I just read pages 4 & 5 of this thread & didn't find much of an argument pretaining to our government's ability to complete such a task as this massive coverup people here are purporting. I understand & completely agree that our gov't has done some incredibly offensive & downright criminal things, but the evidence put forth in the video doesn't jive with me. It seems more far-fetched to me than many other conspiracy theories I have been presented with.

Fair do's

SAUDI ARABIA: THE PARTING OF THE WAYS WITH THE US, AUGUST 2001

Most significant of all were the signs that even Saudi Arabia, long considered a client
state or even a ward of the United States, was considering breaking away from the US
system. Here the falling dollar, Bush’s slavish support of Sharon, and preparations for
new US attacks on Arab states were doubtless playing a role. According to the Wall
Street Journal, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah sent a letter to Bush at the end of August
2001 – before the events of September 11 – and warned him, in reference to the USSaudi
relationship, that “a time comes when peoples and nations part.” The letter went on
to say that “it is time for the United States and Saudi Arabia to look at their separate
interests. Those governments that don’t feel the pulse of the people and respond to it will
suffer the fate of the Shah of Iran.” Prince Abdullah read from this letter at a meeting of
150 prominent Saudis in October 2001, in an effort to convince them that the Saudi
government is defending Arab and Muslim interests. During a phone call with Bush
around the same time, Abdullah again called for the U.S. to restrain Israel. Diplomats
said that there was considerable debate within the Saudi royal family over the U.S. war in
Afghanistan and the cost of the U.S.-Saudi relationship. One Western diplomat said that
the failure to resolve the Middle East conflict was going to make it harder for Saudi
Arabia to continue its relationship with the U.S. in the same manner. (Wall Street
Journal, Oct. 29, 2001) Saudi Arabia was a pillar of the US empire; without it, the empire would collapse. For the imperialists, action was imperative to prevent this critical
defection.

The dubious Michael Moore and others parroted the Mossad line that Saudi Arabia was
responsible for 9/11. It is more likely that the unproven allegations about Saudi hijackers
were cooked up as a means of blackmailing the Saudis, who were evidently ready to
distance themselves from Washington.

THE EUROPEAN UNION

Europe for its part was eager to eliminate the dollar. Jacques Santer, former president of
the European Commission, called on Gulf Arab oil exporters to price their crude in the
euro rather than the US dollar as a means to stabilize the oil market. “It could be the
instrument to consolidate oil markets” and would be less affected by US foreign policy,
he told a Gulf-Euro conference in Dubai. (“Santer calls for oil to be priced in euros,” The
Irish Times October 8, 2000) The biggest issue here was whether Russia would phase out
the dollar in favor of the euro, as the Germans and others were proposing. In addition,
dumping the dollar was popular. Newspaper columnists and antiwar activists in countries
from Morocco to Indonesia shared the sentiments expressed in a Nigerian street protest
witnessed by a Wall Street Journal reporter during the run-up to the Iraq war: “Euro yes!
Dollar no!” (http://journeyman.1hwy.com/J-Big_OneIIIb.html) US elites had long been
painfully aware of the colossal vulnerability represented by the world’s dollar overhang –
the masses of dollars held outside of the United States. Republican Senator Pete Dominici
of New Mexico commented on May 18, 1995: “What would happen if the Saudi
Arabians said they didn’t want to be paid [for oil] in dollars anymore, but wanted instead,
to be paid, say in yen. There would be inflation that would make the 15 to 20 percent
inflation in the early ‘80s look good.” (C-SPAN II, 18 May 1995)

The impact of a world move to dump the dollar can be deciphered from the following
commentary from an insider newsletter: “The US dollar is ‘over-owned.’ 77.7% of world
central bank reserves are in US dollars. That’s disproportionate to the US share of world
trade. There’ll now be some diversification, especially to the euro. Just as central banks
sold gold, they’ll now sell US dollars. A study revealed at a central bank confab at
Jackson Hole by Professors Obstfeld and Rogoff suggests the US dollar could drop 24%-
40% if foreigners move quickly to exchange dollars. Foreigners own a record 38% of US
Treasury market (44% excluding Federal Reserve holdings), 20% of US corporate bonds,
8% of US stocks. A change of sentiment, now suddenly in the air, could start a dollar
brushfire.” (The International Harry Schultz Letter, January 19, 2001)

