PDA

View Full Version : Chemtrails?



Pages : [1] 2

frenchfry164
06-06-2003, 11:14 AM
I was reading some websites, and I read something about Chemtrails. Chemtrails are supposively these clouds of gas that the U.S. government sprays out of planes that releases toxic gases into the air. These gases are supposed to make our immune systems weaker, so that the government can control our population. Some think the government can even change weather by these things.

I know the government does a lot of secret stuff that are cruel and immoral, but going to these measures? I don't believe it. But I don't know what could these planes be spraying? I saw some pictures, and it looks really fishy. These aren't crop dusters or anything of the sort, because they've actually sprayed above major cities like New York. Some are even government planes (I saw some pictures of USAF and Navy aircraft).

What do you think of this? What do you think these planes are actually spraying, and why?

FillYourBrain
06-06-2003, 11:22 AM
this couldn't be more stupid.

periodically in many areas there is a mosquito control need. This happened in my area and we were notified a few days in advance. This is likely what you're referring to.

frenchfry164
06-06-2003, 11:26 AM
I hope you weren't referring to me as being stupid, because if you paid attention to my post I said I didn't believe it.

FillYourBrain
06-06-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by FillYourBrain
this couldn't be more stupid.
This person? This poster? OOOOhhhh This TOPIC!!!

golfinguy4
06-06-2003, 01:05 PM
Or, the pic could have been editted.

mart_man00
06-06-2003, 04:39 PM
I know the government does a lot of secret stuff that are cruel and immoral
name one.

Panopticon
06-06-2003, 06:21 PM
But then think about it... what have the government got to gain from killing off their own people?

Commander
06-06-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Panopticon
But then think about it... what have the government got to gain from killing off their own people? kill off all the weak...leaving the nation with strong population to become soldiers if a future war was supposed to happen :rolleyes:

confuted
06-06-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by mart_man00
name one.

I can do that. (warning, this post contains information that may deeply bother people with any regard for humanity)

New York Times, 8/31/1997

Atomic Guinea Pigs
For decades, those who claimed to be victims of clandestine radiation experiments conducted by the United States Government were dismissed as paranoid. At the Department of Energy, which oversees America's nuclear-weapons research, these people were referred to collectively as "the Crazies." But the opening of cold-war archives has brought the Crazies in from the fringe.

As documents declassified since 1994 show, dozens of Government-sanctioned radiation experiments were conducted between 1944 and 1974 on unwitting or ill-informed military personnel, patients, children, pregnant women and prisoners, serveral of who appear on the following pages. To avoid scandal and legal liability, the Atomic Energy Commision declared certain experiments top secret.

Such cold-war secrecy explains why it took until last month to reveal that A-bomb tests from 1951 to 1962 exposed millions more children to fallout - and an increased risk of thyroid cancer - than the Government had once reported.

...

Hazardous Oatmeal. In the 1950's, Frederick Boyce was one of about 24 boys at the Fernald School in suburban Boston who were fed radioactive oatmeal as part of a nutrition study. The experiment, financed by the A.E.C. and the National Institutes of Health, was designed to show how the body absorbs various minerals. Wards of the state, the Fernald boys were enticed to participate by the prospect of joining a "Science Club."


That's a six page article, and I don't even have all of it, and I'm not prepared to type what I do have. I would love to post a link to it here, but I couldn't find a copy of the text available online - if anyone else can, please post a link. Anyway, it goes on to detail various nuclear tests on people who were not informed or deliberately lied to. One inmate was told "it would be like having a few chest X-rays, and if we cooperated, we might have our sentences reduced." He got 20,000 X-rays to the testicles and a vasectomy - in violation of the Nuremberg Code. Soldiers were sent on to ships near the Bikini Atoll (another fiine example of government deception - those people were told they would be able to go back) after nukes had been exploded nearby as "part of an experiment to find out, in the words of one doocument, "how much radiation can a man take?" "

So, there it is. I'm sure, positive in fact, that there are other examples; however, there may not be any which are as scary.

confuted
06-06-2003, 08:26 PM
Sorry about any typos in the last message, I typed the article while looking at a printed copy, and not the screen.

