IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
DGVREIMAN
IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
© Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the
necessary research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the
radical Muslim terrorism in the world. Including the 911
massacres, the massacres in Madrid, and the more recent 707
massacres in London. Iran operates two basic terrorist groups
that control the Iranian people with terror and torture, and
export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
"Revolutionary Guard" is the terrorist wing of the Iranian
theocracy that keeps the Iranian people in line, and the
"Jerusalem Brigade" is the terrorist militia of the Ayatollahs
that is responsible for the exportation of radical Muslim
terrorism throughout the world.
Both Iranian militia branches however, the Revolutionary Guard
and the Jerusalem Brigade, help train, finance, arm and direct
terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Excerpts from Reuters:
" A CEASE-FIRE DEAL with Hamas, the main group behind a campaign
of suicide bombings, would be a step forward on a "road map" that
Washington is promoting to end 32 months of bloodshed.
"My assessment is that by next week I will arrive at a cease-fire
agreement with Hamas," Abbas told the Israeli newspaper Yedioth
Ahronoth.
"Hamas will commit to halting terrorism both within the Green
Line (inside Israel) and in the territories," said Abbas, in
comments aimed at calming Israeli concerns that Hamas would only
agree to a partial halt on attacks.
But a senior Hamas official, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi, said he was
not aware any such agreement was in the works and repeated the
group's list of conditions for a truce that Israel has always
rejected.
'OUR POSITION ... IS THE SAME'
"Our position so far is the same position," Rantissi said.
"If the Israelis stop killing Palestinian civilians, free
prisoners, and end aggression, we avoid targeting Israeli
civilians."
And Israel said a truce with Hamas would be insufficient. "A
cease-fire is not a substitute for taking real action to stop
terrorist activity," said Sharon adviser Raanan Gissin.
Hamas has spearheaded a suicide bombing campaign that has killed
scores of Israelis since the start of the Palestinian uprising
for independence in September 2000 when peace talks failed.
Israel has demanded the Palestinians begin disarming and
arresting militants before it will offer significant concessions,
but Abbas has made clear that he prefers negotiations to avoid
sparking a Palestinian civil war."
End.
If we really want radical Muslim terrorism to stop then we must
destroy it and eliminate its resources . . . completely. There
really is no other solution to radical Muslim terrorism. If we do
have the resolve to attack or embargo Iran , the terrorists and
their puppeteers will play the blame game, continue their
duplicitous talk, continue ducking and dodging amongst each
other, while at the end of the day they will all retire to their
hookah's and laugh at how incredibly stupid the USA is for not
understanding they are working in concert to play this obvious
"good Cop bad Cop" routine.
Fact: Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the rest of the radical
Muslim goons are not going to stop attacking Israel nor Americans
until (1) Israel is completely destroyed (2) America is
completely destroyed. The leaders of these goon squads have
announced publicly several times they will not stop the murdering
"as long as one Jew is still breathing the same Air." Al Qaeda
has also provided an ultimatum to the USA in its six-page letter
to AL Propaganda (a.k.a. Al Jeezeria).
Al Qaeda said in the above referenced letter that unless America
complies with the following two ultimatums, then Al Qaeda will
continue to murder Americans forever:
1. America must abandon Israel and stop supporting Israel in all
ways.
2. All Americans must convert to Islam.
Understand that Al Qaeda's demand number two is really what the
Muslim backed murder is really all about. Ever since President
Jimmy Carter foolishly allowed the radical Muslims to take over
Iran, the Iranians and other radical Muslims have forcibly
exported their particular form of insanity (a.k.a. Radical Islam)
into other parts of the world. These maniacs want to unite the
Muslim world under their banner of maniacal zealotry, and once
united, then rise up and destroy the western world, or force what
they call "decadent societies" into submission.
The objective of the radical Muslims is very clear: They want to
dominate the world with the use of terrorism and nuclear
blackmail as their primary weapons. (Note on every border in the
world that a non-Muslim state borders a Muslim state that border
is a terrorist war zone - it is clear the world is already in
WWIII, and unless we become very aggressive and start taking more
pre-emptive action against radical Islam, this war is going to
accelerate into a nuclear conflagration).
Many Americans and Europeans may not realize it yet, but we are
all involved in a war that will not go away with peace plans,
diplomatic agreements, nor shallow promises. There will be only
one outcome to this war. We either will win it or we will lose
it.
The crazies will never really compromise (they will lie, distort
and fabricate nonsense like some of the Cyberstalkers that post
on these newsgroups - especially those from Texas, Hawaii, the
University of Texas, New Jersey, and Northern California) but the
Iranians will never keep any peace agreements. The Iranian
Ayatollahs know if they do compromise with the west then they
cannot survive as a Muslim theocracy.
If the radical Muslim goons ever compromise with the free world
then they will appear weak to their terrified populations, and
prove to their indoctrinated and oppressed masses their claim
that "God is on their side" is false. Why compromise with the
Jews and Americans if God is really on your side? As long as the
goons can appear as if they are "David" fighting the "Goliath,"
and they can strike Goliath anytime they wish, they will continue
to murder anyone that defies their murderous exportation of
radical Islam.
I believe all this "peace plan" rhetoric as applied to Palestine
and to Iran is nothing more than an ill-timed diversion. Although
I understand the political necessity for the West to at least try
to implement a diplomatic solution to the Palestinian/Iranian
threat, I personally witnessed how these "cease fires" that our
Government negotiated worked when I was fighting in Vietnam: "We
ceased - they fired."
At this point in time the Iranians are feverishly working to
finalize their nuclear weapon programs. They already have dirty
bombs, and many experts have estimated the Iranians will produce
not less than 50 full scale nuclear fission weapons within 12
months. Of course Iran and their goon militias want to talk . . .
and stall . . . and talk . . . and stall . . . and talk . . . and
stall . . . as they have a very good reason to want to "talk
peace" right now. If the Iranians can stall for just another 12
short months, then their position at the world's negotiating
table will be more akin to Kim El Sung's than today's less
powerful position of just being the second largest oil producer
in the world. Further, we know that Iran is one of Kim El Sung's
(North Korea) best customers, (and one of the Pakistani Mr. Khan's
nuclear black-market best customers as well) so when Iran
develops its nuclear weapons, we will then have *several* nations
working in concert to blackmail the free world. Count on it.
The day the Iranians complete their nuclear weapons and give some
of them to their terrorist militias, (Hezbollah, Hamas and Al
Qaeda) then all the "talking" with Western powers will suddenly
come to an abrupt end and the new radical Islamic power will be
heralded by a wave of murder bombings heretofore unprecedented.
And the radical Muslim Mosques will all celebrate the fact that
Iran has nuclear weapons, much the same as they did when Pakistan
announced it had developed Nuclear weapons contrary to the inept
and corrupt United Nations programs to stop the proliferation of
Nuclear weapons.
No doubt a few hundred bunker busting bombs would go much further
to stop the proliferation of Iran's Nuclear weapons than the
ridiculous, inept and completely corrupt United Nations (a.k.a.
"Useless Nations) could ever accomplish - especially with a
person that is pining for a position in the infamous Arab League
(a.k.a. Terrorist League) as the head of the said UN program.
Not to mention the fact that once Iran has built its Nuclear
weapons, it is sure to give some to its allies as well as to its
terrorist group militias, such as Syria, the Taliban, and other
Muslim nations that are not making much noise now, but sure as
hell will be when they get their grubby hands on nuclear weapons.
The USA led coalition, and Israel, must act now, before it is too
late.
Fact: The radical Muslim goons are never going to stop attacking
and murdering regardless of what they promise, or regardless of
whatever peace agreement they might sign.
Road Map to Where?
Fact: The Palestinian leadership, the radical Muslims, and all of
their supporters, have proclaimed that Israel does not have the
right to exist. Yet these same "leaders" claim they have accepted
the American Road Map to peace. How can they accept one without
accepting the other? If they are sincere about stopping their
murder against Israelis and Americans, (and now Brits) then at
least they should refute their claims that Israel does not have
the right to exist and that America is not the "great Satan" Iran
says it is.
But this is something they all refuse to do. It is clear the
Palestinians and Iranians are not sincere in the respect of their
claims they intend to stop murdering Israelis and Americans in
compliance with this "Road Map" to peace plan. Unless the
Palestinians and their supporters, including all of the heads of
all radical Muslim terrorists organizations proclaim publicly
that Israel has a right to exist, and they will stop attacking
and murdering Jews, then this "Road Map" diplomatic effort is
nothing more than a sick farce, and something the terrorists and
their Iranian puppeteers will milk for as long as they can to
insure Iran will have the time to complete its nuclear weapon's
program. Then once Iran has built a few nuclear weapons, we can
expect Hamas, Hezbollah and the rest of the goon squads to be
first to own and use them.
The way all this is heading is we will suddenly learn that our
diplomatic efforts have failed with Iran and the so-called
Palestinians only after we witness some Mushroom clouds over some
American and European cities.
The Goons will Have Nukes Within 12 Months of the Date of this
Article
Fact: If we continue pussyfooting around with the goons, they
will posses nuclear weapons within 12 months. That means we have
a short window of only 12 months to stop the mushroom clouds from
appearing over New York, London, Prague, Warsaw and Tel Aviv.
Remember, unlike the USSR, the Iranians are not afraid of Mutual
Assured Destruction. They will deliver their nuclear weapons to
terrorist organizations operating out of Lebanon, and deny deny
deny when those nuclear weapons are used against Israel and the
USA. Tic . . . tic . . . tic . . . time *is* running out. We must
act soon.
Fact: If the goons are allowed to build their nuclear weapons,
nothing in this world will stop them from using those weapons.
Especially against Israel, Britain and the USA.
Fact: There will never be a true democracy in Iran. Forget the
lip service as the Supreme Muslim Council runs that country and
will always run that country until it is removed by brute force.
All the denials, lip service and feigns of innocence coming from
Iran is nothing more than a means to continue to stall coalition
forces from taking any decisive action against their nuclear
facilities.
Fact: We need to provide some ultimatums of our own to the
Iranians:
1. Dismantle, and allow inspections of your Nuclear facilities
immediately, or expect attack by NATO forces.
2. All radical Muslim terrorist groups must announce they now
agree that Israel has a right to exist
3. The Russians must be informed that if demand #one above is not
complied with by the Iranians, then the Russians should remove
their technicians from the Iranian nuclear facilities as those
known facilities will be bombed by either the Israelis or the
NATO forces along with the secret Iran nuclear bases and plants
as well.
The only way to defeat radical Muslim terrorism is to destroy or
arrest the terrorists, destroy their leadership, destroy or
arrest their recruiters (including the radical Imam's that are
inciting murder in many Mosques throughout the world, including
in England and in America) and especially, confiscate or destroy
all terrorist resources, not to mention destroying the Iranian's
ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
Ink does not work with radical Islam. They respect blood only.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Joe Delphi
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:Z-adnaeAsLR...@comcast.com...
>
> IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>
> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
<Large rant SNIPPED>
I think many reasonable people would agree with you that Iran is behind
terrorism, but you have stop posting these ridculous rants because it makes
people think that you are a loon, and gives your position less credibility.
JD
Horny Cocksucker
>
> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the necessary
> research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the radical Muslim
> terrorism in the world. Including the 911 massacres, the massacres in
> Madrid, and the more recent 707 massacres in London. Iran operates two
> basic terrorist groups that control the Iranian people with terror and
> torture, and export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
SO WHY DIDN'T AMERICA INVADE IRAN INSTEAD OF IRAQ THEN YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE.
Joe Delphi
news:42d18bf9$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
Because Saddam Hussein was also behind terrorism. And don't bother arguing
that because no WMDs were found, Saddam could not have supported terrorism.
You can support terrorism financially, or by providing safe harbor to
terrorists, or allowing them to have training camps in your country. Also,
Saddam's appetite for invading other countries had not waned from Gulf War
#1 so it was better to get rid of him and his corrupt regime before he
started doing that again.
Why do you post newsgroup items under the name "Horny Cocksucker"?
JD
DGVREIMAN
"Horny Cocksucker" <horn...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:42d18bf9$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>
Since this is a legitimate question on topic - without the
personal attack of course which is just a sign of
Cyberharassment - I will answer your question:
For the same reason we did not invade Japan immediately after
they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We needed to eliminate, step
by step, all of Japan's strongholds before we could address
Japan's home territory. It would have been impossible to
effectively embargo or invade Iran with a hostile Saddam on our
flank. That is why we probably are considering dealing with
Syria next in respect to our ground forces, yet will destroy
Iran's nuclear capability in conjunction with Israel in
*several* coordinated air attacks which will include cruise
missiles. In respect to our forthcoming air assault on Iran's
nuclear facilities, we are presently placing Special Forces and
CIA operatives into Iran to help us target Iran's secret Nuclear
bases and centrifuge plants. Yet the embargo might come first -
but the way things look, I doubt it. It is too late for an
embargo I am afraid. Once all of the Iranian nuclear, biological
and chemical weapon sites have been properly targeted, and locked
in, the air attack will commence. (We cannot just attack their
nuclear weapon sites while allowing their chemical and biological
assets to remain intact to use to retaliate against us, or
against our land based forces based in Iraq or Kuwait, or
against Israel).