If oil producers in general were to make the leap from the dollar to the euro, many central
banks would have to shift reserves into the European currency. The value of the dollar
might crash between 20 and 40%, as Clark’s article points out. The impact of this inside
the US might be hyperinflation of 1000% or more per year. As the expert cited by Clark
summed up: “One of the dirty little secrets of today’s international order is that the rest of
the globe could topple the United States from its hegemonic status whenever they so
choose, with a concerted abandonment of the dollar standard. This is America’s preeminent,
inescapable Achilles Heel for now and the foreseeable future. That such a
course hasn’t been pursued to date bears more relation to the fact that other Westernized,
highly developed nations haven’t any interest to undergo the great disruptions which
would follow – but it could assuredly take place in the event that the consensus view
coalesces of the United States as any sort of ‘rogue’ nation. In other words, if the dangers
of American global hegemony are ever perceived as a greater liability than the dangers of
toppling the international order. The Bush administration and the neo-conservative
movement have set out on a multiple-front course to ensure that this cannot take place, in
brief by a graduated assertion of military hegemony atop the existent economic
hegemony. The paradox I’ve illustrated with this one narrow scenario is that the quixotic
course itself may very well bring about the feared outcome that it means to pre-empt. We
shall see!” (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CLA302A.html)

The US economy was very sick indeed. Electrical infrastructure was at the breaking
point, with major blackouts every summer. The air transportation system was bankrupt.
Commuter and freight railroads were subject to constant breakdowns. The budget deficit
was rising towards $500 billion – or $750 billion, and the merchandise trade deficit was
rising towards $500 billion. The US public debt was headed towards $6.5 trillion, with
over $4 trillion in foreign debt. The military forces were comprised of ten hollow infantry
divisions – not an adequate force to conquer the world, except in a neocon fantasy.

THE CATASTROPHE OF GLOBALIZATION

After the fall of the East German communist regime in 1989, and the extinction of the
USSR in December 1991, the United States presided over the inauguration of a new era,
that of the globalized world economy. I have discussed the main features of globalization
in Surviving the Cataclysm (1999), my study of the world financial crisis. For our present
purposes, it is enough to focus on the consequences of globalization. Globalization has
completed the destruction of the United States as a political economy, and has
substantially wrecked the entire world economy, as it was evident to clear-minded
observers no later than 1992, when globalization began the demolition of the Russian
economy. Together with globalization came the ascendancy of parasitical financier elites
oriented exclusively towards short-term speculative gain in such areas as derivatives
speculation, and perfectly incompetent in regard to the economic requirements of
civilized progress. It was not September 11, 2001 which destroyed the world as we had
known it; it was the marauding and immiserating march of economic globalization.

The great lesson of the twentieth century was that financial disintegration and economic
depression set the stage for world war. The same dynamic was at work during the 1990s.
For most people in the United States, western Europe and Japan, this underlying dynamic
was masked by currency arrangement centering on the dollar which tended to shield these
parts of the world from the full fury of globalization, while inflicting intensified looting
and impoverishment on the underdeveloped countries. But even so, the economic decline
in the supposedly rich countries was breathtaking.

As the United States became financially more unstable and economically less viable,
ruling elites began to exhibit greater readiness for military adventures abroad. This
aggressivity was common to the Republican and Democratic wings of the oligarchy, but
was somewhat alleviated by Bill Clinton’s personal distaste for foreign military
adventures and keen awareness of the risks they posed for himself politically. But after
the Monica Lewinsky crisis emerged at the beginning of 1998, executive authority was
increasingly usurped by a group of high officials calling themselves the principals’
committee, who carried out the bombing of Iraq (Operation Desert Fox) at the end of
1998, and who then turned to the bombing of Serbia in the spring of 1999. Not to be
outdone, the neoconservative faction of the oligarchy attempted at the same time to stir
up conflict with China, whose high rates of economic growth posed in their eyes the
threat of the emergence of a new and competing superpower. Conflict with Russia,
always latent, threatened at various junctures to erupt into more visible hostility.

