<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>

Iraq WMD's sent to syria August 17 2004 at 3:48 PM No score for this post		Neil Boortz (no login)

More evidence that Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction may have been smuggled out of the country, and in particular into Syria. A report by the Washington Times says U.S. investigators have discovered Saddam Hussein periodically replaced border guards with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the countries. The Iraqi Survey Group has interviewed Iraqis who told of the border guards being replaced, then trucks carrying materials banned by the U.N. sanctions crossing the border, then the regular border guards coming back. Hmm...just what were they hiding? The story also says that there was unusually high traffic across the border the day before the United States attacked Iraq. Now why would they do that? Because they were trying to get rid of something, and get rid of it quick. Was it the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Might have been. After all, we know Saddam Hussein had them, used them, and we have even found some of them. Where did they go? If you listen to the left and the media in this country, it's George Bush's fault that they haven't been found. In other words, the blame-America-first crowd never considers the fact that the weapons may have been hidden or smuggled out of the country. One day, all of the WMD will be found...and what will the anti-American crowd say then? Oh yeah...they'll say George Bush put them there.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Respond to this message

Author

Reply

Dude
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 17 2004, 4:20 PM

Niel Boortz, you are a f u c k ing MORON! There never were any WMD! The entire thing is over oil and money. Pull your f u c k ing head out of your mother's a s s hole and look around you for once. By the way, George W. Bush is a stupid f u c k ing a s s hole!

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Americandane
(no login)

YAWN

No score for this post

August 17 2004, 7:37 PM

Err, did someone say The Washington Times... YAWN

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 18 2004, 3:59 PM

Sure, why would anyone think he had WMD's. They were only inventoried by the UN. Stockpiles of chemical and biological agents must have just been misplaced, ya that's what happened.

Why would Saddam have any WMD's? It's not like he used them before to gas between 1,000,000 to 2,000,000 Iraqi's. If he had done somethjing like that, then I might suspect he had them.

Besides, me and my douche bag liberal friends have named him humanitarian of the decade.

Hey crackhead, check this out:

Do you realize that the UN inventoried Saddam's WMD and all of the components of his WMD program? Do you realize the claims that Saddam sought uranium have been substantiated by Brit. Intell? Do you realize Saddam used his WMD's to kill as many as 2,000,000 of his own people?

Do you realize that you are also accusing Kerry of lying? The UN? All the members of congress? Can you be that moronic?

I am amazed at the reaction people have because we have been unable to find that which everyone knew was there.

The last time the DEA served a search warrant on you for smoking and selling crack, did they give you 13 months of notice? You didn't pile up all your crack into a mound in the middle of the livingroom floor and wait for them to come, did you?

I see that you are intelectually challenged, but even someone with limitations such as yours has enough sense to get rid of the evidence, or in your case, smoke it all up!

To assume that Saddam had no WMD's is a dangerous assumption.

Have a look at what Kerry said about Saddam's WMD's during an interview with fat assed Tim Russert, who usually lobs softballs at these liberals.

Here's a sample:
SEN. KERRY: Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing weaponizing of a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles, such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives which would bring them to the United States itself.

In addition, we know they are developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents.

According to the CIA’s report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that they are seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop them.

In the wake of September 11, who among us can say with any certainty to anybody that the weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater, a nuclear weapon?

You don't care, you don't give a sh!t about your country, why should you care? CRACKHEAD

This wasn't very long ago. October of 2002!

You really should read the whole interview. There's to much in this interview that you need to see, really!

Another sample:
MR. RUSSERT: What Democrats are saying is that there’s a difference in tone from John Kerry, different emphasis. Back last fall, when the war was popular, he was for it. Now that Howard Dean is surging, he’s a little bit more ambivalent. This is what Ron Brownstein reported you saying in January, telling a questioner, “If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

The rest of it.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/034897.php

Kerry's not the only one either.

