is probably not the best answer for British society
or anyone's society for that matter. They will just leave prison more
determined than ever to pick up where they left off, except this time not
screw it up.

I think either Option #3 or Option #4 is the way to go, although if Option
#4 is chosen, then I think they should allow each family member of a person
who was killed in the 07/07 bombings to get one good hack.

JD

Sound like you are at war with all the muslims in the world?
The 4 would be bombers will be punished for what they have *done*
and nothing else. It is not illegal to be a muslim in the UK
because it is a free and democratic country - unlike Islamic
states, which is probably the 4 would be martyrs ideal.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

Got the Bastards

2005-11-05T17:59:00.000-05:00

Anon wrote:

Now that they have caught the 4 would be bombers, what should be done with them after trial and conviction?

1. Jail for 5 - 10 years
2. Deported and never allowed back in the UK
3. Life in jail
4. Beheaded on TV with a dull sword.

5. Exactly what they are sentenced to by the court.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (5)

2005-11-05T17:58:00.000-05:00

Topaz wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:06:05 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen
wrote:

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941
Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels
"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.
Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.
It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.
Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.
Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.
Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.
The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.
That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.
One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

OK, that is the honorable Mr. Goebbels opinion about FDR.
I for my part think he was a "good guy" because he probably saved
USA from *loosing* a war with Nazi Germany at a later time. It is
also my impression that this is the real reason why you and other
Nazis hate him that much.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (4)

2005-11-05T17:57:00.000-05:00

Topaz wrote:

On Sat, 30 Jul 2005 13:06:05 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen
wrote:

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

An article by Dr. Joseph Goebbels, November 30, 1941
Mr. Roosevelt Cross-Examined
by Joseph Goebbels
"On 28 October, more than a month ago, U.S. President Franklin D.
Roosevelt gave a radio speech which apparently had as its goal
plunging the American people into uncertainty and panic and thus to
prepare gradually for the fateful intervention which the American
president desires, regardless of American public opinion. The speech
differed from all of his previous speeches in that Roosevelt did not
limit himself to the almost traditional and unconscionable and
slanderous attacks on the Führer and National Socialist Germany. This
time he made concrete accusations against the policies of the Reich,
which he attempted to prove though compromising documents he allegedly
possessed.
Mr. Roosevelt claimed that he had proof in his hands that the Axis
powers were planning to reorganize South and Central America. They
were planning to transform the existing fourteen countries into five
states that would be under their control. His proof was a secret map
allegedly produced by the Reich government. The American government
also claims to possess another Reich document. According to it, the
Reich government plans, once it has won the war, to abolish the
existing religions of the world-Catholicism, Protestantism,
Mohammedism, Hinduism. Buddhism and Judaism. They are to be replaced
by an international National Socialist church, the cross by the
swastika and God by the Führer. That is what he claims.
It is clear to us that Mr. Roosevelt needed this grand swindle to whip
up American public opinion. He needed the heaviest possible
ammunition, since the American people are at the moment more
intelligent than their government and want absolutely nothing to do
with the war in Europe. We really are not all that interested in Mr.
Roosevelt's opinion of the intelligence of his people nor in what he
thinks them capable of believing, and normally would see no need to
reply to his bald-faced and outrageous lies which so clearly bear the
signs of fabrication. In this case, however, it is a matter of a
political falsification which seems to us to have a clear and ominous
purpose, and gave us such an easy chance to show up the liars to the
entire world that we could hardly let the opportunity pass. We had to
overcome our moral scruples, however, to confront the liar and ask him
where he got these alleged documents from, where they can be found,
and if he was ready to show them to the public.
Things went as we expected. Mr. Roosevelt, the president of a nation
of 130 million, dodged our questions. He claimed the authenticity of
the documents was unassailable; he had them. They could not be
published, however, since they were secret and publishing them would
reveal the source. And the map in question that carved up Central and
South America had markings in pencil which could compromise the source
that provided them. He, Roosevelt, did not want to cause any
difficulties for the poor chap who passed them along.
Would that we had such a president! He is a well-meaning soul who
cares for his scoundrels. Given his speeches and actions, he would not
hesitate to send hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the battlefield,
even perhaps sacrificing them in service to his crazy plans of
conquest, but the thought of causing a fine and honorable traitor any
trouble breaks his heart. As one can imagine, Roosevelt's answer was
not very convincing proof of his hair-raising allegations either at
home or abroad. Our tough questions bore fruit. We used the press and
radio to propose to the American president that he might publish the
incriminating map of Central and South America, perhaps either erasing
the ominous pencil markings or covering them up with paper, and to at
least publish the text of our notorious plan to begin a campaign
against all the world's religions once the war was over, from Jehovah
to Confucius to Christ.
Mr. Roosevelt sank into silence, saying nothing at all. Only one of
his creatures, the former Argentinean bordello-owner and pimp Taborda,
who happened to be visiting him at the time, said that he had been
able to sneak a look at the map, and that all was as Mr. Roosevelt
said. More he could not say, since he had given his word of honor.
One can understand our reluctance to consider the word of honor of so
dubious an underworld figure as absolutely convincing. We looked
further, and since we could learn nothing more given the stubborn
silence of the accuser, we attempted to lure him into a response by
massive attacks. Alas, the normally talkative gentleman seemed to have
forgotten how to speak. Even the attempts of the American press to
learn something more as he visited one of the famous skyscrapers were
in vain.
The Reich government published two formal denials on 1 November, which
boxed Roosevelt's ears so strongly that he had to chose between
revealing his documents or proving himself a forger and liar to the
entire world. He chose the latter. The U.S. press gave headline
treatment to the German denials and asked for a response. Mr.
Roosevelt accepted the blows, rubbed his checks and said nothing. We
made every conceivable suggestion to ease the publication of the
documents, but the U.S. president preferred to be thought a liar and
forger than to prove his absurd accusations.
That's the way things are. We do not flatter ourselves by believing
that we have some way to force Mr. Roosevelt to speak. He apparently
has every reason to hope the matter will be forgotten. When he made
his charges, one could perhaps generously grant that he believed them.
It was at least possible that he had been the victim of some sort of
swindle and had believed in the documents' authenticity. That is no
longer possible, for if he had been acting honestly he would have
provided the evidence supporting his accusations. He has not done so.
That is sufficient proof that he was not the victim of a forgery,
rather that he himself was directly or indirectly involved. This is a
matter of war and peace, and the American public has every right to
examine its president and his actions, to ask him about these
documents, why Mr. Roosevelt has not published them. whether he still
stands by his speech of 28 October, and what he plans to do to restore
the damage done to his reputation by the two German denials that
accuse him of forgery.
One always feels the need to wash one's hands after being forced to
deal with the methods of U.S. interventionism. It is so unpleasant and
filthy that one shudders. One hears the pious nonsense of the
Jewish-ruled world plutocracy over the radio or reads them in the
press, one need only to look behind the scenes to feel pity for the
miseries of mankind. That such a man has the impudence to judge us, to
call on God and the world as his witnesses of the purity of his deeds,
to incite war and send innocent people singing "Onward Christian
Soldiers" to battle for his filthy financial interests can only fill
anyone with even the most primitive sense of decency with the deepest
horror. Were there only such people in the world, one would have to
despise humanity..."