The prevalent conception of Russia on the part of US foreign policy elites is that of a
strategic adversary. Russia has retained significant parts of the strategic missile forces
built during the Soviet era, and has supplemented them with new developments such as
the Topol missile. Because of Russia’s traditional strength in basic science, this country
may be ahead of the US in certain key areas of military technology, although Russian
engineering problems still hold this back. The Russian middle class has been bankrupted
twice, once in the 1300% hyperinflation of 1992-93, and a second time in the banking
panic associated with the Russian state default in August and September 1998. This fact
alone is very ominous. The last time the middle class of a great power was subjected to
two waves of bankruptcy was in Weimar Germany, when the middle class lost all its
savings and investments through the combination of the hyperinflation of 1923, followed
by the deflationary depression of 1929.

Under Yeltsin, Russia was the playground of a group of rapacious financiers who
arrogantly called themselves the oligarchs – these were figures like Berezvosky, Potanin,
Smolensky, Friedman, and Khodorkhovsky. Khodorkhovsky seized control over most of
the Siberian oil reserves, and appeared ready to sell them off to the Anglo-American oil
cartel. The beginning of the end for the oligarchs came with the resignation of Yeltsin
and the elevation of Putin to the Russian presidency on December 31, 1999. The KGB
officer Putin tended to repress the oligarchs in conformity with the usual Russian statist
model of political economy. Putin’s arrival was punctuated by bombings of apartment
houses in Moscow which were attributed to Moslem Chechen terrorists. This terror wave
helped to consolidate Putin’s power through the usual stampeding effect, but this may not
be the whole story. The entire Chechen insurrection has been sponsored by the US and
the British within the framework of what Brzezinski calls the “grand chessboard,” and its
leaders are reputed to be assets of the CIA. Perhaps the CIA and MI-6 had provided the
terror wave upon which Putin rode to power.

I'll check these things out with what time I do have on my hands (albeit that's not much, but every little bit helps & it's better than nothing). I totally respect what you (Bob) and others who think like you are trying to do in regards to digging deep for the truth. If it comes to pass that you & those of your ilk were correct all along, I'll heartily applaud. However, in this instance for myself, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence of real merit for me to subscribe to this theory of the collapse of WTC.

As for other conspiracies I do tend to believe:
I don't think it's that far-fetched to think that there could possibly have been a 2nd gunman assassinating Kennedy, though there have been at least a couple theories there that I disagree with. I totally believe Area 51 holds technology from other planets and intelligent alien species. There seems no way to me that this is not a hard fact. Most of the other things might not be what one would consider a conspiracy, but things that have actually happened that the gov't has tried to cover up or keep from being widely reported. One example would be this administration's desire to frighten people into voting for them (the best example of that would be the Terror Alert Color-Coding System- after the November elections, have you heard any updates as to which level of alert we are at?). Conventional conspiracy?...not so much, but still something the government doesn't seem to want us to pay too much attention to.

Ok, that pretty much sums it up. Cheers...

US AS WEIMAR GERMANY

One of the favorite theses of the neocons is that the United States today can be directly
compared to the Weimar Republic, that is to say, to Germany between 1919 and 1933.
Here the neocons are correct, although it must be added that one of the main factors
contributing to the similarity is the role of the neocons themselves. Weimar was
financially unstable, as seen in the hyperinflation of 1923 and the deflationary depression
of 1929. It was also politically unstable, with right-wing coup attempts (like the Kapp-
Luttwitz putsch of 1920 on the part of army officers and top bureaucrats, the Hitler-
Ludendorff Munich beer hall putsch of November 1923) alternating with attempts at
communist insurrection (the Bavarian Soviet republic and the German Communist
Party’s coup attempts). This kind of instability finds a precise analogue in the globalized
United States starting at the end of the 1990s. We have had at least one coup or coup
attempt per year, starting in 1998.