I'm not a big Bush supporter. But it's a clear choice when the only alternative is an indecisive self promoting liar. Kerry's not a flip flopper, I would actually have more respect for him if he were. You see, a flip-flopper actually changes his views back and forth. Kerry only changes his words, and that makes him a liar.

I can see why he's the perfect liberal candidate: He's so concerned about how people perceive him and his views. He changes his words to fit the company he's in. That's disgusting. Stand for something, not everything!

Kerry is ten times the fraud you believe Bush to be!

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Dude
(no login)

No score for this post

August 19 2004, 1:23 PM

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 19 2004, 1:24 PM

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

No score for this post

August 20 2004, 3:35 PM

Like I said before, you are such a fool, you believe absolutely EVERYTHING you read. You are nothing but a lamb being led to the slaughter. Try thinking for yourself for once in your life.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Americandane
(no login)

I really thought there was some degree of intelligence here

No score for this post

August 21 2004, 7:01 AM

THE WASHINGTOM TIMES!!!!!!

Background
According to Arnaud de Borchgrave, now Editor at Large for United Press International, Moon decided that after the collapse of the Washington Star there remained a need for a conservative paper to challenge the Washington Post. Moon, he said, "concluded that the lack of a robust second newspaper in Washington would jeopardize President Reagan's efforts to roll back the Soviet empire and roll up communism. Anti-anti-communism had become fashionable in the dominant liberal media culture, a trend Moon felt would jeopardize not only U.S. security, but the security of his own country where 37,000 U.S. soldiers stood guard against the possibility of another invasion of South Korea by a still aggressive North Korea. [1]
"Moon disclosed in May 1992 that he had invested 'close to $1 billion' since the paper's founding in 1982. He said he wanted to make the newspaper 'an instrument to save America and the world'", Allan Freedman reported in the Columbia Journalism Review. [2]

However, according to Freedman "he does not sit on the board of the paper's parent company, News World Communications. Each member of the board, however, is a member of Moon's Unification Church," he wrote.

The Unification Church's website also lists a number of other "Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Projects" including The Sekai Nippo (Newspaper in Tokyo), Insight Magazine,The Middle East Times (Cairo),Tiempos del Mundo and the World Media Conference. [3]. In 2000, News World Communications bought the floundering United Press International.

Writing in Salon, Frederick Clarkson noted that Moon often cultivated close relationships with key conservative figures and was a generous sponsor."The former President Bush (sometimes accompanied by former first lady Barbara Bush) spoke at a series of Moon-sponsored events in Japan, Argentina and the U.S. after he left the White House. Estimates of how much the couple received for these appearances run between $1 million and $10 million," he wrote. Though the net appears to have been purged of photos of the Bushes with Moon, here's one of the Bushes with Mrs. Moon and Moon's long time right hand man Bo Hi Pak.

Nor were the Bush's the only beneficiaries. "Former Reagan Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp earned $52,000 from Moon-affiliated groups in the year before becoming Bob Dole's GOP running mate in 1996," he wrote.

In March 2004, Moon convened an extarordinary ceremony in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, ostensibly as an awards eceremony for 'peace ambassadors' in front of several dozens members of Congress and over two hundred other guests. In a speech after the awards were presented Moon pronounced "I am God's ambassador, sent to earth with His full authority. I am sent to accomplish His command to save the world's six billion people, restoring them to Heaven with the original goodness in which they were created."

"The five great saints and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin, who committed all manner of barbarity and murders on earth, and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons. Emperors, kings and presidents who enjoyed opulence and power on earth, and even journalists who had worldwide fame, have now placed themselves at the forefront of the column of the true love revolution," he said.

"They have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent. This resolution has been announced on every corner of the globe," he said. [4]

Moon's extraordinary announcement that he was the humanity's savior went unreported, other than in the Washington Times. In June Salon writer, John Gorenfield, reported the event and that some members of Congress claimed that they did not know the "Moonie nature of the group or that they did not know the event would evolve into a messianic coronation".

