(continuedfromabove)

And there is vastly more evidence of US military killing in cold blood the citizens of other countries.

Let's not forget that JFK, alone, several times stopped the US military from launching a premeditated nuclear strike on the USSR that would almost certainly have led to the deaths of millions of US citizens as well as tens of millions of citizens of the USSR.

---

Other material which may be of interest includes:

CYBER-BULLYING, CENSORSHIP, 9/11 TRUTH AND LARVATUS PRODEO
(published 29 Dec 09, updated 3 Mar 10)

In the last three months of 2009 a discussion on Larvatus Prodeo, about the controversy surrounding 9/11, turned into the online equivalent of a lynching. On 28 December at the point at which the intended victim (myself) was able to turn the tables on his tormentors, the moderators abruptly closed the discussion. I have been barred from contributing to that site ever since, as if I had been blamed for the abuses of others.
(For more, go to http://candobetter.org/node/1741)

The Lavartus Prodeo 'debate', the size of which is 5.6Mb and which consists of 1979 posts, can be found at http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/09/12/saturday-salon-208/#comment-846368 . A related discussion is to be found at http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/01/monday-message-board-165/comment-page-1/#comment-256856 .

That's not exactly a tsunami of evidence, is it daggett?

More like a thimbleful.

Prefaced as always with the conspiracy-nut get-out clause...

>>...in all likelihood, they would have concealed their tracks very well...<<

The lack of evidence being, of course, conclusive evidence of a cover-up.

I'm a little surprised that you led with that, knowing how dumb it sounds. Never mind, What else do you have.

>>it appears likely that the Oklohama City bombing could have been one example<<

Yeah, right. And the motivation behind that one was...

"President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno planned the bombing as part of a massive anti-gun campaign"

Or alternatively.

"President Clinton and Attorney General Janet Reno planned the bombing to enable them to enact antiterrorism legislation while using McVeigh as a scapegoat."

Hmmm. Persuasive.

>>At the Kent State University in May 1970 National Guardsmen murdered four anti-war protestors.<<

Premeditated mass murder? Don't think so.

>>In 1914, National Guardsmen murdered 20 people including children in a premeditated attack on a camp of striking miners in Ludlow Colorado<<

The attack was not premeditated.

"The miners, fearing for the safety of their families, set out to flank the militia positions. A firefight soon broke out. The fighting raged for the entire day."

Not remotely comparable.

>>In 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of staff planned to launch terrorist attacks including assassinations on mainland US and hijackings (whether real or staged) in Operation Northwoods, but were overruled by President Kennedy.<<

That's supposed to be evidence? Something that didn't happen? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds?

>>In the 1960's four of the most effective, charismatic and incorruptible leaders in US history... were almost certainly murdered by Intelligence Agencies and the US military<<

"Almost certainly", daggett. That's the catchphrase of conspiracy nerds everywhere, isn't it. Coupled inevitably with "prove me wrong".

>>I would suggest there is abundant evidence that US political and military leaders are capable of deliberately killing their own citizens.<<

Suggest away, daggett. That's what you do best.

But once again, when it comes to providing anything even vaguely approaching evidence, you fall way, way short.

Note how Pericles has not acknowledged my point that Condoleezza Rice, who is implicated in the crime of 9/11 by a mountain of damning evidence (e.g. her attempt to cover up the fact that the head of the Pakistani secret servies, the ISI had wired $100,000 to 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Ata days before the hijacking) lied to the first responders claiming that the toxic dust of the collapsed WTC towers posed no health risk, thereby condemning at least many hundred to die and thousands more to debilitating ill health.

I asked Pericles "How is that different from premeditated murder?"

And he has not answered.

---

The fact is America is formally a democracy and formally under the rule of law. So, it is not easy for government agencies to murder large numbers of US citizens with complete impunity.

Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence that they have, on many occasions murdered their citizens, although not, until 11 September 2001, on a scale that approaches that committed by military dictatorships. However, that could change all too easily, particularly if the citizens of the US are lulled into placing undeserved trust in the US Government and its agencies by the likes of Pericles.