Here's the abstract and first paragraph as given at the NY Times website, although the full thing isn't available.



Magazine Desk | August 31, 1997, Sunday
Atomic Guinea Pigs

By Michael D'Antonio (NYT) 1478 words
Late Edition - Final , Section 6 , Page 38 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Michael D'Antonio article on dozens of Government-sanctioned radiation experiments that were conducted between 1944 and 1974 on unwitting or ill-informed military personnel, patients, children, pregnant women and prisoners; Atomic Energy Commission, to avoid scandal and legal liability, declared certain experiments top secret; cold-war secrecy explains why it took until last month to reveal that A-bomb tests from 1951 to 1962 exposed millions of children to fallout--and increased risk of thyroid cancer--than Govt had once reported; these studies, designed to determine effects of radiation on human beings, were in many cases conducted not just in name of science but also in preparation for nuclear war; in 1993, Energy Sec Hazel O'Leary broke with her predecessorss arranging to declassify all related documents and urging compensation; profiles of some victims of tests; photos (L) For decades, those who claimed to be victims of clandestine radia-tion experiments conducted by the United States Gov-ernment were dismissed as paranoid. At the Department of Energy, which oversees America's nuclear-weapons research, these people were referred to collectively as ''the Crazies.'' But the opening of cold-war archives has brought the Crazies in from the fringe.

As documents declassified since 1994 show, dozens of Government-sanctioned radiation experiments were conducted between 1944 and 1974 on unwitting or ill-informed military personnel, patients, children, pregnant women and prisoners, several of whom appear on the following pages. To avoid scandal and legal liability, the Atomic Energy Commision declared certain experiments top secret.

mart_man00
06-06-2003, 08:38 PM
hmm...children, you cant have anything anti-us with out a couple dozen of them, there was probally alot of minorities in there to.

that "news" sound like news from that one guy(i forgot what exactly he is, besides a discrace). they guy that said bush secretly want to break from the geneva convention and basicly take over the world.

you could argue about some atomic testing(at least you did find something, i have to give you that. alot better than most) was "cruel and immoral".

if it was prisoners(and not people with 1 to many speeding tickets), i really dont care either way. regular people or the military is another matter.

im sure some private homes were hit with some amount of radiation. i read that some of the people did cross the line in the sand so they gave them self radiation poising, but im sure some where minding their own bussiness(maybe even most, we will never know).

either way the goal of it wasnt to kill our own people. take tear gas(or its knock-offs), its used in basic training. medical testing is even done on humans, after it has been proven safe. for awhile we knew crap. the real question is weather we knew what we were doing.

while we have made our mistakes in the past, atleast they were in the past. atleast there not normal and atleast it was always better than the rest.

the last one was a flame, but it was crap to begin with, i wonder what will come of this.......

confuted
06-06-2003, 09:41 PM
Yeah, we've made our mistakes in the past. We've run tests on unknowing, unwilling people in order to determine the effects of radiation on them. I'm sure if offered an incentive, they could have found plenty of volunteers.

As stated in the abstract, the author of the article was Michael D'Antonio.