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Amefricandane
(no login)

Hmnn... a coalition?

No score for this post

August 21 2004, 8:05 AM

U.S. Works to Sustain Iraq Coalition
4 Nations Have Left, 4 More Are Getting Ready to Leave International Force

By Robin Wright and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 15, 2004; Page A01

The Bush administration faces growing challenges in holding together the 32-nation coalition deployed in Iraq, with four countries already gone, another four due to leave by September and others now making known their intention to wind down or depart before the political transition is complete next year, according to officials from 28 participating countries.

The drama over the Filipino hostage in Iraq, which led the Philippines government to say this week that it will pull out before its August mandate expires, is only the latest problem -- and one of the smaller issues -- in U.S. efforts to sustain the 22,000-strong force that, with 140,000 U.S. troops, forms the multinational force trying to stabilize postwar Iraq.

Norway quietly pulled out its 155 military engineers this month, leaving behind only about 15 personnel to assist a new NATO-coordinated effort to help train and equip Iraqi security forces. New Zealand intends to pull out its 60 engineers by September, while Thailand plans to withdraw its more than 450 troops that same month, barring a last-minute political reversal that Thai officials consider unlikely, say envoys from both countries. "It's 90 percent definite that we're going," a Thai diplomat said.

The Netherlands is likely to pull out next spring after the first of three Iraqi elections, while Polish military officials told the Pentagon that Poland's large contingent will probably leave in mid-2005, other diplomats say.

Any dwindling of the coalition -- by choice or after hostage seizures and other violence -- further complicates the already difficult job of sustaining the multinational force, which is critical to Washington's assertion that it has international support for the Iraq mission. It could also encourage further abductions or attacks to heighten the psychological pressure and undermine the U.S.-led mission, coalition diplomats say.

"We think withdrawal sends the wrong signal and that it is important for people to stand up to terrorists and not allow them to change our behavior," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher told reporters.

Some attrition was inevitable after the U.S.-led occupation officially ended on June 28, say envoys in Washington. "This was expected as sovereignty was handed over. Some have been desperate to get out of there, because they were handcuffed to the process," said a diplomat from a prominent member of the coalition who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

"In certain countries, public opinion was against them going in -- so they were under political pressure that they either shouldn't be there or they should be there only for so long. Sovereignty was always a point at which countries look at how long they'll stay. It becomes a segue for pulling out," he added.

To track commitments, the Bush administration keeps a color-coded chart of coalition members: red for countries withdrawing, yellow for nations considering a pullout and green for countries staying.

The size and abilities of the coalition forces have been a source of controversy and embarrassment for the administration since the war to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

In many ways, the symbolic importance of international participation has been at least as vital for the Bush administration as the often-limited military role the troops have played. And while administration officials have stressed the number of countries that have sent troops, others have noted the small size of many military contingents and the continued absence of some major powers.

Several participating countries sent fewer than 100 troops. In other cases, forces diminished significantly over time. Moldova's contingent is the smallest -- down to 12 from 42. Singapore has quietly reduced its presence from 191 to 33.

The Bush administration contends the coalition is holding, pointing to the renewed troop commitments from large contributors such as Britain and Italy. "Their support has solidified as the political process has come to pass," said Lincoln Bloomfield, assistant secretary of state for political-military affairs.

"If you look at how many voices were doubting that the transfer of sovereignty would actually occur, you can now see a momentum behind the military coalition to rally around the Iraqi government and complete the process all the way through the electoral stages leading to full sovereignty at the end of 2005. Despite all the security challenges, the big picture is that the plan is working," Bloomfield said.

El Salvador renewed its commitment of 380 troops after President Bush hosted Salvadoran President Antonio Saca at the White House this week, the latest of several White House visits by leaders of coalition countries. Lithuania renewed its 105-troop commitment last week.

Several other countries have promised to significantly add to their contingents. South Korea is increasing its force from 600 to 3,700, while Azerbaijan offered an additional 250 soldiers to join the 150 already in Iraq. Georgia said it is ready to more than double its 159 troops -- to more than 400.