The fact that Rice knowingly condemned hundreds of first responders to die would surely add weight to the hypothosis that she would also have been quite capable of participating in the planning of and the facilitation of the 9/11 terrorist attack that resulted in the deaths on that day of 2.973 US residents on that day.

Wow, you really are clutching at straws, daggett.

>>Note how Pericles has not acknowledged my point that Condoleezza Rice... lied to the first responders claiming that the toxic dust of the collapsed WTC towers posed no health risk, thereby condemning at least many hundred to die and thousands more to debilitating ill health. I asked Pericles "How is that different from premeditated murder?"<<

I think you'll find this film clip on yourconspiracytube:

[Cut to Condoleezza Rice's Office]

CR (for it is she): Is ze plen verkink?

Flunkey: Yez Miz Rice, sho' nuff is. All dem Yankee financialists blown to de four win's

CR: All of zem gone? (rubs hands with glee). Now for ze final zolution. Kill all ze snoopers and noseyparkingz. No vun must be left alife to tell ze tale

Flunkey: How we gonna do dat, Miz Rice? Dere's all dem firemen an' perlicemen an' sich...

CR: Tell zem... tell zem it iss safe to breathe in ze dust. Tell zem... it iss good for zem. In only ten years, zey vill all be dead. (Throws back head and opens mouth, showing a full set of shiny-white, highly-polished pointy fangs...)

BWAAAHAA-HAAA-HAAAA!

[end of clip]

The URL you pointed me to described one death from cancer, and three others who have tumours. Nothing whatsoever links these sicknesses to 9/11. Nothing at all that supports the headline "Hundreds of 9/11 first responders die of cancer", or that "85 per cent of them are suffering from lung diseases".

I thought it only polite to ignore your "point", on the basis that the facts could only be an embarrassment to you.

Fine.

Pericles would have us believe that the claims of deaths of hundreds first responders and chronic ill health of hundreds more are are all invented and that, presumably, Condoleezza Rice acted decently and ethically by telling them, contrary to warnings by health authorities, that it was perfectly save to breathe in the WTC dust laden with asbestos, PCBs and all kinds of toxic metals, etc.

We'll come back to you on that one, Pericles.

---

Note Pericles' continued silence on Rice's attempt to cover up the wiring of $100,000 to 9/11 Hijacker by the head of Pakistan's secret intelligences service ISI days before 11 Sepetember 2001.

Arjay wrote on the Forum "Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=10

"[Pericles] has assured me in the past that he has viewed the site [http://ae911truth.org] and it was all conjecture."

What you write of has been a very common experience for me. People, usually people in whom I have placed my trust, will abuse that trust by emphatically asserting that they accept that official account of some hotly contentious historical event is true (or alternatively that the alternative hypothesis is garbage, which is a dishonest, but slightly more plausible way of saying the same thing) and making the claim, sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly, that they have fully studied all the evidence. They demand, sometimes resorting to subtle techniques of moral blackmail, that we put our trust in them and find clever means to discourage us from studying the issues for ourselves.

Usually when you probe more deeply you find that they have not studied the issue properly. Sometimes you learn that they have, which for me only makes matters even worse, when the evidence is so open and shut.

On the JFK assassination question, people who have claimed to have studied all the evidence of the JKF assassination and who have arrived at the conclusion that the official story was, indeed, correct and that Oswald was the sole killer of JFK include:

* The late Alistair Cooke whose "Letter from America" featured every week on on ABC radio until his death in 2004,

* The late Norman Mailer (who featured in "Oswald's Ghost" at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0938321/usercomments and wrote a book "Oswald's Tale" based on that fiction)

* Phillip Adams, who participated in the international effort to smear Olivier Stone and his towering movie JFK back in the early 1990's (http://candobetter.org/node/1286#comment-2955)

* Other left gatekeepers such as Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn

* Nearly all the Australian far left, that I once was a member of.

The undeserved authority that these people enjoy, still prevents a lot of people from being able to understand the simple truth of JFK's murder and, these days, 9/11 also.