However, think about the other times the government has violated the rights of US citizens. One that comes to mind is the Japanese Internment camps. Another, I suppose, would be the McCarthy trials. I'm positive that there are tons of others, but I'm not good enough with my American history to name them at the moment...maybe with some thought. I could throw out European history stuff like crazy, but that's not relevant...maybe someone could help me out with some American things.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say here is - now we know what they were doing in the 1950s. They were testing nukes on people, because they could. It took 40 or 50 years for this stuff to be disclassified - and the really secret stuff is probably still that way. If they were doing this stuff then, what might they be doing now? I'm sure the government hasn't become completely transparent and upfront with its citizens since these tests... what reason do we have to believe that they aren't doing things to us? Not to sound like an environmentalist, but what if there are more than just growth hormones in the cows? Or what if the growth hormones are a test? Or any of nearly infinite things that we eat or do each day, that wasn't happening 20 years ago?

mart_man00
06-06-2003, 09:52 PM
One that comes to mind is the Japanese Internment camps.
this i would like to hear, what did we do to them? what would you of prefered? i havnt really heard alot about it. it does sound a little overboard, but it was like they were beaten daily, just moved. since its america, im sure they were paid after too(that doesnt make it all right all they time but i doubt it was that bad).

mccarthyism was a witch hunt but atleast people were doing something, i wish we did that with clinton instead of bush.

what are you really expecting to find out? we have et? we were helping hitler the whole time? most of the stuff is just crap.

its good that people question things, but its been getting out of hand for years.

confuted
06-06-2003, 11:21 PM
With the Japanese Internment Camps, all or most people of Japanese ancestry in this country were sent to camps with other Japanese. It wasn't just recent immigrants, or even first generation Japanese who had only been in the country for one generation, but second, and possibly third (not sure) generation Japanese were sent to the camps as well. It started right after Pearl Harbor. There was extreme discrimination against Japanese people by the general population, which in part, was due to Pearl Harbor, but it went overboard. Japanese homes had windows broken and were spraypainted with racial slurs in many regions, Japanese businesses destroyed, etc. I guess you could call it America's Krystalnacht. Anyway, the government sent all these people to camps. I suppose the camps weren't hell-holes like Auschwitz, but they definitely weren't nice either - quite sub-par. They were forced to abandon their homes, their property, their jobs, their businesses, their lives. This was done to thousands of people - not just a few prime suspects. The people were not given a trial or their rights, even when their families had been legal citizens of the country for years. After several years (5?) they were finally allowed to leave, since the war was over... but they went back to their houses, and found them vandalized or destroyed, or occupied by others. No measures had been taken to protect their posessions, and there were still strong anti-Japanese sentiments throughout the country similar to the anti-semitism that plagued Germany before the war. Those that were lucky enough to still own things were discriminated against like mad... Anyway, you were somewhat correct about them being paid, but not entirely. I'm not sure that the people who went through the experience ever actually got anything, but within the last 10 years, the government has paid out lump sum payments (a few hundred thousand, I think) to descendants of interred Japanese... which, to me, doesn't make sense, because the people getting the money weren't the ones wronged, and if they were the ones who were wronged, what they were paid was insignificant compared to what they would have lost - several years and everything they owned. However, I guess the matter is now officially "settled" because of the payments, although it still occassionally gets mentioned (usually by a democrat looking to get support for something).

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 12:03 AM
America's Krystalnacht
lol, nice way of putting it(no joke intened).

you cant blame the gov because of what the people thing. i cant blame them, its like us after 911. of course were worried more about the middle east. id like to see imigration stop it like im sure they did back then.

the camps were alittle extreme, but what other options did they have? it doesnt make it completly right, but do you think there was enough jails for them all? deporting them would of been better.

but going back so many generations does seem wrong(unless they proved they didnt assimilated, then i could see people thinking of them as a threat since they werent really americans).

reparations wwas the word i couldnt come up with. i didnt know we were that late. but that not really cruel or immoral, just a really bad way of going about something.


although it still occassionally gets mentioned (usually by a democrat looking to get support for something).
FINALLY SOME ONE WHO ADMITS IT!!!

since this could easily turn in to us-bashing im surprised more people havent gotten involved. first all the techies are pinkos, then theres no one around. im not complaining but im wonder why now.

*ClownPimp*
06-07-2003, 01:50 AM
>the camps were alittle extreme, but what other options did they have? it doesnt make it completly right, but do you think there was enough jails for them all? deporting them would of been better.