"We don't see any major defections; we see troops coming and going as they said they would; and there have been more plus-ups than withdrawals," said a senior Pentagon official involved in Iraq policy.

But some pledges the administration cites are misleading or contain caveats that call into question whether many troops will stay much beyond the first round of Iraqi elections scheduled for January.

Australia's pledge to increase its commitment will bring its troop strength to 880 -- fewer than half the 2,000 troops it had during the war. And only about 250 are in Iraq, with the rest in air and naval support positions nearby, Australian envoys say. For Australia and some other countries, increases are mainly meant to enhance security for their own troops, embassies and personnel.

Support is also tenuous in nations Washington considers to be key players. The vote this week in Italy's House of Deputies to extend its deployment was 257 to 207, a reflection of the almost even public split, an Italian envoy said. Playing to strong public antiwar sentiment, Australia's opposition pledged to withdraw troops by Christmas if elected, while revelations about the Abu Ghraib prison abuse led Hungary's opposition to call for a withdrawal despite originally supporting the deployment.

Hostage seizures of nationals from Japan, South Korea, Poland, Italy, Bulgaria, the Philippines and the United States have heightened public and political pressure, with several countries expecting debates to intensify this fall.

The first blow to the U.S.-led force was the decision by new Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to withdraw his country's 1,300 troops, which led Honduras and the Dominican Republic to bring home their few hundred troops this spring. Britain and Spain had been the two closest U.S. allies in the Iraq war. Zapatero's election upset after a terrorist bombing at a Madrid train station deepened opposition to Spain's deployment.

For other countries, however, the issue is capability. "We have limited resources and huge commitments, like Afghanistan, the Solomon Islands, Bosnia, Kosovo and Timor," a New Zealand diplomat said. "Hostage dramas have not influenced our plans or thinking, and it was not a political decision. We're just stretched."

The countries most committed to staying are East European and former Soviet countries. "We benefited in our own recent history from foreign peacekeepers, so we understand the value of action. Our stand on Iraq is firm, and our participation is not questionable," said Macedonian Ambassador Nikola Dimitrov.

The day Spain pulled out, Albania wrote Washington to reaffirm its commitment and has since pledged to increase its troops from 71 to 200. "We're the most pro-U.S. nation in Europe," Ambassador Satos Tarisa said, "and we're in Iraq for the long haul."

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 21 2004, 12:38 PM

.....and....?

The U.S. holds nothing against anyone who pulls out of the coalition, and they've said so. They can only do that which they are 'WILLING' to. Only a few were unwilling to do anything. Three very big 'unwillings', and now they feel the consequences, at least two of them do.

Here's a few quotes for you:

From Le Monde News in France- not from the UPI

"By treating its partners with hauteur, by humiliating them sometimes brutally, and by behaving in a cavalier fashion towards the (European) Commission, the France of Jacques Chirac finds itself sanctioned," former Europe minister Pierre Moscovici told Le Monde newspaper Tuesday.

Emerging from four decades of communist rule, the 75 million inhabitants of the eight former Soviet satellite states have little enthusiasm for the European model championed by France. Unlike Paris, they see the United States as a BEACON OF LIBERTY*, not as a rival power. They are passionate believers in the free market, prefer speaking English or German to French and have no desire to replace Moscow's iron fist with the suffocating embrace of Paris, Berlin or Brussels.

A beacon of liberty. WOW!! Hmmm. Don't you just hate that! I know you do. I feel your pain!(Clinton) You don't want anyone to make comments like that about America. How dare they say something like that about the country you so hate!! It must be lies. It has to be a lie. Everything you disagree with must be a lie.