ONE COUP PER YEAR: USA, 1998-2004

1998 Impeachment coup against Clinton successful

1999 Conviction coup against Clinton failed due to mass support for
Clinton

1999 Principals’ committee coup; bombing of Serbia successful

2000 Bush stolen election coup successful

2001 9/11 terror coup successful

2002 War powers coup by Bush successful

2003 Iraq war coup by Bush successful

2004 Threatened 2nd wave terror coup; stolen election coup; war with
Iran, Sudan, Syria, Russia ?

On September 11, 1994, Frank Eugene Corder crashed his Cessna 150 L into the White
House lawn two floors below Clinton’s bedroom, killing himself in the process. Clinton
was not there. The dead pilot had spoken of his hatred for Clinton. These events marked
an attempt by the permanent Washington oligarchy – the Establishment – to break the
will of Clinton, a person for whom many of the Washington establishment felt a wholly
irrational but intense hatred. So the White House lawn was hit by a plane on September
11, 1994.

In the late summer of 1995, the Gingrich Republicans attempted permanently to weaken
the constitutional powers of the presidency by unilaterally dictating the federal budget.

This was an attempted coup by the GOP congressional leadership. They announced their
willingness to deny spending authority to the Treasury in such a way as to provoke the
default of the United States – an unprecedented event which would have meant national
bankruptcy and chaos. Clinton held firm as the government shut down, and the
population turned against Gingrich, permanently weakening him. The Republicans were
forced to back down, and the budget was enacted according to the relevant constitutional
norms.

During 1998, the impeachment of Bill Clinton was prepared and carried out by a
coalition of oligarchical reactionaries. The pre-history of this coup goes back to the
beginning of the Clinton presidency, when stories about sexual excesses in the White
House were circulated by disgruntled pro-Bush elements in the Secret Service. After 12
years of feeding at the public trough, the Bush faction and its allies experienced loss of
power as a kind of traumatic cold turkey, and their response was an aggressive rage
against Clinton, which fed on the relatively minor positive achievements of the new
president. The impeachment coup was promoted by the reactionary millionaire Richard
Mellon Scaife, and also by the Hollinger press empire of Conrad Black, with its flagship
London Daily Telegraph and its star reported Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, a man known to
be in contact with British intelligence. Another contributing group was the Barbara and
Ted Olson salon in northern Virginia, which was attended by such reactionary gurus as
Clarence Thomas, failed Supreme Court candidate Robert Bork, Lawrence Silberman of
the DC circuit court of appeals, Robert Bartley of the Wall Street Journal, and others.
The spearhead of impeachment in the House was Tom “the Hammer” Delay, a former
pest exterminator. (See Tarpley in Hidell)

The scandal escalated in January 1998 as a result of Linda Tripp’s illegal taping of her
conversations with the pathetic Monica Lewinsky. Tripp had been encouraged by
Lucienne Goldberg, a hardened Republican operative. Tripp was a GS-16 federal
bureaucrat with a background in Army Intelligence. During the Iran-contra era, Tripp had
served as personal secretary to General Richard Secord of the Army Delta Force; she had
also been involved in one of the front companies on Oliver North’s flow chart. When
Tripp revealed the Clinton-Lewinsky story to GOP zealot special prosecutor Ken Starr,
Starr redirected his probe from Whitewater to Monica, and the US presidency was
paralyzed for two years.

The impeachment propaganda of the Republicans resonated deeply within the military,
where the relatively new presence of female officers and enlisted personnel had led to a
series of sexual abuse and sexual harassment scandals. Most famous of these was the
1991Tailhook affair, involving an orgy in which naval aviators and female officers
participated, some under duress. Resentment grew over cases like that of Rear Admiral
Ralph L. Tindal, who was ousted in December 1995 for sex harassment and adultery.