Wow.... i dont even know how to respond to this.... Just curious, how old are you?

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 10:47 AM
Wow.... i dont even know how to respond to this.... Just curious, how old are you?
hmm... not sure if i should answer this one, ill pull a democrat.

was any one even alive when this was happening? what are you(i mean, are you japense or not)?

im sure it was worse than it sounds, but from what was mentioned it seem like the worst thing was coming home.

confuted
06-07-2003, 07:29 PM
I'm sure that there were probably suspicious Japanese who may have had intentions that would have cost American lives. However, these people were far from the majority. Think about it like this - World War II had only been waging for a few years (without US involvement) at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. The Japanese had invaded Manchuria in 1931, and then attacked China in an undeclared war again in 1937. They didn't join the Axis Powers until late 1940, and didn't attack the US until Dec. 1941. They were allied with us in 1914 for WWI. So, it's quite obvious that aggressions weren't planned against the US for more than a few years before they happened. In fact, it was probably significantly less. How many people who had lived in the United States for generations, loved the country, and hadn't had any contact with people from Japan in their entire lives do you think would have done something against the United States? They might have even joined the war effort in some way in order to prove to their country that not all Japanese people were rampant imperialists. Instead, they went to camps - even the ones who were in no way suspicious other than by nature of their genetics. I'm talking about citizens, not illegal immigrants. What ever happened to "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" or "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" (Amendment 6) or "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." (Amendment 8) or any of the laws against racial discrimination and holding people without a charge? Here's the 14th amendment...


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I think that's a good one. I like it. I think we should have followed it. It was ratified in 1868, it seems that our politicians would have been familiar with it by 1941. We're a nation of immigrants. Personally, most of my ancestors came from Germany. Why weren't any of my ancestors imprisoned during WWII? We were fighting Germany... Oh yeah. This country is full of Germans, and they don't look different than the rest of the population. It would be harder to find and isolate them. I'm glad that I've never been imprisoned because I'm a caucasian male who is 3/4 German and 1/4 Norwegian. It seems right, fair, and just. I don't think that the detainment of Arab-Americans at airports is right either. If there is a question, I fall back on the phrase "all men are created equal and are endowed by their creater with certain inalienable rights." Given 5 people - one white, one black, one asian, one indian, and one hispanic - all dressed identically so that they could not be judged by that, and knowing nothing about any of them, which one is more likely to commit murder? I definitely don't know; it depends not on race, but on personality and motive.

Not sure what you meant by the "admitting it" thing when I referenced democrats, but for clarity, if you haven't realized it, I'm not a democrat. I'm conservative, but I feel that there are errors within all of the parties, and that the Republicans and Democrats are practically the same party. But that is the topic for another thread. Perhaps after we're done with this one.

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 08:07 PM
yeah, the democrat part was just a bad joke. later on i have to hear about how republicans and democrats are the same(sure they both screw up, but republicans do it less).

im not excusing it, but i can see why there was fear. there still a chance that some japenese nationalism could come out of no where.

buts its like what you said, there is more germans in the us. we know them, so we dont fear them. plus germans seem alittle more american that japanese. theres nothing wrong with, but with the (very) few ive meet there was a big difference.

a sense of fear back then was natural and could of been predicted. but we did goto some extremes. but thats not really "cruel and immoral", its more half-a$$ed.

im surprised we havent done more with immigration now. we dont need the contaiment camps but im surprised i have heard of mass deportations.

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 08:51 PM
Japanese-Americans were denied their basic rights as US Citizens when they were interned (illegal search and seizure, imprisonment without trial, the list goes on). Those are rights guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution.

The government, by interning the Japanese, asserted its 'right' to revoke its founding principles simply because people were afraid of what others looked like. That is no way to run a civilized country, and the dehumanization of Japanese during that time most if not physically cruel (which it was... conditions were poor, and many people were packed into relatively small camps), it was certainly cruel mentally.