I expect, however, nothing to happen until after October 2005.
But after that date, you will hear the Iranian problem ratcheted
up and we will be forced to address the Iranian problem sooner
than later. In fact, it will be virtually impossible for us to
win our war against radical Muslim terror unless we eliminate the
maniacal Iranian Government of witch doctors masquerading as
Muslim Ayatollahs.
We are right in the middle of WWIII - and at this point in time
we can win and end this war if we act preemptively and with great
resolve. That is why you see the hate America types using
cyberstalking and cyberharassment combined with lies and false
accusations to try to discredit anyone that calls for the proper
prosecution of our war on terror. The terrorists want time to
complete and distribute their weapons, and they believe they can
confuse and impede our efforts to stop them by propagandizing the
American people that, "duh, war is bad, duh, and if we just lay
down all of our weapons radical Islam will do the same." Sure it
will. Or worse, that "the Bush administration started our war on
radical Muslim terror instead of the 911 massacres (and the 10
previous attacks against America before 911)." These lies
represent the hallmarks of hate-America groups and their masters,
the radical Islamists.
The terrorists and their supporters are ratcheting up their
defamation attacks on those that are American patriots that Blog,
and you will see hundreds of posts from them and their supporters
attacking people like me that post the truth about our war
against radical Islam.
Most of these Cyberstalkers and Cyberharassers live and abide by
the Joseph Goebbel's code: "If you tell a lie often enough
eventually most of the population will believe it."
The truth of the matter is those hate America types know their
only chance to win this war is to propagandize the American
people into losing their will to fight back. And the propaganda
and Cyberharassment and Cyberstalking against those that are
pro-America on the internet has been reaching new record levels
lately as a result.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
DGVREIMAN
IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
© Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the
Excerpts from Reuters:
End.
Road Map to Where?
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Joe Delphi" <delp...@nospam.cox.net> wrote in message
news:2KfAe.26848$Qo.10189@fed1read01...
Doug Says: The post was on topic and truthful - hardly a rant.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Nog
the middle east must be removed from the face of the earth.
BC
terrorists against Israel. Not good, but not exactly
of grave concern to the US. The only discernable
connections that al-Qaeda had to a government
in that area back before we invaded Iraq were to
Iran and NOT Iraq.
Maybe there was a typo on Bush's memo.....
-BC
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Most of these Cyberstalkers and Cyberharassers live and abide by
> the Joseph Goebbel's code: "If you tell a lie often enough
> eventually most of the population will believe it."
Is that in your expert opinion?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:39:33 -0800
Subject: Re: Surely that should read 'Americans are dangerous'? - was:
Re: Alerts Are Dangerous
As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours
with only 3 wounded in my team). It is too bad however that
we did not kill more. Then perhaps there would not have been the
Pol Pot massacres of six million, and another estimated 2
million butchered by the North Vietnamese after they took Saigon. But
then those murders should be on the collective conscience of
those that protested us fighting the communists.
So, how many innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese do you think you
helped to massacre by protesting the Vietnam war?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREI...@COMCAST.NET>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:55:02 -0400
Local: Mon,Sep 6 2004 11:55 am
Subject: Re: SWIFT BOAT LIES OR TRUTH?
Doug Says: I spent two tours in Vietnam, and 12 months in Korea
helping to train ROK troops for Vietnam. (I was credited for
two&1/2 tours in USAPAC). Hanoi John Kerry spent six months in
Vietnam and used his "scratches" (Hanoi John demanded Purple
Hearts for "Jungle Scratches" that did not even cost him a single
day of lost duty) to get him an early return from the war zone. I
assure you that Hanoi John Kerry was "not speaking on behalf of
all Veterans" like he fallaciously tried to claim in front of
Congress.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREI...@COMCAST.NET>
Newsgroups: alt.radio.talk, alt.news-media, alt.politics,
alt.security.terrorism
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:13:40 -0400
Local: Sat,Sep 18 2004 2:13 pm
Subject: Re: 910 dead since "mission accomplished" speech
There were mistakes made. Hindsight is perfect. So should have
we fired General Marshal and held President Roosevelt to the fire
for the Battle of the Bulge? Fired General Macarthur for losing
the Philippines to the Imperial Japanese? War is a bitch - I
know, two tours in Vietnam and a tour in Korea taught me that
hard lesson.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:59:52 -0800
Subject: Military Experts on FOX & CNN?
I have never seen a commissioned officer receive a medal that
was not handed to him by the actions of his NCO's. And that
includes me. The decorations I received as a Platoon Sergeant
are real and were because of what I did. The ones I received
later I did not consider real or deserved, as they were not
earned directly by me, but earned because of the deeds of those
under my command.
Doug Grant (Tm)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
From: "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
Date: 1998/05/21
Subject: Re: Doug Tells The Truth
Now Ed, where DID you get that medical degree! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Give it back you forgot your change.
I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong when I
volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to think
the VC that fired at me would not hit me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Copyright material is distributed without profit or payment for
research and educational purposes only, in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. section 107
DGVREIMAN
You are wantonly, arrogantly and after due notice violating our
copyrights. You are not allowed to use any copyrighted
information my group previously posted for any reason. ALL of
the information you are reposting represents copyrighted
material. You have been warned to cease and desist reproducing
anything we have previously written as your intentions to
distort, lie, embellish, fabricate, such information for the
exclusive purpose of defaming me and others that wrote such
information, via the use of Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment,
has been well documented. Copyrighted material, even under the
provisions of "fair use" cannot be used for exploitation of the
author in any manner.
You have also been previously notified that your use of any form
of my name, or inferring my name based upon past lies and
distortions you have posted, in any manner that contained any
variation of my name, will be considered by me as an extension of
your outrageous lies, distortions and wanton cyberstalking and
cyberharassment for the obvious purposes of defamation and a
malicious smear campaign directed against me personally.
Cease and desist or face legal action.
Douglas Von Reiman
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dai-Uy-A4744C....@news-rdr-02.socal.rr.com...
deweyevans
cyberstalk posters on this news group? Either sue or shut up. You have
to be the biggest cry baby on the planet.
(crossposted to alt.usenet.kooks for their entertainment)
Nigel Brooks
experiences in the United States Military, their experiences in Vietnam, and
their experiences in fighting terrorism - those postings are subject to
vetting by anyone who desires to do so.
It is Fatuous to expect that anything you write may not be vetted and then
quoted when investigation has determined that the claims cannot be supported
by fact.
For example:
1. A poster to a usenet forum might claim that in a lawsuit a panel of
Federal Circuit Court judges were proven wrong in a ruling. If it can be
shown that the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
States - and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of
Appeals by denying Certiorari, it is reasonable to assume that the poster
lied.
2. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have personally witnessed an
event at an Army Air Field in Vietnam. Investigation might just show that
the poster had adapted an event which had occurred before he had even
arrived in Vietnam. In further usenet back and forth, it might just be
shown that when faced with having his falsehoods revealed, the poster then
revised his original story to have been on the roof of a billet some 3-4
miles away, and to have heard some of the details from a military policeman.
Investigation might also show that the original poster fabricated an
exchange on another usenet forum between ficticious former servicemen who
claim to have been present during the event.
3. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have been responsible (with
his team) for the killing of an estimated 1803 VietCong and NVA. When
challenged the poster might then seek to justify the number by expanding the
orginal posting (made 3 years earlier but not challenged at the time) by
stating the he was claiming that the number represented the body count
claimed by the units he was assigned to - interestingly though, the poster
refuses to specify the exact designation of the units.
4. A poster might claim to have served with a unit in Vietnam, and might
claim to have personally discovered tunnels under the main base where he was
assigned - he might also claim to have personally advised the Commanding
General of this fact and that the Commanding General refused to take action.
Investigation by persons who find the statement incredulous - could very
well prove that the existence of tunnels at the base had been well known
PRIOR to the individuals arrival in Vietnam, and that specific action had
been taken by the Division at that base to counter the threat of tunnels
under it long before the poster ever got in country.
5. A poster might very well make all kinds of claims about his service in
the military in a usenet forum, and those claims may go unchallenged for 5,
6, 7 or 8 years - until those postings are made available to persons having
actual knowledge of the military and the areas he claims to have served.
Once the poster realizes he is about to be unmasked - he might claim that
anyone challenging his previous postings is engaging in libel, he might
claim that the postings were the work of others having access to his usenet
account, he might claim that the postings are errors made by a typist , he
might claim that the postings are errors in dictation.
In short - it is fatuous for anyone to claim that their postings to USENET
are copyrighted material and cannot be quoted.
It is obvious that because the poster realizes that his military records and
the actual documented proof of what he did in the United States Military is
shortly to be available he is attempting to stifle any examination of his
usenet posting history through a variety of methods - ALL OF WHICH WILL
FAIL.
--
Nigel Brooks
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:-pKdnWBiII-...@comcast.com...
Greg Linscott
- LMAO
Best Regards
Greg
Greg Linscott
You said you were going to check out my service. You were going to
check the records. I'm still waiting. - Greg
Le Janitor
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:-pKdnWBiII-...@comcast.com...
ouroboros rex
>
> IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>
> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the necessary
> research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the radical Muslim
> terrorism in the world.
rofl Boy, does that make YOUR president a dumbass!!!!!
deweyevans
> IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>
> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the
> necessary research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the
> radical Muslim terrorism in the world.
Cite or some sort of proof?
Including the 911
> massacres,
Proof?
the massacres in Madrid,
Proof?
and the more recent 707
> massacres in London.
Proof?
Iran operates two basic terrorist groups
> that control the Iranian people with terror and torture,
Cite or proof.
and
> export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
> "Revolutionary Guard" is the terrorist wing of the Iranian
> theocracy that keeps the Iranian people in line, and the
> "Jerusalem Brigade" is the terrorist militia of the Ayatollahs
> that is responsible for the exportation of radical Muslim
> terrorism throughout the world.
Proof?
>
> Both Iranian militia branches however, the Revolutionary Guard
> and the Jerusalem Brigade, help train, finance, arm and direct
> terrorist organizations such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Proof?
> Fact: Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and the rest of the radical
> Muslim goons are not going to stop attacking Israel nor Americans
> until (1) Israel is completely destroyed (2) America is
> completely destroyed. The leaders of these goon squads have
> announced publicly several times they will not stop the murdering
> "as long as one Jew is still breathing the same Air." Al Qaeda
> has also provided an ultimatum to the USA in its six-page letter
> to AL Propaganda (a.k.a. Al Jeezeria).
This is your opinion. How can it be "fact"? Fact: you are an imbecile
who does not understand the difference between fact and opinion.
> The objective of the radical Muslims is very clear: They want to
> dominate the world with the use of terrorism and nuclear
> blackmail as their primary weapons. (Note on every border in the
> world that a non-Muslim state borders a Muslim state that border
> is a terrorist war zone - it is clear the world is already in
> WWIII, and unless we become very aggressive and start taking more
> pre-emptive action against radical Islam, this war is going to
> accelerate into a nuclear conflagration).
Where is this nuclear blackmail taking place in the Muslim world at
this time? Do you make this stuff up while doing drugs or are you
insane enough to believe your own rants?
>
> Many Americans and Europeans may not realize it yet, but we are
> all involved in a war that will not go away with peace plans,
> diplomatic agreements, nor shallow promises. There will be only
> one outcome to this war. We either will win it or we will lose
> it.
At least some of us realize that Doug Grant is truly the most dishonest
person on usenet. He is totally un-American in that he has no belief in
the first,secound or fourth amendment to the Constitution. If you
disagree with the idiot you must be stopped by the threat of a suit. At
least he does provide some entertainment as the villiage(readnewsgroup)
idiot
> The crazies will never really compromise (they will lie, distort
> and fabricate nonsense like some of the Cyberstalkers that post
> on these newsgroups - especially those from Texas, Hawaii, the
> University of Texas, New Jersey, and Northern California) but the
> Iranians will never keep any peace agreements. The Iranian
> Ayatollahs know if they do compromise with the west then they
> cannot survive as a Muslim theocracy.
The above paragraph can have no other interpretation than it is the
ravings of a lunatic.
>
> At this point in time the Iranians are feverishly working to
> finalize their nuclear weapon programs. They already have dirty
> bombs,
Cite or proof?
and many experts have estimated the Iranians will produce
> not less than 50 full scale nuclear fission weapons within 12
> months.
Cite?
Further, we know that Iran is one of Kim El Sung's
> (North Korea) best customers(and one of the Pakistani Mr. Khan's
> nuclear black-market best customers as well)
Who is we? Who knows this and how? Cite?
so when Iran
> develops its nuclear weapons, we will then have *several* nations
> working in concert to blackmail the free world. Count on it.