It's not difficult to predict your replies. They're standard liberal jargon. I've always said, "Ever notice how mad and nasty people who describe themselves as liberals get when you disagree with them? Ever notice how they rarely have proven facts to back up their arguments? Ever notice how they accuse all of your proven facts of being lies when you when you don't agree with them?

and, "Ever notice how the left calls any statistics that refute their claims lies and slander? "

You know what? Don't worry, Kerry still has a chance to win the election, if Bush drops dead between now and November. I really shouldn't say that though, look how many people the Clintons were associated with who died in "accidents."

This list is old and I'm sure there have been many other associates of Clintons that have died in "accidents" since this list was compiled:

http://www.warroom.com/clinton.htm

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 21 2004, 12:44 PM

Like I said before, you are such a fool, you believe absolutely EVERYTHING you read. You are nothing but a lamb being led to the slaughter. Try thinking for yourself for once in your life.

Like I said before, "Ever notice how the left calls any statistics that refute their claims lies and slander? Ever notice how angry they become?

You're intellect is naked. You're replies are childish meaningless jibber without thought or fact to reference. As I said previously, I don't get my news, views, opinions or facts from mainstream media leftwing propaganda machines as you do.

It's quite the opposite of your perspective. I rarely read SOMETHING, let alone EVRYTHING, that I entirely believe. Unlike you, if it fits you'll wear it, if it doesn't then it's a lie!

You only believe something if it favors your opinion. If it doesn't then it must be lies. So sad. What are you afraid of? Are you unable to step outside the 'lines', or are you just scared to do so?

You're the one standing in line with your cup waiting for the liberal leftwing horde to dole out the next scoop of propaganda bullsh!t they use to spin the truth, and you just repeat it like the good misinformation disseminating tool that you are.

I am biased, make no mistake about that. So are you, but the difference is that you don't realize you are, which makes you a tool!!!!!!!! No mistake about it! You're a tool, a machine with controls in someone else's hands!

No score for this post

August 26 2004, 12:34 PM

So dumbasss, are you saying that the republicans legalized child porn?
“You’ve got a great ass, honey, but judging from this guy’s statement, it’s probably more intelligent than the gray matter between his ears.” (That’s my wife talking over my shoulder as she’s reading your comment, Anonymous.)

You know, Anonymous, your argument about pornography is an old and worn refrain from the Christian Right. It has repeatedly been proven lacking in empirical or even logical basis - in fact, the opposite proves true. Those nations that have "liberalized" freedom of choice while reinforcing child protection against predators and abuse show the least incidence of child abuse and much healthier family lives for their futures. Sex should not be mystified, or it goes psychologically and socially very wrong. There is actually proof that repressing sexual curiosity in children can trigger violence in adulthood. Me wonder, is that why there’s so much violence in the White House? OK, that wasn’t nice of me… Seriously, I think you need to do a little honest reading.

We'll start with a guy at Bethesda, and see the difference between pornography, violence, sex, and abuse. Personally, I find some forms of legal pornography a form for abuse, in that it degrades the female, or the male. But that’s a matter of personal choice. This is a very very provocative subject, one I’ve personally spent time researching (and not through personal experience…. Please, stop your expletives and engage in real dialogue)

Here’s a taste from this study by the author, who is a neuropsychologist, that’s likely to rattle your dander.

“Premarital sexual freedom for young people can help reduce violence in a society, and the physical pleasure that youth obtains from sex can offset a lack of physical affection during infancy. Other research also indicates that societies which punish premarital sex are likely to engage in wife purchasing, to worship a high god in human morality, and to practice slavery. Other results are shown in the table below. “
http://www.scireview.de/prescott/article.html

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Ryan
(no login)

Is this supposed to be an argument???

No score for this post

August 26 2004, 3:39 PM

First you would have to weigh the circumstances of why they would want something of that nature. Are they at war with someone? Who are they at war with and why? Which side poses the greatest threat to America and the world? Can we justify a military alliance with who we believe is the lesser of the two evils?

Just when i thought you couldn't write anything more meaningless or stupid you go on to write:

This doesn't only apply to Iran. Plug any nation into this senario.