These were ordinary citizens of the US, like many of us here. They had done nothing to evoke such punishment except to be born with the wrong DNA.

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 08:57 PM
in war time its not breaking anything.

it would of been alright it they were new to the country but going back that many years isnt. but its expected. we did what we thought at the time would protect us. the new immigrants had no right to object to it but the older ones did.

any one have anything that is "cruel and immoral"?

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 09:18 PM
Umm... The Constitution is there to protect US citizens, whether it be in time of peace or war. And why did new immigrants have no right to object? Are they not 'American' enough? Again, fear may have motivated these actions, but it does not justify them.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "cruel and immoral"?

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 09:23 PM
The Constitution is there to protect US citizens, whether it be in time of peace or war.
now i have to look up the exception. i dont remember if it only worked the once or was actually written in. any one know what im thing off here?


Are they not 'American' enough?
yes, they are not.


Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "cruel and immoral"?
hitler-style things. i guess you could compare our camps to hitlers ghettos.

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 09:36 PM
The Constitution cannot legally be suspended (nor any part of it).

So how would you define someone who is American enough to enjoy the rights of a US citizen?

Well, if you only consider homicidal/genocidal practices as cruel and immoral, I suppose that the Japanese internment is not the best example, but there are others in our history.

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 09:44 PM
but there are others in our history.
such as? im not denying it, but something besides slavery please.

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 10:00 PM
Didn't think of that one. At any rate, the expansion across the continent, and killing and transplanting of Native Americans.

In more recent history, however, the US has supported many ruthless tyrants through some of their most dispicable acts: Hussein, Suharto, Noriega, et al.

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 10:01 PM
On a side note, I'm not anti-American, as you may think. I just think people need to be held accountable, and policies need to change.

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 10:08 PM
im not refering any one as anti-american. i thought i would but its been a ok thread so far.

as for "native [I]americans[I]", i live by alot of them(im not one). the one thing i hate about this is what did they expect? we didnt have tea partys when we wanted land in europe why would we want one in north america?

as soon as we got one shore we didnt just open fire. we wanted land like every one else did. sure, a couple of our guys started fights or were asking for them, but they werent saints either. we had guns, they didnt, we got the job done more offen. plus this was before america.

Zach L.
06-07-2003, 10:14 PM
I was referring more to expansion west in the mid 1800's to early 1900's.



im not refering any one as anti-american. i thought i would but its been a ok thread so far.

I know you're not... I just stated my last point a bit more strongly than I intended. :D

mart_man00
06-07-2003, 10:39 PM
you mean like manifest destany?

what was "cruel and immoral"?

*ClownPimp*
06-08-2003, 02:07 PM
>now i have to look up the exception. i dont remember if it only worked the once or was actually written in. any one know what im thing off here?

The only exception im aware of is in times of war free speech can be limited if there is a "clear and present danger" to the US. War doesnt give the government liscense to throw the constitution out the window

Xei
06-08-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Zach L.
Japanese-Americans were denied their basic rights as US Citizens when they were interned (illegal search and seizure, imprisonment without trial, the list goes on). Those are rights guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution.

The government, by interning the Japanese, asserted its 'right' to revoke its founding principles simply because people were afraid of what others looked like. That is no way to run a civilized country, and the dehumanization of Japanese during that time most if not physically cruel (which it was... conditions were poor, and many people were packed into relatively small camps), it was certainly cruel mentally.

These were ordinary citizens of the US, like many of us here. They had done nothing to evoke such punishment except to be born with the wrong DNA.

I agree.

Also, Canada wasn't very nice to Japanese Immigrants either. Go here for brief list of what we did: http://www.jcnm.ca/Jchist.htm

We removed their children from schools, took away their homes, business's, everything they worked their lives for. On top of that we evacuated them, split up their families, censored their mail, placed them in detention camps, sold their land without consulting owners, disposed of Japanese possessions without consent. Among those we also deported nearly 4000 Canadian Citizens back to Japan, and others were killed due to protests etc.. and I have no idea what Japan did to them when they arrived.