We can count on you getting wackier by the day.
>
> The Goons will Have Nukes Within 12 Months of the Date of this
> Article
>
> Fact:
Fact: You are as dumb as you are insane. A very amusing and
entertaining combination.
> Doug Grant (Tm)
ouroboros rex
>
> IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>
> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>
> There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the necessary
> research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the radical Muslim
> terrorism in the world.
rofl Boy, does this make YOUR president a dumbass!!!!!
ouroboros rex
> "Horny Cocksucker" <horn...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:42d18bf9$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
>> news:Z-adnaeAsLR...@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>> >
>> > © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>> >
>> > There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the necessary
>> > research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the radical Muslim
>> > terrorism in the world. Including the 911 massacres, the massacres in
>> > Madrid, and the more recent 707 massacres in London. Iran operates two
>> > basic terrorist groups that control the Iranian people with terror and
>> > torture, and export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
>>
>> SO WHY DIDN'T AMERICA INVADE IRAN INSTEAD OF IRAQ THEN YOU FUCKING
> ASSHOLE.
>>
>>
>
> Because Saddam Hussein was also behind terrorism. And don't bother
> arguing
> that because no WMDs were found, Saddam could not have supported
> terrorism.
> You can support terrorism financially, or by providing safe harbor to
> terrorists, or allowing them to have training camps in your country.
You mean like Bush's saudi buttbuddies? lol
ouroboros rex
"Bob Adkins" <bo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gpk4d1da0h5qar1a5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:58:26 +0100, "Horny Cocksucker"
> <horn...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SO WHY DIDN'T AMERICA INVADE IRAN INSTEAD OF IRAQ THEN YOU FUCKING
>>ASSHOLE.
>
> likely
> have financed many more if allowed to stay in power.
Riiiiiiiight.....
Horny Cocksucker
Believe it or not, I was christened Horny Cocksucker. My parents are John
and Lynda Cocksucker and they decided to christen me Horny (I also have a
sister called Bitch and a brother called Bastard). One of these days I'll
pay to have my name changed :-)
Doug Reese
material?
I didn't understand it. or get it, or care.
Will someone sure me?
I can hardly wait.
Doug (the other, thank God)
Horny Cocksucker
> Believe it or not, I was christened Horny Cocksucker. My parents are John
> and Lynda Cocksucker and they decided to christen me Horny (I also have a
> sister called Bitch and a brother called Bastard). One of these days I'll
> pay to have my name changed :-)
>
AND I SUCK
Nigel Brooks
>Doug Says: I suspect you have just begun to be in some kind of
>light Nigel - a very bright light. I hope you have never used
>your official position to obtain information on anyone nor to
>help you with your libel and defamation. You know better than
>that I hope - because we will be looking under every rock - every
>trip, every business deal, every bank account, family included.
>I know, I had to go through all that myself when the casino
>lawyers descended on me - thankfully for me that investigation is
>so recent it is easily accessible. Your lawyers won't need to
>look very hard - that will save you some money.
--
Nigel Brooks
"Greg Linscott" <grgl...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1121100245.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Nigel Brooks
It's just fatuous I tell ya - fatuous.
--
Nigel Brooks
"Doug Reese" <dre...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1121104544.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Nigel Brooks
It's just fatuous I tell ya - fatuous.
--
Nigel Brooks
"Doug Reese" <dre...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1121104544.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Real Diddy Pop
region. If Iraq can ever be turned into a peaceful state, it would go
a long way to stabilizing the region, but not as long as those heathens
keep setting off their stupid little car bombs. The terrorists are the
ones keeping that from happening now.
ouroboros rex
>
> "Horny Cocksucker" <horn...@excite.com> wrote in message
> news:42d18bf9$1...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
>>
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
>> news:Z-adnaeAsLR...@comcast.com...
>>>
>>> IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>>>
>>> © Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>>>
>>> There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the necessary
>>> research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the radical Muslim
>>> terrorism in the world. Including the 911 massacres, the massacres in
>>> Madrid, and the more recent 707 massacres in London. Iran operates two
>>> basic terrorist groups that control the Iranian people with terror and
>>> torture, and export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
>>
>> SO WHY DIDN'T AMERICA INVADE IRAN INSTEAD OF IRAQ THEN YOU FUCKING
>> ASSHOLE.
>
> Since this is a legitimate question on topic - without the personal attack
> of course which is just a sign of Cyberharassment - I will answer your
> question:
>
> For the same reason we did not invade Japan immediately after they
> attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We needed to eliminate, step by step, all of
> Japan's strongholds before we could address Japan's home territory. It
> would have been impossible to effectively embargo or invade Iran with a
> hostile Saddam on our flank.
ROFLMMFAO
Saddam HATED Iran.
Le Janitor
Duh-g reminds me of the lil chubby Brit gal who tries to pretend she's of
royal blood. trouble is most everyone likes Mrs Bucket and NOONE even
claims Duh-g
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3jfs7gF...@individual.net...
danzig
>
>
> The only way to defeat radical Muslim terrorism is to destroy or
> arrest the terrorists, destroy their leadership, destroy or
> arrest their recruiters (including the radical Imam's that are
> inciting murder in many Mosques throughout the world, including
> in England and in America) and especially, confiscate or destroy
> all terrorist resources, not to mention destroying the Iranian's
> ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
>
> Ink does not work with radical Islam. They respect blood only.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
why don't you write one of your diatribes in the crimosn liquid,
trademark it and send it to them?
DGVREIMAN
copyrighted materials (C) that cannot be reproduced in any manner
without the express written permission of the Doug Grant Group.
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:3jfl4lF...@individual.net...
> When a poster to a usenet forum makes certain claims regarding
> their experiences in the United States Military, their
> experiences in Vietnam, and their experiences in fighting
> terrorism - those postings are subject to vetting by anyone who
> desires to do so.
>
> It is Fatuous to expect that anything you write may not be
> vetted and then quoted when investigation has determined that
> the claims cannot be supported by fact.
>
> For example:
>
> 1. A poster to a usenet forum might claim that in a lawsuit a
> panel of Federal Circuit Court judges were proven wrong in a
> ruling. If it can be shown that the ruling was appealed to the
> Supreme Court of the United States - and the Supreme Court
> upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals by denying
> Certiorari, it is reasonable to assume that the poster lied.
Doug Says: The Copyright laws are clear. Copyrighted material
may not be reproduced without the express permission of the
author. (See below for more information in this regard).
In respect to your Fatuous defamation that you and your gang
members have posted often and used to cyberharass and
cyberstlalk, you are of course repeating a ruling by a Judge
that was proved incorrect. You have been told this fact several
times, but you ignore the truth and continue to post his rulings
that have been subsequently proved false. Had you not hid the
part where the Judge gave deference to the NJ CCC, then any
honest person would have consulted the NJ CCC rulings in respect
to Judge Irena's incorrect mathematical conclusions of which he
based his erroneously Fatuous accusations.
Further, when a district court gives deference to a State
Agency, in this case the NJ CCC, then so will the appeals court
and the Supreme court. It is absolutely ridiculous,
preposterous, idiotic to claim that once a district court judge
gives deference to a state agency then anything other than that
state agency should be consulted for its final determination in
respect to the issue in question. Judge Irenas falsely
concluded the Preferential shuffle did not give the casino any
advantage over the players, and on that basis he issued his
ruling against our lawsuit.
However, in the same ruling, he deferred to the NJ CCC for its
final determination on that issue. The NJ CCC, Professor Steel
from the University of Pennsylvania, and the late Professor
Griffin of Cal State, and of course myself, and every other
mathematician that was consulted on this issue, including the
ones working for the NJ CCC., said the Judge was wrong, and in
fact, just like we said it did the NJ CCC concluded the
preferential shuffle DID give the Casino an advantage over the
players. However, the NJ CCC went on to say they authorized that
secret tactic of gaining an advantage over the players at the
game of Blackjack with the use of the Preferential Suffle. Now
if this is too hard for you to understand, I suggest you stop
posting defamation based upon a Judge's ruling that was
subsequently proved to be mathematically incorrect, wrong, and
in fact from a mathematical point of view, ridiculous. If you
want to post the truth, consult the rulings of the state agency
in which was given control over the issue by the court.
Our claims were proved true. The fact that the NJ CCC claimed
they gave the casinos permission to use these clandestine tactics
to gain a secret advantage over their patrons is what rendered
our lawsuit against the casinos unwinable - not the lack of merit
or truthfulness of our claims like you repeatedly and falsely
continue to claim. The only thing proved "Fatuous" was the
ruling from the judge.
I doubt seriously if you have any idea what the hell a
Preferential shuffle is, and I know you do not have a clue when
it comes to the math involved in that casino tactic. You further
do not have a clue in respect to how to follow this lawsuit to
its final end, as you continue to repost rulings that were
subsequently found to be false by the very agency the court
defers to! Only a person bent on defamation and smear campaigns
would repeatedly post statements and rulings from a Judge that
was later proved to be false and ridiculous by the very agency he
deferred to in his ruling!
If you continue to ignore the facts of this issue, and excerpt
rulings and conclusions that were later proved to be incorrect as
a means to defame, then your intent to cyberharass and cyberstalk
can be the only reason - as you have left honesty and
truthfulness so far behind I doubt if you even know the meanings
of those terms.
You have also posted libel against me that has been subsequently
apologized for and retracted by its authors, (M'hall and Martin)
and you have even posted defamation against me from a
disgruntled employee who also later retracted and apologized for
his remarks. (Brizzalora).
None of this past libel and defamation you continue to lie about
and post to defame me, of course, has anything to do with
Vietnam, war, or anything else pertaining to the alt.war.Vietnam
newsgroup. It does however, represent vicious and malicious
cyberstalking and cyberharassment that is unmistakable in its
form and intent.
>
> 2. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have personally
> witnessed an event at an Army Air Field in Vietnam.
> Investigation might just show that the poster had adapted an
> event which had occurred before he had even arrived in Vietnam.
> In further usenet back and forth, it might just be shown that
> when faced with having his falsehoods revealed, the poster then
> revised his original story to have been on the roof of a billet
> some 3-4 miles away, and to have heard some of the details from
> a military policeman. Investigation might also show that the
> original poster fabricated an exchange on another usenet forum
> between ficticious former servicemen who claim to have been
> present during the event.
Doug Says: Your conclusions are of course, false as usual. I
revised nothing. You asked for more details, I provided them. I
witnessed the event I described. I also fabricated nothing.
Other servicemen that were there saw some of the same things I
saw. You cannot stand the fact that others have come forward to
say your "After Action Report" nonsense is incomplete - so now
you are claiming these people that are simply relating what they
witnessed are fictitious? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH _ If you believe
Smitty and Eris and the others that proved you wrong are
"fictitious" why don't you ask them to prove they are not? I am
sure they would love to do so. Then what will you claim?
Probably something such as idiotic and ridiculous as claiming all
those that disagree with you are "fictitious" people. You sound
delusional when you howl such preposterous claims.
Moreover, I have offered to exchange military records with you
in a legal arena where you will not be allowed to lie, fabricate,
distort, embellish and distort information like you have done
before and are doing now. That will prove where I was at the
time of the incident, yet you hide and duck this offer.
Moreover, I offered you the opportunity to read several accounts
of that incident that also referenced Ambulances involved in this
attack that was posted years before you started your smear
campaign against me - yet you declined access to that information
as you knew it would prove you a liar. Now you do not even want
to mention that evidence. You certainly are no "investigator" at
least not an honest one.
Not to mention the fact you did not witness the event and I did,
nor were you even in the area when it happened. Your false
conclusions are based upon notoriously incomplete and inaccurate
"After Action Reports" that are considered by most veterans as a
"joke" just like the John Kerry After Action Reports were. So
your false accusations, libel, defamation, false accusations are
not based upon any real knowledge you possess or know, therefore
your false accusations are clear evidence of your desire to
conduct a cyberstalking and cyberharassing smear campaign against
me.
>
> 3. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have been
> responsible (with his team) for the killing of an estimated
> 1803 VietCong and NVA. When challenged the poster might then
> seek to justify the number by expanding the orginal posting
> (made 3 years earlier but not challenged at the time) by
> stating the he was claiming that the number represented the
> body count claimed by the units he was assigned to -
> interestingly though, the poster refuses to specify the exact
> designation of the units.
Doug Says: Your distortions above are glaring. I need not
justify clear statements. You distorted, fabricated and lied
about what I said. I have already posted clear and unmistakable
evidence you distorted and lied about this issue. Shall I do it
again? Trying to connect what was said about a team on a single
mission to mean ALL units/teams I was assigned to during my
entire tour in Vietnam is something only a liar and cyberstalker
would try to do. The BC I referenced was based upon all of the
teams/units I was assigned to in Vietnam, I made that fact very
clear, and you are the one that distorted that statement into
something it clearly does not state - now you are lying about it
again! Amazing! You clearly need some professional help.