So any nation will do, huh? How about selling Lybia or Syria nukes....maybe the Sudan? It simply isn't our responsibility what they do with them, right?

So tell me, Einstein, which side in the Iran-Iraq conflict posed the greater threat to this country? Apparently not the country we just invaded, right?

I wonder if not giving weapons of mass destruction to either side of a conflict compromised of one ruthless dictator and one radical theocracy is an option? What do you think?

You know what really scares me the most? It's that most thinking republicans would actually concede that Reagan selling Hussein chemical weapons was a mistake. Just like most thinking Demos would concede Clinton not pursuing the Sudanese offer of giving up Bin Ladin was a mistake. But not you. Oh noooooo. You're sticking to your guns to the bitter end, right?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone with their head so far up the party's ass as you. Nor have a run across a bigger moron on these forums. You should be proud.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Anonymous
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

August 26 2004, 3:41 PM

Those harmed by the proliferation of obscene material include, among others:
The "performers" (many in their teens)
The children and adults who become addicted to obscenity
The spouses of obscenity addicts
The women raped (and murdered) by obscenity addicts
The children sexually abused by adults, who use obscenity to arouse themselves and to desensitize their child victims.

Look kid, you're not fooling anyone, especially not me.

You make general statements about youths experiencing sex and you don't offer the defintion of youth. By doing so, your stradling the fence of legality!

“Premarital sexual freedom for young people can help reduce violence in a society, and the physical pleasure that youth obtains from sex can offset a lack of physical affection during infancy.

I understand those are not your words and I hope you do not endorse them!

You think that gratification through sex is OK pertaining to children??? Are you advocating children having sex?

I would think that affection and love from your parents would be most beneficial. Many kids lack that role model in their family and reach out for other forms of acknowledgment and accomplishment most likely in the form of sex..

Look at how many porn actresses admit that they didn't have a father or a father figure as a child.

from the Christian Right

What does Christian 'Right' mean? How does it differ from christianity? As with most of your other comments on this board, they're rooted in hate and racism. Please don't call yourself a liberal, you're very illiberal.

Sex being 'mystified'?? Moron. Who's saying that? Porn actually mystifies sex!!! Pornography is exploitation in the highest. Pornography has practically nothing to do with sex and a persons ability to reproduce. It has nothing to do with love and/or respect. It depicts anything but reality. There's a huge difference between sex education and pornography.

Sex is something that needs to be taught, but not through pornography. Skin shouldn't be marketed. That was slavery!

Similar to drug dealers, pimps and book-makers, the billion dollar porn industry is also controlled by organized crime groups. That's a fact.

The arguement against the marketing of pornography/sex doesn't only originate from those of religious sects. This is where you moronic liberals practice your prejudices, without regard. There is no value in porn, other than deviant arousal .

These days it seems the liberals entire ideology revolves around things of a sexual and deviant nature. It most certainly does.

If you disagree with any of these: abortion, pre-marital sex, pornography, murder, and hate etc., it doesn't mean an individual has to be of a religious nature to be against them. But your constant prejudice, intolerance and bigotry towards religion say alot about you.

Liberalism has been hijacked by a bunch of perverts, no doubt about that. They seek to impose the 'dik it anywhere you can stick it' mentality on our society. Liberalism used to mean tolerance for diversity, now you've redefined it as 'tolerance for perversity and deviancy. The deviants will push and push their deviant behaviours on society until society changes and excepts them. Where will it end?

Racism, bigotry, class warfare, religious intolerance, deviancy and perversion are some of the norms of todays liberal ideology.

There is no place in society for this obscene material. There's nothing in todays pornography that benefits society in any way. Don't give me the bullsh!t that it is educational. You go to Barnes and Noble to get an educational book about sex, not to an adult book store or porn internet sites!!!! Porn is a gateway to greater deviancy, the same as certain drugs are the gateway to harsher drugs.