Even though we repayed the survivors it is no excuse to hide behind our wrongdoings. I, unlike martman, am able to admit that my country did something unjustified, horrible and wrong, and will not hide behind any baseless excuse possible.


martman thinks:
Are they not 'American' enough?
yes, they are not.

So martman, given that you don't write english very well at times, how 'American' are you?

mart_man00
06-08-2003, 04:01 PM
So martman, given that you don't write english very well at times, how 'American' are you?
at times, what a understatement. lol

basicly, who ever said living in america was a right? the camps do sound worse now than when they were first mentioned. we should of just done some deporting. yes, it was overboard if we went back that many generations.

nice time line Xei.

confuted
06-08-2003, 06:08 PM
You're not out of this yet martman. Why should we have done some deporting? What, other than skin color, made the Japanese-American citizens any different from other citizens? What reason, once again, other than skin color, did we have to deny them basic rights as citizens?

Zach L.
06-08-2003, 06:51 PM
Would you consider it "understandable under the conditions" if you were deported for a similar reason?

mart_man00
06-08-2003, 08:22 PM
You're not out of this yet martman.
lol, this cant be good.


Why should we have done some deporting?
who was the enemy? do you think we should of asked for more of them? it would be like us forgeting about a screening process for people from the middle east now.

we should of just figured out when plans were mad, say were off by a couple (as in earlier) and then deport every one from that date any after. stoping more from coming in for a couple of years would of been good then and would be good now. not forever, but for awhile.


Would you consider it "understandable under the conditions" if you were deported for a similar reason?
no one would, you just have to hope every one else does. thats like say we shouldnt put people in jail.

confuted
06-08-2003, 08:59 PM
The enemy was the Japanese empire - not the Japanese-american citizens. We shouldn't have allowed immigration, of course. That's completely different. Perhaps we shouldn't allow immigration from the middle east now. That's also completely different. But we shouldn't harass the arab-american citizens who've been in this country forever - we shouldn't screen them - we shouldn't deport them - we shouldn't do anything to them unless we have a probable cause. We have these things - we call them "trials." We could try some of those occasionally instead of convicting based on heritage.

mart_man00
06-08-2003, 09:27 PM
heritage does play a part. take a look at the 911 guys. it doesnt mean we should condemn the whole area but we shoudl question that area. a couple of years could still be a threat, but not a century.

trails are for citizens, at soe point we have to say who is a citizen and who isnt. people here for centuries are, people for weeks/months are not. if 911 didnt bring down the towers and the men were arrested, they shouldnt of gotten a trial. the military should of just put their heads on a pike and be done with it. they werent citizens.

Zach L.
06-08-2003, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by mart_man00
no one would, you just have to hope every one else does. thats like say we shouldnt put people in jail.

Flawed analogy. People are put in jail (after a trial) for a crime they commited (theoretically, though the justice system isn't perfect), not for a crime commited by someone who bears mild resemblance to them several thousand miles away.

And in your opinion, who should, and who should not receive a trial? What if they had been American citizens? Would they still not deserve a trial?

novacain
06-08-2003, 11:06 PM
I tried to ignore you but................

Look at this letter from a US mother concerned about her son.

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/candace.htm

It objects to the spraying in 1999 of bacteria in New Mexico. It mentions other acts by the US gov. including the THE TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY. A study ending in 1972 in which black American males with syphillis were not told what disease they had, denyed treatment so syphillis could be studied. All died without being told they could be treated....

I suppose that does not matter mart_man because they were black?