>
> 4. A poster might claim to have served with a unit in Vietnam,
> and might claim to have personally discovered tunnels under the
> main base where he was assigned - he might also claim to have
> personally advised the Commanding General of this fact and that
> the Commanding General refused to take action. Investigation by
> persons who find the statement incredulous - could very well
> prove that the existence of tunnels at the base had been well
> known PRIOR to the individuals arrival in Vietnam, and that
> specific action had been taken by the Division at that base to
> counter the threat of tunnels under it long before the poster
> ever got in country.
>
Doug Says: It is possible the 25th Infantry Division
Intelligence knew about the tunnels under the Cu Chi basecamp
before I reported them. But I doubt it as there was no effort to
fill in the trenches in which I chased a VC into that ducked into
an interlocking tunnel. Your claim the officers of the 25th
already knew of tunnels under the base camp all along but did
nothing about them needs some supportive evidence. They
certainly did not believe me or they would have done something
about it, or they did believe me and did not want the fact they
allowed these tunnels to be built right under their noses on
their records. Unlike you, I do not purport to be able to read
minds, so I do not know what they were thinking about this issue
and I seriously doubt if you do either. I doubt if the General
officers from the 25th are going to call up and consult a two
year draftee working in supply or the PX and ask him about these
tunnels, so I doubt if you were consulted.
> 5. A poster might very well make all kinds of claims about his
> service in the military in a usenet forum, and those claims may
> go unchallenged for 5, 6, 7 or 8 years - until those postings
> are made available to persons having actual knowledge of the
> military and the areas he claims to have served. Once the
> poster realizes he is about to be unmasked - he might claim
> that anyone challenging his previous postings is engaging in
> libel, he might claim that the postings were the work of others
> having access to his usenet account, he might claim that the
> postings are errors made by a typist , he might claim that the
> postings are errors in dictation.
Doug Says: No one is being "unmasked" other than a two year
draftee that served in Supply or the PX that ridicilously claims
that his whole two years draftee experience makes him an "expert"
on military service, and especially ridicilous are his claims
that he is an "expert" on the US Army Infantry in Vietnam. Not
to mention when this person also claims he won not less than
three Victoria Crosses in Vietnam, when we all know the US Army
was not even giving out those medals! Is that what you mean by
being "unmasked?"
What I have seen from this person and his gang members are
outrageous lies, distortions, fabrications, embellishments of
what they claim I have written in the past, and then the use of
those lies and fabrications to defame, cyberstalk and cyberharass
me to a point that even web sites are being denied to these
people by web hosts because their defamation and cyberstalking
are so obvious.
Further, this same gang of Cyberstalkers lied about me not
notifying all that collective typists were being used in various
accounts that I used(that BTW did not even belong to me
personally) and that several different people were using those
accounts of which the gang of defamers have excerpted out of
context statements they fraudulently attribute to me. This same
Cyberstalking gang also fraudulently claimed I did not notify
anyone of the typist and mulit-person use of those accounts until
after they started their smear campaign against me.
In response to their lies, I referenced not less than 59
previous posts on Google dating all the way back to 1997 which
notified all that my group was using several typists to write on
the newsgroups, and not less than 71 previous Googled posts also
dating from 1997 which also stated several different people were
using the accounts in question to post on newsgroups. Yet the
gang of defamers and cyberstalkers ignored this irrefutable
evidence their excerpted quips they have fraudulently attributed
to me personally were not all written by me - and to this day
they continue to use out-of-context quips and statements they
have embellished and distorted to cyberstalk and cyberharass me.
Further, a leader of this gang of defamers tried to palm himself
off to me as a "Federal Agent" so I would not complain about his
smear campaign against me, nor initiate legal action against him
for Cyberstalking and Cyberharassment. I repeatedly asked this
person to confirm or deny his Federal Agent claims, and he
refused to do so and invited me to "check him out."
Consequently, I managed to track down some possible federal
agencies he might have worked for based upon a past post by a
member of his gang, and the agency I contacted stated that he had
not worked for that agency for several years. Yet, that agency
was interested in his "Federal Agent" claims and asked me to send
my information in that regard to them in writing. Now the gang
member is howling and whining about me contacting his "previous
employer" although the gang leader invited me to do precisely
that, and he is also whining that he does not want me to contact
that agency again although that agency has specifically requested
that I do so. The gang leader has also acknowledged that if he
is using any asset from that agency to help him smear and defame
me, or derive personal information on me, that act would
represent a violation of the 1974 privacy act laws. Yet as soon
as I was told he no longer was employed by the Custom Service,
someone from that agency called him and tipped him off that I was
complaining about his misrepresentations. So the jury is still
out whether this person has used past agency contacts to help him
defame me, or gain personal information about me.
>
In short - it is fatuous for anyone to claim that their postings
to USENET
are copyrighted material and cannot be quoted.
Doug Says: Title 17 and the copyright laws are clear enough.
Copyrights apply to all information copyrighted. Published or
not. Posting information on the internet if copyrighted, carrys
the same copyright protections as publishing information anywhere
else. Further, specific rules for copyright violations have been
promulaged for ISP's and their account holders that violate
copyrighted materials:
According to Title17, Section 102 (a) US Copyright law protects
"original works of authorship" that are fixed in tangible forms
of expression from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or
otherwise communicated." 17 USC & 102(a). Further, "A copyright
is the right to protect something you have created that is
original, and the right to prohibit others from using, exploiting
or making money from your creation." Using information to defame
and cyberstalk certainly is "exploiting" or "using."
Further, selling advertisements on web sites that is using our
copyrighted materials certainly is "making money from our
copyrighted materials." (I have retained copies of web sites
that used our copyrighted material and that sold advertisements
on that web site).
In addition, in December 1998, Congress passed the "Digital
Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). This act was passed to address
the complicated issues of liability for copyright infringement on
the Internet. The ISP's were afraid of the new Statutory Damages
if their clients violated copyrights on the Internet. The Act
provides a way for the ISP's to escape culpability, but not their
clients, and in fact, forces the ISP's to out their clients if a
copyright violation occurs. In fact, the ISP clients are
expressly culpable for *statutory damages" if the copyrighted
material was violated within three months of its registration.
The statutory damages need not be proved as actual damages, only
the copyright infringement. Case law has also held that once a
person has been notified of any copyright violation, should that
person continue to violate that same copyright, the statutory
damages (automatic damages of $35,000) will apply to each
subsequent count of infringement. Ergo, a copyright infringe
could be held to pay the $35,000 statutory damages several times
for repeated copyright violations of the same copyrighted
material - such as posting it on a Web site or repeating it in
several posts. Reposting copyright violations have been held as
the same as original copyright violations - so using another to
first violate the copyright then repeat that violation will not
insulate the perpetrator from statutory damages.
(There are also criminal penalties for copyright violations, and
I suggest all speak to their own lawyers about this very
important issue).
>
> It is obvious that because the poster realizes that his
> military records and the actual documented proof of what he did
> in the United States Military is shortly to be available he is
> attempting to stifle any examination of his usenet posting
> history through a variety of methods - ALL OF WHICH WILL FAIL.
>
>
> --
> Nigel Brooks
Doug Says: The NARA has already refused (in writing) to provide
the gang leader his FOIA request as it has concluded such
information would violate my right to privacy. The NARA has
however, given the issue to the US Army HRC, which may overrule
the NARA, but I doubt it. And if the US Army does overrule the
NARA they would only do so by providing information that would
not jeopardize my right to keep my private information private,
especially since those that are requesting this information have
a long history of using personal information to defame, lie,
fabricate and conduct smear campaigns against me and other US
Army Veterans.
It appears to me and others the defamation gang needs to
belittle those veterans that actually served so as to somehow
bring their obvious low self esteem into so kind of palatable
light in respect to their own pathetic inferiority complexes. PX
Commandos love to attack and denigrate real Veterans that served
in combat. Many draftees hate the US Army, and they notoriously
hate those officers that served honorably and with distinction -
something I doubt if the cyberstalkers ever did. The gang leader
lied to the readers and told them nothing would stop him from
gaining information via the FOIA that he could distort, lie
about and fabricate to continue to smear me with. The gang
leader obviously lied as the NARA decision not to provide that
FOIA information clearly proves.
If any FOIA information is received by this gang of cyberstalkers
I will be very surprised, but even if they do receive anything,
there will be so many redactions all they will glean is name,
rank and serial number, and perhaps my last unit of assignmenent.
I have asked for a de novo court review of this issue, and I
believe I will receive it. Then the cyberstalkers will be
afforded the opportunity to explain their cyberstalking,
cyberharassment, defamation, lies, distortions, reasons for
asking a Federal Agency to help them continue to perpetrate the
crime of cyberharassment or cyberstalking, under oath - I can't
wait!
The gang leader and some members of his gang have been offered
the opportunity, at least 50 times, to exchange ALL military
records and documents with me, in a legal arena, where the gang
leader and his gang cannot distort, lie, embellish, distort,
falsify, con, smear, rewrite, falsely interpret, and generally
misuse such information to threaten violence, incite others to
threaten violence, cause emotional distress with lies and
distortions and false accusations, cyberstalk and cyberharass.
Yet although a simple exchange of documents under the control of
the court would provide everything the gang leader claims he
wants, he ducks, cowers, hides and runs from this offer because
he knows the truth, if he cannot distort or lie about it, will
prove him the liar and cyberharasser and smear merchant we all
truly know he is.
No more Mr. Nice Guy for me. I will take legal action against
anyone that continues to cyberstalk or cyberharass me, or
violates my or my group's copyrights. I also reserve the right to
defend myself in any post that contains defamation, lies,
cyberstalking or cyberharassment directed toward me. I have no
intention of initiating posts against anyone, I am not a smear
merchant, all I do is post articles and respond to posts directed
to defame me. But if I am attacked with libel and/or defamation,
I have been advised that I am perfectly within my rights to (1)
file charges for cyberstalking and or cyberharassment, and
simultaneously (2) defend myself from defamation, distortions
and lies that place me and mine in a false light and are intended
to create emotional distress and harm for me and my family.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Paul Harper
I'd rather he dipped it in nitroglycerine, swallowed it then jumped up
and down for a short while.
Just a short while should do.
Paul.
--
. A .sig is all well and good, but it's no substitute for a personality
. Humour is very subjective. One man's light-hearted comment is another's insult.
. Is there a moron carrot above? Have you replied to it? Are you sure?
. EMail: Unless invited to, don't. Your message is likely to be automatically deleted.
Nigel Brooks
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:xvydnS1tsJj...@comcast.com...
> All sections written herein by the Doug Grant Group represent copyrighted
> materials (C) that cannot be reproduced in any manner without the express
> written permission of the Doug Grant Group.
>
> "Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:3jfl4lF...@individual.net...
>> When a poster to a usenet forum makes certain claims regarding their
>> experiences in the United States Military, their experiences in Vietnam,
>> and their experiences in fighting terrorism - those postings are subject
>> to vetting by anyone who desires to do so.
>>
>> It is Fatuous to expect that anything you write may not be vetted and
>> then quoted when investigation has determined that the claims cannot be
>> supported by fact.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1. A poster to a usenet forum might claim that in a lawsuit a panel of
>> Federal Circuit Court judges were proven wrong in a ruling. If it can be
>> shown that the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
>> States - and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of
>> Appeals by denying Certiorari, it is reasonable to assume that the poster
>> lied.
>
> Doug Says: The Copyright laws are clear. Copyrighted material may not be
> reproduced without the express permission of the author. (See below for
> more information in this regard).
I don't need to see anything you care to cite Mr. Reiman - you are a total
fool if you think that you can copyright an exchange in an open forum such
as this.
> In respect to your Fatuous defamation that you and your gang members have
> posted often and used to cyberharass and cyberstlalk, you are of course
> repeating a ruling by a Judge that was proved incorrect. You have been
> told this fact several times, but you ignore the truth and continue to
> post his rulings that have been subsequently proved false. Had you not
> hid the part where the Judge gave deference to the NJ CCC, then any honest
> person would have consulted the NJ CCC rulings in respect to Judge Irena's
> incorrect mathematical conclusions of which he based his erroneously
> Fatuous accusations.
FATUOUS? I remember that word well - it was used by the Circuit Court of
Appeals when they described the claims you made in your lawsuit. I have
taken the liberty of forwarding your analysis of Judge Irena's ruling to his
lawclerk.
"CERTIORARI DENIED" - United States Supreme Court
> You have also posted libel against me that has been subsequently
> apologized for and retracted by its authors, (M'hall and Martin) and you
> have even posted defamation against me from a disgruntled employee who
> also later retracted and apologized for his remarks. (Brizzalora).
>
> None of this past libel and defamation you continue to lie about and post
> to defame me, of course, has anything to do with Vietnam, war, or
> anything else pertaining to the alt.war.Vietnam newsgroup. It does
> however, represent vicious and malicious cyberstalking and
> cyberharassment that is unmistakable in its form and intent.
B.S.