As far as research goes, do you think that there are no studies out there that would refute the claims made in the study you cited?? There are, many, but that wasn't the intent of your search. But like most 'so-called' liberals you will call anything that refutes your claims lies and distortions.

I worked in the medical research field for a number of years. When you do a biased study, which is probably what yours is, you're trying to get a desired result. The entire pharmaceutical industry operates that way. So does the environmental protection industry which has boooomed into a billion dollar industry. Do you think that they would conclude their findings are mostly based on assumptions and speculations. It's their meal ticket now. They would never put themselves out of work.

When it comes to obscenity laws, I always get the last word! This is an arguement you can't win. No one ever has, and no one ever will. Not against me!

CNSNews.com) - A recent poll shows that eight out of ten Americans think laws regarding Internet obscenity should be "vigorously enforced," but seven out of ten think enforcement is inadequate.

"Hardcore pornographers have been telling us for years that widespread availability of hardcore pornography is proof of community acceptance," said Robert Peters, President of Morality in Media.

"Well, eight out of ten Americans saying that they want vigorous enforcement of Federal laws against Internet obscenity adds up to community rejection of hardcore pornography, and support for prosecutors who vigorously enforce obscenity laws," Peters said.

When asked if current federal laws regarding Internet obscenity should be "vigorously enforced," 82 percent responded, "yes," while 16 percent said "no."

Peters said the poll offers proof that "most Americans do not want their Internet-connected nation and homes drowning in a floodtide of illegal hardcore pornography."

"They want to live and raise children in a decent society," he said.

A word for pornographers who wish to peddle their garbage in my community.

We set our community standards as allowed by law, and so, if you bring your porn here and it violates our standards, I will take you down!! Mark these words!!!! It won't be the first or the last time. I'm dead serious!!

Indictments made in Pittsburgh signal wider U.S. attack on porn

Two California pornographers were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury here on charges of selling obscene videotapes, including one that depicted women being raped and murdered.

Robert D. Zicari, 29, and his wife, Janet Romano, 26, whose Extreme Associates porn company was featured last year on PBS's "Frontline," are charged with distributing the videos through the mail and over the Internet in Western Pennsylvania.

**They went by the names Lizzy Borden and Rob Black. I hope they never forget their trip to Pittsburgh!

From The Testimony (in part) of Mary Beth Buchanan
United States Attorney
for the Western District of Pennsylvania

before the
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Indecent Exposure: Efforts of the Department of Justice to Protect Victims of Pornography

October 15, 2003

Another case began with a lead from the search of a child pornographer's residence in Harrisburg. The Harrisburg man had been trading child pornography with a man from Western Pennsylvania. A search warrant executed in our district revealed numerous boxes of child pornography and adult pornography located within the residence. Most importantly, the agents found a videotape made when the perpetrator filmed himself having sex with his drugged and asleep 11 year old niece. He had taken his niece to an amusement park in Ohio as a "birthday present" and molested her without her knowledge.

In a similar case which occurred just this year, the FBI received information that a Pittsburgh man had been attempting to trade child pornography with an undercover detective in Chicago. A search warrant for child pornography was executed at his residence. Located at the scene when the agents arrived was a ten-year old girl whom he had adopted in Russia for the primary purpose of sexually abusing her. Fortunately, the girl revealed the abuse to an FBI agent participating in the search. The defendant recently pleaded guilty and is facing a sentence of 15 to 20 years in prison.

In another case, a defendant convicted of possession of child pornography in Los Angeles agreed to cooperate with investigators in Pittsburgh. The Los Angeles defendant revealed that he had been watching a Pittsburgh man have sex with his five-year old daughter live over the Internet. The Pittsburgh man had even sold pairs of his daughter's underpants to the cooperator. Images of the molestation were captured, and the Pittsburgh man, who had a previous conviction for possession of child pornography, was sentenced to nine years in prison. These events occurred in a 1997 case. The defendant would be facing a mandatory minimum 25 year prison term under the PROTECT Act today.