Just as Camp X_Ray violating the Geneva Convention, International Law and the US constitution does not matter because the 'illegal combatants' as young as 13 are not US citizens?

http://www.healthnewsnet.com/humanexperiments.html
Has some good examples like

"1966 U.S. Army dispenses Bacillus subtilis variant niger throughout the New York City subway system. More than a million civilians are exposed when army scientists drop lightbulbs filled with the bacteria onto ventilation grates."

"1994 With a technique called "gene tracking," Dr. Garth Nicolson at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX discovers that many returning Desert Storm veterans are infected with an altered strain of Mycoplasma incognitus, a microbe commonly used in the production of biological weapons. Incorporated into its molecular structure is 40 percent of the HIV protein coat, indicating that it had been man-made."

"1995 U.S. Government admits that it had offered Japanese war criminals and scientists who had performed human medical experiments salaries and immunity from prosecution in exchange for data on biological warfare research."

"1995 Dr. Garth Nicolson, uncovers evidence that the biological agents used during the Gulf War had been manufactured in Houston, TX and Boca Raton, Fl and tested on prisoners in the Texas Department of Corrections."

Xei
06-08-2003, 11:37 PM
Holy ........, I'm never going to the U.S.
They'll probably feed me to cats to see how they react or something crazy... then we'll get people like martman saying "Should've stayed out of our country! Hah!"

mart_man00
06-09-2003, 05:20 AM
i read a couple lines and it looks like its either bull $$$$ or im going called a racists some more.

i hate pinkos...

confuted
06-09-2003, 02:46 PM
mart_man, here's another thing to consider. I'm not going to call you any names, and neither has anybody else...and I doubt there are many pinkos on this board. But in the United States, the country in question, the philosophy of a judge in a court of law is supposed to be that "it is better to let ten guilty men walk free than to put one innocent man in jail." Now, consider the internment camps in a new light.

minesweeper
06-09-2003, 03:28 PM
What's a pinko?

mart_man00
06-09-2003, 03:42 PM
What's a pinko?
im not sure how that "term" came around. basicly, a communist its more of joke now...

golfinguy4
06-09-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by minesweeper
What's a pinko?

The Communist nations were known as red back during the Cold War. Hence, the people who were "kinda" communist but not totally communist were pink, instead of totally red. A person who is pink is a pinko.

golfinguy4
06-09-2003, 06:25 PM
BTW, about what novacain said, damn. I'm an American and if that really happened, it has definately been quite hush hush.

I am not denying it though as I have no evidence either way. However, I don't know how reliable a sketchy website such as that is.

novacain
06-10-2003, 01:12 AM
Any place with a link to the 'Office of Human Radiation Experiments' has to be dodgy........What does it say about a country that needs an Office of Human Radiation Experiments?


Look at the reports they are trying to sell (as they are not available on the web, mostly)

http://www.healthnewsnet.com/reports.html

Careful, some may scare you...........like

THE RIEGLE REPORT on the WMD the US sold to Sadam and D Rumsfelt's grudging confession that he had been the one to arrange the sales.



Just in case you don't know. You don't have to be a US citizen to fight in the US armed forces. Nor does active service get you a citizenship, postmortem or otherwise..........

golfinguy4
06-10-2003, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by novacain

Look at the reports they are trying to sell (as they are not available on the web, mostly)

http://www.healthnewsnet.com/reports.html



Exactly, sell! They make money off of stories like these. This website isn't exactly as credible as cnn.com or something like that.

novacain
06-10-2003, 08:43 PM
>.Exactly, sell!

My understanding is you have to pay a fee to get these reports under the 'freedom of information act'.

My point was they are copies of declassified government reports. The CIA ones have markers with "<lines deleted>" throughout them.

I don't consider CNN an unbiased or reliable source either though. CNN's business is to sell you products, not inform you. Its not that CNN misrepresents the facts, it just ignores some.

For example;
Find on CNN who in the US is accusing Australians of ripping off the US taxpayer and supporting Sadam.
Then try and find out why.
The secret is in Canadian rail cars......

You may need the magic word.......monsanto