>> 2. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have personally witnessed
>> an event at an Army Air Field in Vietnam. Investigation might just show
>> that the poster had adapted an event which had occurred before he had
>> even arrived in Vietnam. In further usenet back and forth, it might just
>> be shown that when faced with having his falsehoods revealed, the poster
>> then revised his original story to have been on the roof of a billet some
>> 3-4 miles away, and to have heard some of the details from a military
>> policeman. Investigation might also show that the original poster
>> fabricated an exchange on another usenet forum between ficticious former
>> servicemen who claim to have been present during the event.
>
>
> Doug Says: Your conclusions are of course, false as usual. I revised
> nothing. You asked for more details, I provided them. I witnessed the
> event I described. I also fabricated nothing. Other servicemen that were
> there saw some of the same things I saw. You cannot stand the fact that
> others have come forward to say your "After Action Report" nonsense is
> incomplete - so now you are claiming these people that are simply relating
> what they witnessed are fictitious? BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH _ If you believe
> Smitty and Eris and the others that proved you wrong are "fictitious" why
> don't you ask them to prove they are not? I am sure they would love to do
> so. Then what will you claim? Probably something such as idiotic and
> ridiculous as claiming all those that disagree with you are "fictitious"
> people. You sound delusional when you howl such preposterous claims.
Howl? The only person howling is you - the ficticious postings which
suddenly appeared in another newsgroup are as transparent as your other
stories Reiman.
>
> Moreover, I have offered to exchange military records with you in a legal
> arena where you will not be allowed to lie, fabricate, distort, embellish
> and distort information like you have done before and are doing now. That
> will prove where I was at the time of the incident, yet you hide and duck
> this offer. Moreover, I offered you the opportunity to read several
> accounts of that incident that also referenced Ambulances involved in this
> attack that was posted years before you started your smear campaign
> against me - yet you declined access to that information as you knew it
> would prove you a liar. Now you do not even want to mention that
> evidence. You certainly are no "investigator" at least not an honest one.
I'm a fine investigator Mr. Reiman - as can be evidenced by my exposure of
the fraudulent claims of Thomas Abraham and his tales of being held naked by
the VC in a cage during the Tet offensive
> Not to mention the fact you did not witness the event and I did, nor were
> you even in the area when it happened. Your false conclusions are based
> upon notoriously incomplete and inaccurate "After Action Reports" that are
> considered by most veterans as a "joke" just like the John Kerry After
> Action Reports were. So your false accusations, libel, defamation, false
> accusations are not based upon any real knowledge you possess or know,
> therefore your false accusations are clear evidence of your desire to
> conduct a cyberstalking and cyberharassing smear campaign against me.
I'm responding to your bullshit Reiman - if you don't like it then don't
read it.
>> 3. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have been responsible (with
>> his team) for the killing of an estimated 1803 VietCong and NVA. When
>> challenged the poster might then seek to justify the number by expanding
>> the orginal posting (made 3 years earlier but not challenged at the time)
>> by stating the he was claiming that the number represented the body count
>> claimed by the units he was assigned to - interestingly though, the
>> poster refuses to specify the exact designation of the units.
>
> Doug Says: Your distortions above are glaring. I need not justify clear
> statements. You distorted, fabricated and lied about what I said. I have
> already posted clear and unmistakable evidence you distorted and lied
> about this issue. Shall I do it again? Trying to connect what was said
> about a team on a single mission to mean ALL units/teams I was assigned
> to during my entire tour in Vietnam is something only a liar and
> cyberstalker would try to do. The BC I referenced was based upon all of
> the teams/units I was assigned to in Vietnam, I made that fact very clear,
> and you are the one that distorted that statement into something it
> clearly does not state - now you are lying about it again! Amazing! You
> clearly need some professional help
Sure you did Reiman - right after you were called on it. With exactly the
same clarity as your butter bar explanation.
>> 4. A poster might claim to have served with a unit in Vietnam, and might
>> claim to have personally discovered tunnels under the main base where he
>> was assigned - he might also claim to have personally advised the
>> Commanding General of this fact and that the Commanding General refused
>> to take action. Investigation by persons who find the statement
>> incredulous - could very well prove that the existence of tunnels at the
>> base had been well known PRIOR to the individuals arrival in Vietnam, and
>> that specific action had been taken by the Division at that base to
>> counter the threat of tunnels under it long before the poster ever got in
>> country.
>>
>
> Doug Says: It is possible the 25th Infantry Division Intelligence knew
> about the tunnels under the Cu Chi basecamp before I reported them. But I
> doubt it as there was no effort to fill in the trenches in which I chased
> a VC into that ducked into an interlocking tunnel. Your claim the
> officers of the 25th already knew of tunnels under the base camp all along
> but did nothing about them needs some supportive evidence. They certainly
> did not believe me or they would have done something about it, or they did
> believe me and did not want the fact they allowed these tunnels to be
> built right under their noses on their records. Unlike you, I do not
> purport to be able to read minds, so I do not know what they were thinking
> about this issue and I seriously doubt if you do either. I doubt if the
> General officers from the 25th are going to call up and consult a two year
> draftee working in supply or the PX and ask him about these tunnels, so I
> doubt if you were consulted.
Hey Reiman - you're the one who claims to have had a personal one on one
with the Commanding General of the 25th, not I. The fact Mr. Reiman is that
within a year of establishing the base camp at Cu Chi, the 25th Division was
WELL AWARE of tunnels in the area and in fact took the appropriate measures
to defeat them - Long long before you arrived in country.
>> 5. A poster might very well make all kinds of claims about his service
>> in the military in a usenet forum, and those claims may go unchallenged
>> for 5, 6, 7 or 8 years - until those postings are made available to
>> persons having actual knowledge of the military and the areas he claims
>> to have served. Once the poster realizes he is about to be unmasked - he
>> might claim that anyone challenging his previous postings is engaging in
>> libel, he might claim that the postings were the work of others having
>> access to his usenet account, he might claim that the postings are errors
>> made by a typist , he might claim that the postings are errors in
>> dictation.
>
> Doug Says: No one is being "unmasked" other than a two year draftee that
> served in Supply or the PX that ridicilously claims that his whole two
> years draftee experience makes him an "expert" on military service, and
> especially ridicilous are his claims that he is an "expert" on the US
> Army Infantry in Vietnam. Not to mention when this person also claims he
> won not less than three Victoria Crosses in Vietnam, when we all know the
> US Army was not even giving out those medals! Is that what you mean by
> being "unmasked?"
I mean you been revealed as a charlatan Mr. Reiman - that's what I mean
Reiman - the only reason you called the Customs Service to inquire about my
status was in an attempt to deter me from finding out the truth concerning
your service in the United States Military and in Vietnam. As soon as you
realized I was serious about determining independantly whether or not you
were truthful in your postings of your experiences in Vietnam - you became
frantic.
It is the same reason that you have complained to the NARA and the US Army
Human Resource Command - an attempt to deprive me of my legal right under
the Freedom of Information Act to judge whether or not you have lied about
your service in the Army and in Vietnam.
It is the same reason that you have complained to Fortune City concerning
the websites patriot2003/countdown.html , warstories, and warstories1.
It is the same reason that whenever anyone who has knowledge of the military
and Vietnam - and who questions your veracity is immediately met with
hysterical threats of lawsuit for libel, defamation, and other imaginary
slights.
That reason? Quite simply Mr. Reiman is that you fear the truth.
Nigel Brooks
Sharky
You are a certifiable nutjob, Doogie.
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock
John Agosta
"ouroboros rex" <c-b...@itg.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:dau7v8$gj2$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
Where are the Bushies asking to see the 28 Saudi pages that Bush is hiding?
Instead of these guys asking for the truth, they blindly accept what the
scammer lays on them.
For shame, and lack of a brain....
John Agosta
"Bob Adkins" <bo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gpk4d1da0h5qar1a5...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:58:26 +0100, "Horny Cocksucker"
> <horn...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
ASSHOLE.
>
likely
> have financed many more if allowed to stay in power.
>
>
> -- Bob
If this country keeps fucking around, there will be no money or people left
to do the job
when something 'real' needs to be done. Thank you, Mr. Bush.
Dai Uy
In article <-pKdnWBiII-...@comcast.com>,
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
- - - [snip incoherent threatening bull shit] - - -
> Cease and desist or face legal action.
>
> Douglas Von Reiman
Cease and desist what. You cant stop me from telling the truth.
If I've not posted the truth, you've posted nothing to suggest that my
analysis of your archived posts is wrong on a single point. As I've
previously offered, if I'm wrong, I'll apologize. Hell if you'll post
your DD214 showing Viet Nam service and a Purple Heart, I'll fork over
two fifties.
You've questioned my service, why not make me the same offer?
Regarding the your inaccurate title line: second warning? --
pre-schoolers count better than that.
You've been threatening legal action against me and my family for
months.
Be advised that by the very definitions you've repeatedly posted,
you are the one clearly guilty of "cyberharrassment" and
"cyberstalking". I'm advising you now to back off.
It's all archived on Google.
Gee, is that my name I see there? Are you making a personal
threat? So, I'll just change your subject line
It's all archived on Google.
No one, that's NO ONE, has ever threatened you with anything other
than the truth. No one has posted anything about you except in response
to the unbelievable assertions that you have posted about yourself.
Nothing which I nor anyone else has posted has been shown to be untrue.
I've wagered $50.00 that your DD214 will NOT indicate Viet Nam service.
I've wagered another $50.00 that Your DD214 will NOT show a Purple
Heart. You claim 'em, you prove 'em. All that I've done has been to
respond to lies, both about your imaginary Viet Nam service and your
lies regarding my verified Viet Nam service and the Di Dummy insults
that you have posted.
It's all archived on Google.
What did you expect? You brought your grandiose lies to a group of
individuals with first hand knowledge of Viet Nam. This isn't some free
lance journalist group or recreational gamblers. This group is largely
composed of real Viet Nam veterans and is concerned with all aspects of
the war in Viet Nam. Do you really think we would roll over and let you
steal the valor of better men than you.
I really don't care if you have a full blown conniption fit. Your
lies have been, and will continue to be, exposed. I did feel a twinge
of sympathy for you once, you probably have no friends, but after all
you were an E-7 and wore the same uniform as I. But I've no sympathy.
You've disgraced the uniform you once wore. I'm rather enjoying
watching you sweat, and am amused by your frantic attempts to stifle our
constitutionally protected rights
This isn't about you, and this isn't about anyone stalking or
harrassing you. This is about your lies and the erroneous image you
project of Viet Nam veterans. Killing thousands, Killing with knives,
guns, and wire. Eating the wounded and taking no prisoners. Forgive me
while I puke. This is simply about exposing your many lies and bogus
claims of heroic service in Viet Nam and Central America. Any judge,
lawyer, or secretary can read your archived posts and see that you are a
complete fraud.
With utter contempt,
-Dai Uy sends
>
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-A4744C....@news-rdr-02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <e-mdndAtNOt...@comcast.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> >
> >> Most of these Cyberstalkers and Cyberharassers live and abide
> >> by
> >> the Joseph Goebbel's code: "If you tell a lie often enough
> >> eventually most of the population will believe it."
> >
> > Is that in your expert opinion?
You do seem to like to repeat your lies regarding serving in Viet
Nam. C'mon I've wagered $50.00 that you didn't. Most of the population
here doesn't believe your oft repeated lie. No one took me up on it.
Not even you. We'll know soon enough. Tick tock tick tock.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.news-media
> > Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 14:39:33 -0800
> > Subject: Re: Surely that should read 'Americans are
> > dangerous'? - was:
> > Re: Alerts Are Dangerous
> > As many VC and NVA as I could. (1803 estimated BC in 2.5 tours
> > with only 3 wounded in my team).
I've said it before, that's an unbelievable lie.
Actually you've already shown it to be a lie yourself by saying you
lost only three wounded.
That doesn't fit with what you told us elsewhere that as a Platoon
Sergeant you lost three butter bars on your first tour, before attending
OCS and returning for your second tour as a Platoon Leader. And then
there's the mysterious KIA Olson who apparently has since recovered and
the disappearing Nelson. How many does that come to?
"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
> > It is too bad however that
> > we did not kill more. Then perhaps there would not have been
> > the
> > Pol Pot massacres of six million, and another estimated 2
> > million butchered by the North Vietnamese after they took
> > Saigon. But
> > then those murders should be on the collective conscience of
> > those that protested us fighting the communists.
> > So, how many innocent Cambodians and Vietnamese do you think
> > you
> > helped to massacre by protesting the Vietnam war?
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREI...@COMCAST.NET>
> > Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
> > alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
> > Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2004 11:55:02 -0400
> > Local: Mon,Sep 6 2004 11:55 am
> > Subject: Re: SWIFT BOAT LIES OR TRUTH?
> >
> > Doug Says: I spent two tours in Vietnam, and 12 months in Korea
> > helping to train ROK troops for Vietnam. (I was credited for
> > two&1/2 tours in USAPAC).