***More recently, we prosecuted a man from Virginia who identified himself on the Internet as a "Master of Teen Slave Girls." He engaged in chat conversations over the Internet with a thirteen year old girl from Pittsburgh for several months. On New Year's Day of 2002 he transported her to his house in Virginia where he sexually assaulted her. He also created a video as he abused her and transmitted it over the internet to a man in another state. The defendant pleaded guilty to producing child pornography and received a twenty year sentence. Once again, his computer contained thousands of images of adult and child pornography. It was clear from reviewing the material on his computer that pornography had fueled his desire for sex with children, and that the Internet had provided him with the opportunity.

***Alicia Kozakiewicz was kidnapped by Scott Tyree. She lives on Crafton Blvd in the Crafton section of Pittsburgh. I also live on Crafton Blvd. with my 15 year old daughter Kayla. She was also 13 when her best friend Alicia was abducted.

So while you sit there and state some second hand biased research information that is usually used to protect the much needed right to view deviant behaviours by those who wish to exploit children and adults for their own pleasure, I've seen and participated in more investigations than just this one.

I worked to organize the Western Pennsylvania Crimes Against Children Task Force. The Task Force was initially funded by the Office for Victims of Crime within the Department of Justice. Our task force includes federal and state prosecutors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Postal Inspection Service, and other federal law enforcement agencies, officers from the sex crimes units of the state, county and city police, medical professionals, including forensic examiners, from two major Pittsburgh hospitals, representatives from social service agencies which assist victims of crime, and attorneys from Kids Voice, a local agency which represents dependent children in court. By combining these resources and exchanging information frequently, we are able to ensure that the unique needs of child victims are met. The needs of the child are given our first priority. Coordination among all reduces the number of times that a child must be interviewed and ensures that the strongest case and longest sentence is pursued.

More testimony :

Let me now turn to the area of adult obscenity, as it is important to recognize that adults, as well as children, are often victims of pornography. With a CEOS trial attorney as a member of our prosecution team, we recently brought an indictment against Extreme Associates and its owners, Robert Zicari and Janet Romano. Extreme Associates, a California company, has produced some of the most vile, offensive, and degrading material available on the Internet. One of the videos charged as being obscene, Forced Entry, portrays the brutal rape and killings of three women. The women are hit, slapped, and spit upon. Another video involves sexual acts with multiple men followed by the woman being made to drink almost every type of liquid excreted by humans. Although the third video apparently involves actresses of at least 18 years of age, it portrays sex with children. In one scene, a girl playing in a tent in her living room is shown having forced sex with a magazine salesman.
Obscenity, by its very nature, reduces human beings to sexual objects. Just last week I received a letter from a woman whose daughter had participated in the production of pornographic films. This mother described how her daughter, who had graduated from a high-ranking high school with an excellent record, had fallen into the world of pornography. The daughter has now been reduced to an anorexic drug addict with severely compromised mental and physical health. This mother, with no where else to look for help, has asked my office to continue to work to, and I am quoting from the letter, "prevent the exploitation and destruction of other young women."
My office, along with other United States Attorneys across the country, looks forward to continuing the fight against child pornography and obscenity. I thank you again for inviting me to speak before this Committee and would welcome any questions.

If your ever in town, drop me a line. I'd like to know where you are and what you are doing in my community with your compulsive and deviant behaviours.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Ryan
(no login)

PS...

No score for this post

August 26 2004, 3:42 PM

To Anonymous dittohead.

Get yourself a handle, please. Any handle will do. Just do it out of consideration. Help the rest of us save alot of time in knowing which posts to ignore.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Americandane
(no login)

Re: Iraq WMD's sent to syria

No score for this post

No score for this post

August 29 2004, 12:13 AM

I couldn't have shown you for your true colors had I tried with my brain tied behind my back. Thank you. Again, I rest my case.

Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.

Current Topic - Iraq WMD's sent to syria

Respond to this message

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>