Serving and retired military whose careers had been damaged or terminated by charges of
sexual misconduct became enraged against Clinton, for whom they thought a double
standard was being applied. Although such rage by itself might never add up to an
attempted coup, it could help set the stage for one. Widespread hatred for President
Kennedy in the CIA, its Cuban paramilitaries, and the US military after his failure to
escalate the Bay of Pigs crisis and the Cuban missile crisis certainly helped to weaken the
defenses of the presidency, and may have contributed something to the ease of
recruitment of key officers to the plot and the above all to the cover-up.

In December 1998, with Clinton facing immediate impeachment by the House of
Representatives, the principals’ committee effectuated a minor coup within the White
House bureaucracy. The visible expression of this was the bombing of Iraq just before
Christmas under the code name of Operation Desert Fox. At the beginning of 1999, the
attempted ouster of Clinton from the presidency was a coup that failed. Clinton’s survival
was the result of his continued strong public support, expressed in part as unusual offyear
gains for Democratic congressional candidates. Pro-impeachment oligarchs
registered foaming rage and resentment not just against Clinton, but against the US
population as a whole, which they claimed had not paid enough attention to the moral
rectitude of the impeachers. Paul Weyrich of the Mellon-Scaife funded Free Congress
Foundation talked of withdrawing from political affairs altogether, without making clear
what the alternative field of endeavor might be. This incident tended to heighten the
bureaucratic-authoritarian and totalitarian tendencies inside the reactionary wing of the
US oligarchy, since it was evident that the population was not convinced by arguments
which seemed self-evident to them. One may say that through these events the oligarchy
was being educated in the need for a fascist transformation of some sort. Furthermore,
there are unsubstantiated rumors that around this time US military circles, especially in
the Navy, considered plans for a coup d’etat with the goal of ousting Clinton and
replacing him with Ross Perot. These plans were reportedly abandoned when the other
services declined to go along.

Nevertheless, a successful coup d’etat did take place in 1999. It involved the seizure of
power by an organism known as the principals’ committee, which was composed at that
time of Vice President Gore and his dubious national security adviser Leon Fuerth,
Defense Secretary William Cohen, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, National
Security Council director Samuel Berger, and Gen. Hugh Shelton, the chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. George Tenet of the CIA was sometimes present, and the
bureaucratic eminence grise of the committee was terror czar Richard Clarke, the star of
the Kean-Hamilton commission in 2004. The pretext for ascendancy of the principals’
committee was the fighting in the former Yugoslavia, which had begin in June 1990,
when Yugoslavia had started to break up. After massacres of Moslems by Serbs at
Srebrenica in July 1995, the US and NATO undertook a bombing campaign against the
Bosnian Serb positions around besieged Sarajevo. These air strikes lasted from August 28
to September 13, 1995, with about 3400 missions flown. These air strikes had the merit
of putting an end to the Yugoslav civil war, which had claimed the lives of 250,000 dead,
and had seen numerous war crimes by Bosnian Serb leaders Karadjic and Mladic, and by
others. Ex-Yugoslavia was finally pacified when all parties signed the Dayton accords on
November 21, 1995 at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. US and other NATO
peacekeepers entered Bosnia in December. Then, in 1997, Albania, which neighbors
Serbia and the province of Kosovo, which has an ethnic Albanian and Moslem majority,
collapsed as a result of an orgy of financial speculation and Ponzi schemes. Weapons
which had been the property of the Albanian government were pilfered, and found their
way into the province of Kosovo, where they were used to arm the emerging Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA), a US-backed organization which relied on drug running for
much of its financing. Clashes between the KLA and the Serbian military and police
started in February-March 1998, and were soon seized upon by Madeleine Albright as a
means of making an example of Serbia and of intimidating the world community in
general, and in particular Russia, the traditional Orthodox backer of the Serbs. Fighting in
Kosovo intensified during the summer of 1998. Responding to the threat of NATO air
strikes, the Yugoslav leader Milosevic pulled most Serb units out of Kosovo.
But in the spring of 1999 the fighting flared up again. Now a crisis summit was convened
at Rambouillet, near Paris. Here the KLA half-accepted the solution demanded by
Albright, while the Serbs rejected it outright, since it included a clause giving US and
NATO forces the right to go anywhere and everywhere in Serbia, while seizing buildings
and commandeering supplies. The Serbian national identity was based on a fierce
commitment to independence, which had been expressed as guerrilla warfare against the
Nazis, and then in successfully facing down Stalin at the height of his power. In response
to the predictable Serb refusal, Albright became hysterical, feeling her entire
secretaryship was in danger of collapse. She then sent Richard Holbrooke to Belgrade to
give Milosevic an ultimatum: capitulate or face NATO bombing. Milosevic, realizing
that giving up Kosovo and letting NATO forces into his country would mean his own
political doom, rejected the US ultimatum. At this point Russian Prime Minister Yevgeni
Primakov was en route to Washington, seeking to help mediate a negotiated solution for
the crisis. There is good reason to believe that serious talks between the US and Primakov
would have allowed a peaceful solution, since it was a Russian mediation that finally did
bring a cessation of the bombing. But with Primakov over the Atlantic, Vice President Al
Gore, acting on behalf of the principals’ committee, insisted on giving the order to start
the bombing. Seeing an affront, Primakov turned back and returned to Moscow. Now
began 78 days of merciless bombing of Serbia, directed by General Wesley Clark, the
NATO commander. Serbian civilian dead were estimated at 10,000 or more – at least
three times the death toll of 9/11, all imposed as part of a proxy war designed to humiliate
Russia and break the will of small countries who might want to resist the Anglo-
American universal bullies.

