Israel attacked West Bank w/ tanks before 7AM EST on 9/11

[Mental]

"2001-09-11 05:47:18 Metrocall [1028612] ALPHA Frm:MSN Txt: (6/8) the uncertainty, witnesses said Israeli tanks began shelling West"

"2001-09-11 07:06:35 Skytel [007524270] ALPHA Y!||$499 deals on iPAQ Pocket PC Israeli Tanks Encircle West Bank Reuters"

http://keyboardcowboy.ca/911search/?sea ... pe=keyword

[Mental]

"2001-09-11 09:40:39 Skytel [003274954] ALPHA BKoll@bethisraelny.org|NYAttack|We are in disaster mode. NYC has been attacked - 2 planes crashed into World Trade Center. We saw the second attack. Chaos. I will get home when to.
2001-09-11 09:45:42 Skytel [002823663] ALPHA alert@msn.com||(5/6)dismissed Monday.*The first high-level Israeli-Palestinian talks in months postponed
2001-09-11 09:46:42 Skytel [002823663] ALPHA alert@msn.com||(6/6)Tuesday after Israeli tanks ringed a West Bank town in operation**"

[Julius Seeker]

Yeah, that was fairly well known information, but everyone's eye were elsewhere. Now many have forgotten. I don't think the two were linked.

What I find funny is that even after September 11 2001, an attack on Iraq was still seen as laughable - but somehow it was spun another way.

You Americans really need to watch whose pockets these hundreds of billions of dollars slip into every year. There's something wrong there, no one else spends nearly that much on military; especially when thousands of American troops are still getting injured and killed. There seems to be no greater benefit to the large expense than what other countries achieve.

[Imakeholesinu]

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0 ... ubai-says/

[SineSwiper]

You Americans really need to watch whose pockets these hundreds of billions of dollars slip into every year. There's something wrong there, no one else spends nearly that much on military; especially when thousands of American troops are still getting injured and killed. There seems to be no greater benefit to the large expense than what other countries achieve.

It would be nice if other friendly countries actually built up an army. The US has traditionally been the "World Army" because no other country wants to bother putting in the resources for it.

Take Canada for example. Hell, I don't even need to say anything else because "Canada = no army". That link is just wired into everybody's brain. If the UN wants to take its role as a multi-country army seriously, it needs to ensure a better balance of military strength.

I seriously think that other countries are better socially because we have to spend so goddamn much on our military. So, other countries are living fat off of not having to pay for their own army, while the US protects them for free, and we get shafted by corporations without enough government protection. Sure, our government gets power-hungry once in a while and bombs some country full of brown people, but if the rest of the world actually bought their army, that wouldn't be a problem, would it?

[Julius Seeker]

You're making the assumption that there is an enemy that the world requires that much protection from. The biggest threat to world peace and the biggest instigator of war and instability is none other than the US. The US is lucky right now to have Obama as a face; let's just say.

[kali o.]

You're making the assumption that there is an enemy that the world requires that much protection from. The biggest threat to world peace and the biggest instigator of war and instability is none other than the US. The US is lucky right now to have Obama as a face; let's just say.

I'd rather have a big US army pushing the west's agenda and interests, than someone like China or Russia.

Even better that I don't have to pay for it. Thanks Sine

[SineSwiper]

I'd rather have a big US army pushing the west's agenda and interests, than someone like China or Russia.

Even worse is the fact that the three biggest armies are Vietnam, China, and North Korea. Even if they don't have the technology, they have the numbers.

[Julius Seeker]

Let me guess, you think East Asians are evil?

[SineSwiper]

Let me guess, you think East Asians are evil?

No, I think dictatorships and communist nations are not the most stable in the world.

[Julius Seeker]

You're making the assumption that there is an enemy that the world requires that much protection from. The biggest threat to world peace and the biggest instigator of war and instability is none other than the US. The US is lucky right now to have Obama as a face; let's just say.

I'd rather have a big US army pushing the west's agenda and interests, than someone like China or Russia.

Even better that I don't have to pay for it. Thanks Sine

I just have one question. What are you doing up at 4:42 Am on a weekday?=P

[Julius Seeker]

Let me guess, you think East Asians are evil?

No, I think dictatorships and communist nations are not the most stable in the world.

That can be mostly attributed to wealth and a history of instability. There has never been a communist country that is wealthy. They all usually result from the impoverished lower classes rising up in revolution against the far wealthier uppes classes. Europe is moving towards more social economics all the time; and they have wealth; EU nations are generally very stable.

Speaking of China, the US imports a HUGE amount of textiles from them at a fairly constant rate. Sound like someone you should be afraid of?

[kali o.]

I just have one question. What are you doing up at 4:42 Am on a weekday?=P

Coming to the realization that I am no longer young, as my tally of bagged olympic tourists is sitting solidly at zero.

[Mully]

The US is lucky right now to have Obama as a face; let's just say.

Hearsay!