www.spearhead-uk.com http://www.natvan.com
http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.RealNews247.com

OK, that is the honorable Mr. Goebbels opinion about FDR.
I for my part think he was a "good guy" because he probably saved USA from *loosing* a war with Nazi Germany at a later time. It is also my impression that this is the real reason why you and other Nazis hate him that much.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (3)

2005-11-05T17:56:00.000-05:00

* US * wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:07:02 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

... what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war?...

The Russians would still have defeated Hitler.

That's with all the help the Bush crime family
could give the Nazis, too.

The Nazis were too corrupt not to self-destruct,

Yes, I agree to that. Even if they had taken the whole world,
their empire wouldn't have lasted long (no Martians to attack!)
But millions upon millions of humans massacred.

but the whole world was glad to see them go,

Right you are!

except for the Bush family and others who
are wimpy and mentally defective.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want? (2)

2005-11-05T17:48:00.000-05:00

* US * wrote:

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 01:07:02 +0200, Mogens Michaelsen wrote:

... what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war?...

The Russians would still have defeated Hitler.

I don't think so, for these reasons:

1. USSR was actually relatively weak (military & economy)

2. Nazi Germany wouldn't have had to fight on two fronts

3. USA would hardly have helped USSR with military equipment

But of course the question is highly hypothetical - no one knows.

That's with all the help the Bush crime family
could give the Nazis, too.

Bush? FDR was clever enough to see that the Nazis was a severe
danger for USA too, because he was able to analyze the situation.
Which is what Bush & co. is lacking to a degree that is dangerous
not only for USA, but for the whole world.

--
Mogens Michaelsen
Dansk weblog: http://mogmich2.blogspot.com/
English weblog: http://mogmich.blogspot.com/

What do the terrorists want?

2005-11-05T14:49:00.000-05:00

Topaz wrote:

" Franklin Delano Roosevelt, dragged America into World War Two on
the wrong
side. FDR was one of the most personally corrupt politicians in world
history. John Toland, a famous author on World War Two, wrote a book
called "Infamy" detailing how FDR had prior knowledge of the
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

I have heard that story before, and of course it would have been
problematic if it were true. But on the other hand: what would
have happened if USA had not entered the war? A possible scenario
could be this:

1. Nazi Germany defeats UK and occupies most of Europe.

2. Nazi Germany defeats and occupies USSR (Russia).

3. Nazi Germany signs a peace treaty with USA.

4. Nazi Germany concentrate on getting stronger and developing
new interesting weapons (nuclear etc.)

6. A single nuclear bomb is dropped on Washington D.C. and U.S.
military ordered to surrender.

Concept

2005-11-05T14:26:00.000-05:00

On this blog I will publish a copy of my postings on various News Groups.