How do you figure the math on this? Two tours in Viet Nam equals
two years. Add to that a year in Korea, doesn't that come out to three?
And by the way, it's USARPAC.
> > Hanoi John Kerry spent six months in
> > Vietnam and used his "scratches" (Hanoi John demanded Purple
> > Hearts for "Jungle Scratches" that did not even cost him a
> > single
> > day of lost duty) to get him an early return from the war zone.
Not at all like Dodger "take no prisoners" Reiman being hit by a
VC. What was it, 12.7 mm, or just some of those puny 7.62 mm AK rounds?
> > I
> > assure you that Hanoi John Kerry was "not speaking on behalf of
> > all Veterans" like he fallaciously tried to claim in front of
> > Congress.
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > From: "DGVREIMAN" <DGVREI...@COMCAST.NET>
> > Newsgroups: alt.radio.talk, alt.news-media, alt.politics,
> > alt.security.terrorism
> > Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2004 14:13:40 -0400
> > Local: Sat,Sep 18 2004 2:13 pm
> > Subject: Re: 910 dead since "mission accomplished" speech
> >
> > There were mistakes made. Hindsight is perfect. So should have
> > we fired General Marshal and held President Roosevelt to the
> > fire
> > for the Battle of the Bulge? Fired General Macarthur for losing
> > the Philippines to the Imperial Japanese? War is a bitch - I
> > know, two tours in Vietnam and a tour in Korea taught me that
> > hard lesson.
Why is it that you refuse to post evidence of so much as a single
day spent in Viet Nam?
> >
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > From: "DOUGLAS G.V. REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.news-media, alt.politics, alt.politics.usa,
> > alt.politics.usa.congress, alt.security.terrorism
> > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:59:52 -0800
> > Subject: Military Experts on FOX & CNN?
> > I have never seen a commissioned officer receive a medal that
> > was not handed to him by the actions of his NCO's. And that
> > includes me. The decorations I received as a Platoon Sergeant
> > are real and were because of what I did. The ones I received
> > later I did not consider real or deserved, as they were not
> > earned directly by me, but earned because of the deeds of those
> > under my command.
> > Doug Grant (Tm)
Would you care to explain that one Reiman? Were you posing as, or
impersonating, a commissioned officer? Were you claiming multiple
decorations? Aren't those both federal offenses?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
> > From: "DOUGLAS REIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>
> > Newsgroups: rec.gambling.blackjack
> > Date: 1998/05/21
> > Subject: Re: Doug Tells The Truth
> > Now Ed, where DID you get that medical degree!
> > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
> > Give it back you forgot your change.
> > I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong when I
> > volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to
> > think
> > the VC that fired at me would not hit me.
So then, you must have been awarded a Purple Heart. Does it appear
anywhere in your records?
Wait, wait, I get it. You were so severely wounded and med evaced,
so you couldn't complete your second tour in Viet Nam. Or, was that
Korea?
Let's face it, you weren't there. You weren't wounded. You are a
fraud.
Mac
<nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
>When a poster to a usenet forum makes certain claims regarding their
>experiences in the United States Military, their experiences in Vietnam, and
>their experiences in fighting terrorism - those postings are subject to
>vetting by anyone who desires to do so.
>
>It is Fatuous to expect that anything you write may not be vetted and then
>quoted when investigation has determined that the claims cannot be supported
>by fact.
>
>For example:
>
>1. A poster to a usenet forum might claim that in a lawsuit a panel of
>Federal Circuit Court judges were proven wrong in a ruling. If it can be
>shown that the ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United
>States - and the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of
>Appeals by denying Certiorari, it is reasonable to assume that the poster
>lied.
>
>2. A poster to a usenet forum might claim to have personally witnessed an
>event at an Army Air Field in Vietnam. Investigation might just show that
>the poster had adapted an event which had occurred before he had even
>arrived in Vietnam.
SNIP SNIP SNIP
***************** *****************************
Unlike the blather poppycock of the FATUOUS "O.C.S.
Butter-Bar", your review was succinct and coherent.
And, right on target.
---Mac
Mac
<DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> spewed forth yet more of his
poppycock blustering balderdash:
>All sections written herein by the Doug "O.C.S. BUTTER-BAR" Grant Group-Mind-Meld of Fantasy Characters represent
>pure unaldterated codswallop which, being on the UseNet, is NOT copyrighted materials (C) that cannot be reproduced in any manner
>without the express written permission of the Doug "O.C.S. BUTTER-BAR" Grant FATUOUS Fantasy Group...
SNIP more than 590 lines of Doug "O.C.S. BUTTER-BAR" Grant
turgid posturing...
---Mac
SteveL
>All sections written herein by the Doug Grant Group represent
>copyrighted materials (C) that cannot be reproduced in any manner
>without the express written permission of the Doug Grant Group.
Tough shit. This is Usenet.
So which is it Doug. If people snip your screed you claim they're
hiding your posts. And when they don't they're violating your
copyright.
So which is it Doug?
>
>"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:3jfl4lF...@individual.net...
>> When a poster to a usenet forum makes certain claims regarding
>> their experiences in the United States Military, their
>> experiences in Vietnam, and their experiences in fighting
>> terrorism - those postings are subject to vetting by anyone who
>> desires to do so.
>>
>> It is Fatuous to expect that anything you write may not be
>> vetted and then quoted when investigation has determined that
>> the claims cannot be supported by fact.
>>
>> For example:
>>
>> 1. A poster to a usenet forum might claim that in a lawsuit a
>> panel of Federal Circuit Court judges were proven wrong in a
>> ruling. If it can be shown that the ruling was appealed to the
>> Supreme Court of the United States - and the Supreme Court
>> upheld the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals by denying
>> Certiorari, it is reasonable to assume that the poster lied.
>
>Doug Says: The Copyright laws are clear. Copyrighted material
>may not be reproduced without the express permission of the
>author. (See below for more information in this regard).
Better sue Google then. They've archived your copyrighted material
without your permission....
<snip>
>
> Further, this same gang of Cyberstalkers lied about me not
>notifying all that collective typists were being used in various
>accounts that I used(that BTW did not even belong to me
>personally) and that several different people were using those
>accounts of which the gang of defamers have excerpted out of
>context statements they fraudulently attribute to me. This same
>Cyberstalking gang also fraudulently claimed I did not notify
>anyone of the typist and mulit-person use of those accounts until
>after they started their smear campaign against me.
>
> In response to their lies, I referenced not less than 59
>previous posts on Google dating all the way back to 1997 which
>notified all that my group was using several typists to write on
>the newsgroups
You referenced NONE. Your first intimation that there was a
collection of posters and/or typists was in March of this year. This
was after your abortive Feb 2005 effort to explain the inconsistencies
was laughed out of Usenet. That being that Google was hacked by your
many Usenet enemies and the embarrasing posts were either planted or
modified.
LOL!!!!
>, and not less than 71 previous Googled posts also
>dating from 1997 which also stated several different people were
>using the accounts in question to post on newsgroups.
Humor us. Please reference just one of these 130 posts now.
<snip insanity>
ashl...@hotmail.com
it was foreign terrorists who attacked the US almost 4 years ago.
Well of course unless you believe the proven to be fake video
the US government made with a fake OBL supposedly confessing,
and claim is authentic.
Except there are several flaws with their so called "authentic"
video, which are :
1. Bin Laden is left handed and always gestures with his left
hand, the video fake shows the fake OBL as right handed,
and gesturing with his right hand.
2. Bin Laden doesn't wear a wedding ring, but the fake video
shows the fake OBL as wearing a wedding band.
3. The most obvious of all, Bin Laden is very tall, lanky, long, thin
face and neck and looks like a giraffe, the fake OBL has a short
thick neck, full round face.
http://www2.indystar.com/library/factfiles/crime/national/2001/sept11/img/binladen4.jpg
http://multigraphic.dk/lounge/weblog/images/uploads/I9782-2004Oct29.jpg
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Dec2001/011213-D-0000X-005.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Dec2001/011213-D-0000X-003.html
http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Dec2001/011213-D-0000X-001.html
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/1998/402/laden.jpg
Yes, anyone who is blind can easily see they're the same person.
But then again, the US government has never been concerned
about details, they just make it up as they go along, with lies
to cover up their previous lies.
With the major flaws between the video Bin Laden, and pictures
of the real Bin Laden, with the US government's own defense
web site claiming the video is authentic, the US government
is the only one who would profit from the fake video. Pretty much
confirms who created the video, and it wasn't Santa Clause.
So why did the government go to the trouble of making a fake
video, if in fact it was foreign terrorists who attacked the
US on 9/11 ?
Wonder why the FBI's own web site page on Bin Laden doesn't
even mention Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,
in fact it doesn't even mention 9/11. But yet it does mention
other bombings, and Bin Laden is wanted for questioning about.
The same applies to the so called Saddam capture video. One
thing which never changes are someone's eyes. Again, a detail
the US government doesn't concern themselves with.
http://www.billmon.org/archives/saddam%20beard.gif
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/cgi-bin/xphrase.pl?keyword=Saddam+Hussein.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/images/saddam-captured_centcom_12-14-03-2.jpg
99% of the world knows Bush lied to invade Afghanistan, claiming
terrorists, with no evidence still, nearly 4 years later, and claimed
it wasn't about oil.
Remember when Bush stated he hit the TRIVECTA right after the
9/11 attacks ?
The trillion dollars questions :
1. What nation has the largest border to the Caspian Sea, the
largest untapped oil reserve in the world ?
2. What nation has the second largest oil reserve in the world ?
1. On May 30, 2002 Bush's new puppet in Afghanistan, along with
Turkey and Pakistan signed the agreement for the new oil/gas
pipeline with Bush's oil buddies, then Bush was off to invade
Iraq, again based on more intentional lies.
2. The US occupying Afghanistan, trying to get control of
Iraq, Turkey and Pakistan are already on the US side
Afghanistan + Iraq = US+ allies now completely surround
IRAN, who has the largest border to the POT OF BLACK
GOLD, the Caspian Sea, which has been Bush and his
buddies goal all along.
Adolph Hitler was very evil, but he couldn't have spoken truer words
when he stated :
"What good fortune for those in power that people do not think"
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:32:46 -0400, "DGVREIMAN"
<DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>IRAN IS BEHIND TERRORISM
>
>© Copyright 2005 by DGVReiman, all rights reserved.
>
>There is absolutely no doubt to anyone that completes the
>necessary research on this issue that Iran is behind all of the
>radical Muslim terrorism in the world. Including the 911
>massacres, the massacres in Madrid, and the more recent 707
>massacres in London. Iran operates two basic terrorist groups
>that control the Iranian people with terror and torture, and
>export radical Muslim terrorism outside of Iran. The
>blackmail as their primary weapons. (Note on every border in the
>terrorist group militias, such as Syria, the Taliban, and other
>lip service as the Supreme Muslim Council runs that country and
>will always run that country until it is removed by brute force.
>All the denials, lip service and feigns of innocence coming from
>Iran is nothing more than a means to continue to stall coalition
>forces from taking any decisive action against their nuclear
>facilities.
>
>Fact: We need to provide some ultimatums of our own to the
>Iranians:
>
>1. Dismantle, and allow inspections of your Nuclear facilities
>immediately, or expect attack by NATO forces.
>
>2. All radical Muslim terrorist groups must announce they now
>agree that Israel has a right to exist
>
>3. The Russians must be informed that if demand #one above is not
>complied with by the Iranians, then the Russians should remove
>their technicians from the Iranian nuclear facilities as those
>known facilities will be bombed by either the Israelis or the
>NATO forces along with the secret Iran nuclear bases and plants
>as well.
>
>
DGVR...@comcast.net
<ashl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1121459109.73d0ef22f287acea469fd72993a0d14c@teranews...
> Really ? That's amazing given the fact that there's still no
> evidence
> it was foreign terrorists who attacked the US almost 4 years
> ago.
>
> Well of course unless you believe the proven to be fake video
> the US government made with a fake OBL supposedly confessing,
> and claim is authentic.
Doug Says: All of the 911 hijackers have been identified. Nine
of them traveled to Iran for training and financing prior to
their arrival in the USA. Iran is also behind Hezbollah, which
has murdered hundreds of Americans, and several hundred Israelis,
and now, Iran's terrorist have also murdered thousands of Iraqis,
including 20 children the other day alone. Suicide murder
bombers need to receive their "last rights" from special
Ayatollahs that have been assigned that task by the Supreme
Muslim Council in Iran. They either travel to Iran, or to one of
the special "Suicide Murder Bomber" training camps which includes
so-called spiritual leaders that have been trained in Iran.
>
> Except there are several flaws with their so called "authentic"
> video, which are :
>
> 1. Bin Laden is left handed and always gestures with his left
> hand, the video fake shows the fake OBL as right handed,
> and gesturing with his right hand.
Doug Says: Bin laden clearly was wounded in the arm.
>
> 2. Bin Laden doesn't wear a wedding ring, but the fake video
> shows the fake OBL as wearing a wedding band.
Doug Says: Bin laden is married and has worn a wedding ring for
decades.
> 3. The most obvious of all, Bin Laden is very tall, lanky,
> long, thin
> face and neck and looks like a giraffe, the fake OBL has a
> short
> thick neck, full round face.
>
Doug Says: The computer imagery of the video compared to
previous Bin Laden videos, and voice matched, conducted by the
independent Swiss show a complete and irrefutable match. Your
information is ridiculous.
Yes, anyone who is blind can easily see they're the same person.
>
> But then again, the US government has never been concerned
> about details, they just make it up as they go along, with lies
> to cover up their previous lies.
Doug Says: The USA has not lied about anything. Why should it?
The USA and its interests were attacked at least ten times by
radical Islam prior to our retaliation. We did not start this
war, the goons did.
>
> With the major flaws between the video Bin Laden, and pictures
> of the real Bin Laden, with the US government's own defense
> web site claiming the video is authentic, the US government
> is the only one who would profit from the fake video. Pretty
> much
> confirms who created the video, and it wasn't Santa Clause.
Doug Says: Profit? You call spending hundreds of billions of
dollars to defend the USA and the free world from maniacal,
drooling, screaming maniacs, a.k.a. "Radical Islam" profitable?
Bwhahahahahahahahahaha.
>
> So why did the government go to the trouble of making a fake
> video, if in fact it was foreign terrorists who attacked the
> US on 9/11 ?
Doug Says: The video is not fake, and the terrorists have been
already identified. At least nine of them were Iranian
operatives.
>
> Wonder why the FBI's own web site page on Bin Laden doesn't
> even mention Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,
> in fact it doesn't even mention 9/11. But yet it does mention
> other bombings, and Bin Laden is wanted for questioning about.
Doug Says: Al Qaeda and Iran and all of radical Islam are
responsible for the 911 massacres and the 707 massacres as well.
All radical Islamic terrorist organizations, from Hezbollah to Al
Qaeda are interconnected and controlled by Iran.
>
> The same applies to the so called Saddam capture video. One
> thing which never changes are someone's eyes. Again, a detail
> the US government doesn't concern themselves with.
>
Doug Says: Saddam will soon be on trial - it is Saddam.
>
> 99% of the world knows Bush lied to invade Afghanistan,
> claiming
> terrorists, with no evidence still, nearly 4 years later, and
> claimed
> it wasn't about oil.
Doug Says: I guess you were in a coma when President Bush tried
to negotiate with the radical Muslim sect Taliban to give up Al
Qaeda. What oil? Were is the oil in Afghanistan?
>
Doug Grant (Tm)
Nigel Brooks
news:242dnQG55Nm...@comcast.com...
> Doug Says: All of the 911 hijackers have been identified. Nine of them
> traveled to Iran for training and financing prior to their arrival in the
> USA. Iran is also behind Hezbollah, which has murdered hundreds of
> Americans, and several hundred Israelis, and now, Iran's terrorist have
> also murdered thousands of Iraqis, including 20 children the other day
> alone. Suicide murder bombers need to receive their "last rights" from
> special Ayatollahs that have been assigned that task by the Supreme Muslim
> Council in Iran. They either travel to Iran, or to one of the special
> "Suicide Murder Bomber" training camps which includes so-called spiritual
> leaders that have been trained in Iran.
>
That information would be contained exactly where?
Page 240 and 241 of the 9-11 report
"Assistance From Hezbollah and Iran to Al Qaeda"
"Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives
selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have
evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi :muscle" operatives
traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February
2001"..................................."In sum, there is strong evidence
that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of
Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers"
.............."We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of
the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack"
Precisely how did you come to a conclusion that Iran trained and financed
the 9/11 terrorists when the 9/11 Commission utilizing all of the resources
of the Intelligence Agencies of the United States and some of it's allies
make no mention whatsoever of them traveling to Iran for training and
financing ?
Further stupid stuff snipped
Nigel Brooks
DGVR...@comcast.net
Doug Says: A non-cyberharassing post in response to one of my
posts by Mr. Brooks is an anomaly so far, but it does show
promise. Mr. Brooks has posted a legitimate question and has
voiced a legitimate challenge to my conclusions. Ergo, I will
respond accordingly:
>
Doug Says: (1) Suicide murder bombers need to be subjected to a
process of anointment and last rights - which is usually
completed by high ranking Muslim clergy. That clergy exists and
is trained almost exclusively in Iran. (2) The Iranian and
Afghanistan trips made by these nine key hijackers that was
controlled by Iran had to have a purpose. (3) The 911 Hijackers
were suicide murder bombers. (4) Where do you suggest they were
trained for their mission - the moon? If the hijackers were
trained for their suicide murder bomber mission on 911 in
Afghanistan or Iran, and Iran sent them into Afghanistan and into
Iran, paid their travel and expenses to go to a terrorist
training center, then obviously Iran was involved and knew about
in advance the 911 attacks.
Moreover, the 911 commission said they had evidence that Iran
sent nine (average) members of the 911 hijacking team to the
same place, at the same general time, immediately prior to their
arrival in the USA, and you believe that fact has nothing to do
with the Iranian government or Iran? The 911 Commission also
pointed out that in addition to controlling the travel of these
nine 911 hijackers in and out of Iran, Iran also controlled their
travel in and out of Afghanistan. If Iran was controlling the
travel of these nine hijackers, then of course Iran was
controlling their training as suicide murder bombers as well. To
believe that Iran could send these suicide murder bomber to
whatever country they wanted to, apparently for training, and did
precisely that immediately prior to sending them to the USA, but
all that control and directed assignments for these nine 911
murder bombers had nothing to do with their training as murder
bomber hijackers when they arrived in Iran or Afghanistan, is
beyond the pale of intuitive logic. That is akin to claiming
that Saddam's agents meeting with Al Qaeda not less than eight
times had nothing to do with terrorism. If Al Qaeda and Saddam
were not conspiring, then why did it take eight meetings?
I agree there is no "smoking gun" in respect to this issue and
that is why it is still being debated. However, my research has
led me to my conclusions, and I have much more evidence than I
have already posted in this regard. Would you like to see some
of it?
I am convinced that (1) Iran was behind (directly or indirectly)
most if not all of the suicide murder bombings conducted by
radical Islam over the past twenty years or so, including but not
limited to the 911 attacks, the attack on the Cole, the bombing
of the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the Madrid train bombings,
and the more recent 707 massacres in London, and (2) Iran is
secretly building nuclear weapons, and (3) once Iran has
constructed its nuclear weapons it will deliver some of them to
Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, and (4) Iran has taken over Al Qeada due
to its promise to provide Bin Laden what he wanted the most,
Nuclear weapons.
The evidence that has brought me to these dire conclusions about
Iran is vast and voluminous. But if you want to see it, I will
post it.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Nigel Brooks
How can I be sure that the person responding is Douglas Reiman or one of his
employees, his secretary, or any of the multitude of associates he claims
has access to his usenet account?
> Doug Says: (1) Suicide murder bombers need to be subjected to a process
> of anointment and last rights - which is usually completed by high ranking
> Muslim clergy. That clergy exists and is trained almost exclusively in
> Iran. (2) The Iranian and Afghanistan trips made by these nine key
> hijackers that was controlled by Iran had to have a purpose. (3) The 911
> Hijackers were suicide murder bombers. (4) Where do you suggest they were
> trained for their mission - the moon? If the hijackers were trained for
> their suicide murder bomber mission on 911 in Afghanistan or Iran, and
> Iran sent them into Afghanistan and into Iran, paid their travel and
> expenses to go to a terrorist training center, then obviously Iran was
> involved and knew about in advance the 911 attacks.
The 9/11 report says nothing about Iran paying for the travel of the 8-10
who transited that country. Where did you get information that such a thing
happened (provide specific source)
> Moreover, the 911 commission said they had evidence that Iran sent nine
> (average) members of the 911 hijacking team to the same place, at the same
> general time, immediately prior to their arrival in the USA, and you
> believe that fact has nothing to do with the Iranian government or Iran?
> The 911 Commission also pointed out that in addition to controlling the
> travel of these nine 911 hijackers in and out of Iran, Iran also
> controlled their travel in and out of Afghanistan.
First off - there is no evidence that Iran "controlled" the travel of the
hijackers. The 9/11 report say's that Iran "Facilitated" if you were to
actually read the report you would fully understand what the Commission
meant - and it certainly had nothing to do with control. it had to do with
not stamping the passports with entry or exits stamps for Saudi Citizens.
> If Iran was controlling the travel of these nine hijackers, then of course
> Iran was controlling their training as suicide murder bombers as well. To
There is no evidence that Iran controlled anything. Your conclusion just
doesn't hold water - in fact there is no mention whatsoever that Iran had
anything to do with the training of the 8-10 hijackers
> believe that Iran could send these suicide murder bomber to whatever
> country they wanted to, apparently for training, and did precisely that
> immediately prior to sending them to the USA, but all that control and
> directed assignments for these nine 911 murder bombers had nothing to do
> with their training as murder bomber hijackers when they arrived in Iran
> or Afghanistan, is beyond the pale of intuitive logic. That is akin to
> claiming that Saddam's agents meeting with Al Qaeda not less than eight
> times had nothing to do with terrorism. If Al Qaeda and Saddam were not
> conspiring, then why did it take eight meetings?
I'm not interested in your opinion, I'm interested in verifiable facts and
the current most verifiable and reliable report on those events is the 9/11
commission report which said "We have found no evidence that Iran or
Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack"
> I agree there is no "smoking gun" in respect to this issue and that is why
> it is still being debated. However, my research has led me to my
> conclusions, and I have much more evidence than I have already posted in
> this regard. Would you like to see some of it?
I only want to see verifiable source material - not ramblings and opinions
which are unsupported. For example when I cite a reference such as the 9/11
Commission Report then I'll provide a link
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
If you intend to make claims - then you should also post links to such
verifiable source material
> I am convinced that (1) Iran was behind (directly or indirectly) most if
> not all of the suicide murder bombings conducted by radical Islam over the
> past twenty years or so, including but not limited to the 911 attacks, the
> attack on the Cole, the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the
> Madrid train bombings, and the more recent 707 massacres in London, and
> (2) Iran is secretly building nuclear weapons, and (3) once Iran has
> constructed its nuclear weapons it will deliver some of them to Al Qaeda
> and Hezbollah, and (4) Iran has taken over Al Qeada due to its promise to
> provide Bin Laden what he wanted the most, Nuclear weapons.
>
> The evidence that has brought me to these dire conclusions about Iran is
> vast and voluminous. But if you want to see it, I will post it.
>
I certainly do not want to have you ramble on about what you believe. What
I want is for you to provide one verifiable and credible source which would
support your opinion.
You stated that nine of the 9/11 hijackers traveled to Iran for training and
financing prior to their arrival in the USA. Knowing how much you appear to
parse words and meanings exactly what do you mean by that statement.
Do you mean that Iran provided training and financing for the hijackers.
If the answer is yes - exactly where did you get this information - provide
a verifiable and credible source, for there is absolutely nothing in the
9/11 Commission Report or any later United States Government publicly
available source which supports that claim.
All of the evidence points to the fact that 8-10 who transited Iran received
their training in Afghanistan
9/11 Report "In the fall of 1999, the four operatives selected by Bin Laden
for the planes operation were chosen to attend an elite training course at
Al Qaeda's Mes Aynak camp in Afghanistan"
Your conclusions are flawed and most certainly not supported by the 9/11
Commission Report
Nigel Brooks
John Agosta
Doug is just simply full of shit, and he runs away when being directly
challenged to show supporting documents
to his insane rantings.
Barcelona
Let's take the NUCLEAR option :-)
BUSH=DI...@satan.com
8 have been proven to be alive and well, so that only leave 11
hijackers, not 19 as claimed by the US government.
>>
>> Except there are several flaws with their so called "authentic"
>> video, which are :
>>
>> 1. Bin Laden is left handed and always gestures with his left
>> hand, the video fake shows the fake OBL as right handed,
>> and gesturing with his right hand.
>
>Doug Says: Bin laden clearly was wounded in the arm.
And your source/cite for this would be, other than the US government ?
When $480 billion has gone to supposedly rebuilding Iraq, when
the total cost is $55 billion,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3160800.stm
and yet there's still only 3% who have electricity nearly 3 years
later, and next to nothing has been rebuilt, the water supply is still
the same etc.
I would say $425 billion is a nice little profit.
Not counting the $150 billion that was supposed to be used for
equipment and protection for our soldiers, yet they're having to use
used, outdated missile systems, old night vision equipment, vehicles
pieced together to keep them running, most without protection etc.
That also doesn't include the $640 billion for Bush's claim that the
war would cost approx $20 billion.
And let's not leave out the $3.7 trillion missing since the end of
2001 from the DOD and HUD accounts which Congress has
been aware of, and done absolutely nothing about.
That's approx $4 million for every adult in America stolen
originally by the government illegally taxing the American
people's wages/salaries in 1917, then stolen from the
DOD/HUD accounts.
"In 1916, after the Supreme Court ruled in
Brushaber that wages were not income within
the meaning of the 16th Amendment, Congress was
forced to amend the Income Tax Act of 1913, to
remove wages from the definition of taxable
income. See Section 25 of the Income Tax Act of
1916. Then, in 1917, Congress amended its Act
of 1916, to outlaw the withholding of wages
from the paychecks of citizens and directed
the Executive Department to refund all wages
withheld. All this, of course was done to bring
the code into compliance with the Brushaber".
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach1.htm
>>
>> So why did the government go to the trouble of making a fake
>> video, if in fact it was foreign terrorists who attacked the
>> US on 9/11 ?
>
>Doug Says: The video is not fake, and the terrorists have been
>already identified. At least nine of them were Iranian
>operatives.
8 have been proven to be alive and well
>> Wonder why the FBI's own web site page on Bin Laden doesn't
>> even mention Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,
>> in fact it doesn't even mention 9/11. But yet it does mention
>> other bombings, and Bin Laden is wanted for questioning about.
>
>Doug Says: Al Qaeda and Iran and all of radical Islam are
>responsible for the 911 massacres and the 707 massacres as well.
I find it very interesting that the so called Bush appointed 9/11
cover up commission's job was supposed to find out how 911
could happen in the first place.
Yet the airport security company in charge of all three airports that
day was Wackenhut Security, owned and run by ex-CIA/FBI agents,
the same Wackenhut Security Bush teamed up with FEMA, who
receives 98% of all government security contracts, and just happened
to recently replace the security at both West Point and Annapolis,
but apparently the 9/11 cover up commission wasn't interested in
how 19 supposed hijackers managed to get past the passenger
security without tickets, much less how they managed to get
past the board gates without boarding passes, because Wackenhut
Security was never questioned by the 9/11 cover up commission.
And one has to wonder why the FBI's own web site doesn't even
mention 9/11 on their own Bin Laden web page, much less that
he's responsible.
But then again it would add extra work to change the information
every time Bush changes his lies with more lies. Bush claimed a
few hours after the attacks Bin Laden was responsible and the
mastermind behind 9/11.
But then on May 3, 2003, during a press conference by Bush, he
stated :
"First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials,
we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against
our nation.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings
and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture
will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for
additional attacks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
But given the fact the US government/CIA is responsible
for the deaths of over 6 million with their illegal covert op's,
illegally overthrowing governments to put their puppets in
power, population extermination, the testing of their bio-chemicals,
germ warfare even on our own soldiers without their consent or
knowledge, created, financed and trained the Contra's who
murdered, tortured innocent men, women and children, helped
the CIA to try and destabilize Nicaragua, etc., which are far
greater crimes against humanity, yet the American people do
nothing.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rriran.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
Rather hypocritical/double standard don't you think ? They're
only crimes when others commit them, right ?
Bush is responsible for over 100,000 innocent lives murdered,
including his hired mercenaries shooting innocent men, women
and children in the back as they fled for their lives in Fallujah
murdering nearly 900 innocent people.
Contaminating the air, land, water, the Iraqi people, and our
own soldiers with depleted uranium, just as Bush Sr did in Gulf I,
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082304W.shtml
both Bush President's intentionally bombed the dams, reservoirs,
and water/sewage plants, causing the sewage to run off into
the Tigress River killing even more from the contaminated water.
http://www.ummah.net/waragainstislam/western.htm
Baghdad water purification system
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount37.php?ts=1119286563
Intentionally bombed 37 hospitals, two of which were children's
hospitals filled with defenseless, sick children
26 Mar 2003 - Rutbah children's hospital aerial bombardment
02 Apr 2003 9:30AM Red Crescent maternity hospital and vicinity,
Baghdad nearby Government buildings aerial bombardment
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount38.php?ts=1119286382
04 Apr 2003 - 04 May 2003 - Al-Alwiyah Children's Hospital,
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount37.php?ts=1119286563
Yes, Bush certainly gives a new meaning to the words liberation and
freedom. With friends like the Bush's, one certainly doesn't need any
enemies.
>All radical Islamic terrorist organizations, from Hezbollah to Al
>Qaeda are interconnected and controlled by Iran.
>>
>> The same applies to the so called Saddam capture video. One
>> thing which never changes are someone's eyes. Again, a detail
>> the US government doesn't concern themselves with.
>>
>Doug Says: Saddam will soon be on trial - it is Saddam.
>>
>> 99% of the world knows Bush lied to invade Afghanistan,
>> claiming
>> terrorists, with no evidence still, nearly 4 years later, and
>> claimed
>> it wasn't about oil.
>
>Doug Says: I guess you were in a coma when President Bush tried
>to negotiate with the radical Muslim sect Taliban to give up Al
>Qaeda.
I guess you were in a coma about the Taliban requesting 3 times for
Bush to provide the proof Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11
attacks before they were willing to hand over Bin Laden.
Bush didn't have any evidence, and still doesn't to this day.
He then told the American people he was invading Afghanistan,
leaving out the vital part of course of why the Taliban wouldn't
hand over Bin Laden, Bush never provided the evidence
they requested showing Bin Laden was responsible as Bush
claimed.
But then on May 3, 2003, during a press conference by Bush, he
stated :
"First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials,
we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against
our nation.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings
and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture
will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for
additional attacks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
Bush really needs to do a better job of keeping his lies straight.
>What oil? Were is the oil in Afghanistan?
The US oil buddies of Bush had been negotiating the oil/gas pipeline
with the Taliban in 2001, until the Taliban ended the negotiation in
May 2001.
Bush claimed it wasn't about oil or the pipeline, yet on May 30, 2002
Bush's new puppet, along with Turkey, and Pakistan, the agreement
for the go ahead for the pipeline was signed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2017044.stm
Amazing how just after it was signed, Bush suddenly lost interest in
Bin Laden, and was off to invade Iraq. Even later commenting Bin
Laden wasn't that important. He never was, it was all about the
getting the pipeline.
That's why Bush stated he hit the trifecta, the pipeline, Iraq for
a base in the middle east because Saudi's told the US to leave,
the Iraqi oil, and surrounding Iran who has the largest border
of the middle eastern nations to the Caspian Sea, the largest
untapped oil reserve in the world.
Any idiot looking at a map of the middle east could see Bush's
next target was Iran, because it's all about OIL, and controlling
it.
Gee, Pakistan is connected to terrorism, financing and supporting
terrorism, yet Bush hasn't threatened Pakistan. Then there's N
Korea and their WMD Bush ignores. But then Bush wouldn't
care, because they're only capable of reaching the west coast,
not the east coast.
Amazing quote made by Henry Kissinger in an address to
the super secret Bilderberg Organization meeting at Evian,
France, May 21, 1992. He said the following as transcribed
from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates:
"Today American's would be outraged if U.N. troops entered
Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful.
This is especially true if they were told there was an outside
threat from beyond, WHETHER REAL OR PROMULGATED,
that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples
of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from
this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When
PRESENTED with this SCENARIO, INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS will
be WILLINGLY relinquished for the guarantee of their well being
granted to them by THEIR WORLD GOVERNMENT."
Maybe you can explain why the US government, under Homeland
Security would pass a bill allowing the government to force the
American people to take their potentially lethal, experimental
anthrax vaccine, or be charged with a felony and a fine ?
And under the Patriot Act pass that you can't sue the government
for any effects caused by their potentially lethal, experimental
anthrax vaccine ?
And this is protecting the American people how ? It's not, and if this
doesn't scare the hell out of the American people with the government
passing bills like these, then they have no one to blame what happens
to them. And I don't mean by so called "foreign terrorists" either.
The same vaccine responsible for countless deaths, and major health
problems in young healthy adults. The same vaccine the courts ordered
the DOD to stop forcing the soldiers to take the vaccine, but ignored
that order for 18 months.
Yet Bush knowing these facts, purchased 25 million of those
potentially lethal, experimental anthrax vaccine for his stockpile.
What would prevent the government telling the media to claim there's
an anthrax threat and to get their potentially lethal, experimental
anthrax vaccine, and after 7-10 million or more people are dead, all
they have to claim is those people didn't get their vaccine in time.
Hitler stated : " What good fortune for those in power, that people
don't think"
Truer words have never been spoken.
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>
BUSH=DI...@satan.com
That may very well be, but they weren't aboard any 757
supposedly hitting the Pentagon like the government
claims.
Knowing the flight characteristics of the big birds like the back of
his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no
possibility that Flight 77could have descended 7,000 feet in two
minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn
before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching
the lawn.
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely
stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was
totally impossible for an amateur who couldn't even fly a Cessna
to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner,
something Wittenberg said he couldn't do with 35 years of
commercial jetliner experience.
Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller
on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.
If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably
would have known that what she was saying was scripted, said
Wittenberg . Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight
77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed
and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it.
All that’s left on the controller's screen is a green blip, that’s it.
But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was
tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates
which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned
off. How would she even have known the flight number? The
whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.
( I doubt if she was even an ATC, just one of their flunkies lying
for them again)
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/articles/article/1518131/29392.htm
>Nine of them traveled to Iran for training and financing prior to
>their arrival in the USA. Iran is also behind Hezbollah, which
>has murdered hundreds of Americans, and several hundred Israelis,
>and now, Iran's terrorist have also murdered thousands of Iraqis,
>including 20 children the other day alone. Suicide murder
>bombers need to receive their "last rights" from special
>Ayatollahs that have been assigned that task by the Supreme
>Muslim Council in Iran. They either travel to Iran, or to one of
>the special "Suicide Murder Bomber" training camps which includes
>so-called spiritual leaders that have been trained in Iran.
8 have been proven to be alive and well, so that only leave 11
hijackers, not 19 as claimed by the US government.
>>
>> Except there are several flaws with their so called "authentic"
>> video, which are :
>>
>> 1. Bin Laden is left handed and always gestures with his left
>> hand, the video fake shows the fake OBL as right handed,
>> and gesturing with his right hand.
>
>Doug Says: Bin laden clearly was wounded in the arm.
And your source/cite for this would be, other than the US government ?
When $480 billion has gone to supposedly rebuilding Iraq, when
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3160800.stm
http://www.givemeliberty.org/docs/TaxResearchCD/Attach1.htm
>>
>> So why did the government go to the trouble of making a fake
>> video, if in fact it was foreign terrorists who attacked the
>> US on 9/11 ?
>
>Doug Says: The video is not fake, and the terrorists have been
>already identified. At least nine of them were Iranian
>operatives.
8 have been proven to be alive and well
>> Wonder why the FBI's own web site page on Bin Laden doesn't
>> even mention Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks,
>> in fact it doesn't even mention 9/11. But yet it does mention
>> other bombings, and Bin Laden is wanted for questioning about.
>
>Doug Says: Al Qaeda and Iran and all of radical Islam are
>responsible for the 911 massacres and the 707 massacres as well.
I find it very interesting that the so called Bush appointed 9/11
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm
http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/speeches/rhetoric/rriran.htm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082304W.shtml
http://www.ummah.net/waragainstislam/western.htm
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/database/bodycount38.php?ts=1119286382
>All radical Islamic terrorist organizations, from Hezbollah to Al
>Qaeda are interconnected and controlled by Iran.
>>
>> The same applies to the so called Saddam capture video. One
>> thing which never changes are someone's eyes. Again, a detail
>> the US government doesn't concern themselves with.
>>
>Doug Says: Saddam will soon be on trial - it is Saddam.
>>
>> 99% of the world knows Bush lied to invade Afghanistan,
>> claiming
>> terrorists, with no evidence still, nearly 4 years later, and
>> claimed
>> it wasn't about oil.
>
>Doug Says: I guess you were in a coma when President Bush tried
>to negotiate with the radical Muslim sect Taliban to give up Al
>Qaeda.
I guess you were in a coma about the Taliban requesting 3 times for
Bush to provide the proof Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11
attacks before they were willing to hand over Bin Laden.
Bush didn't have any evidence, and still doesn't to this day.
He then told the American people he was invading Afghanistan,
leaving out the vital part of course of why the Taliban wouldn't
hand over Bin Laden, Bush never provided the evidence
they requested showing Bin Laden was responsible as Bush
claimed.
But then on May 3, 2003, during a press conference by Bush, he
stated :
"First, thanks to the hard work of American and Pakistani officials,
we captured the mastermind of the September 11th attacks against
our nation.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed conceived and planned the hijackings
and directed the actions of the hijackers. We believe his capture
will further disrupt the terror network and their planning for
additional attacks."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/07/iraq/main543108.shtml
Bush really needs to do a better job of keeping his lies straight.
>What oil? Were is the oil in Afghanistan?
The US oil buddies of Bush had been negotiating the oil/gas pipeline