Okay, can't keep my pipe down here.

Are you actually saying that you think the likelihood of alien visitation and technological development from alien knowledge is more likely than government involvement in 9/11?

I hope you know by now that I'm all ears so would you mind showing or explaining to me some kind of evidence or at least a reasonable argument why this is the case?

(Bob, I realise you are not saying it is more likely but where are you pulling this probablity from?)

I am inclined to pull my silly horse shit filter out on that one. But am willing to be proven incorrect.

Earwicker wrote:Okay, can't keep my pipe down here.

Are you actually saying that you think the likelihood of alien visitation and technological development from alien knowledge is more likely than government involvement in 9/11?

I hope you know by now that I'm all ears so would you mind showing or explaining to me some kind of evidence or at least a reasonable argument why this is the case?

(Bob, I realise you are not saying it is more likely but where are you pulling this probablity from?)

I am inclined to pull my silly horse shit filter out on that one. But am willing to be proven incorrect.

Not necessarily more likely than 9/11 being an inside job (which of course it was) but check this out anyway.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XHUvIXtnB7g&search=Disclosure%20Project


Also http://www.disclosureproject.org/

APRIL 9, 1999: YELTSIN WARNS OF WORLD WAR

The bombing of Kosovo was a giant step towards the international anarchy that
manifested itself during the Iraq war of 2003. Russia and China were opposed to the
bombing, but their peace plan was vetoed by the US, Britain, and France. However,
NATO bombed without the benefit of a UN security council resolution. US-Russian
relations reached a post-1991 low, with militant demonstrations at the US embassy in
Moscow every day. The bombing of Kosovo duplicated the cowardly “bomb now, die
later” method pioneered in the first Iraq war of 1991, with civilian power stations, water
systems, and sewage treatment plants all being targeted. The bridges over the Danube
were destroyed, an act of despicable vandalism which paralyzed Europe’s most important
waterway.

As the bombing went on week after week without any Serb capitulation, NATO leaders
were seized by the hysterical fear that if NATO’s first war were to end in a draw, the now
wholly artificial alliance would begin to collapse. The US needed NATO as a tool for out
of area deployments, meaning attacks on developing countries. Tony Blair began
proposing an invasion of Serbia with land forces, an option which Clinton had explicitly
ruled out. Joining Blair in this insane proposal was General Wesley Clark. On April 9,
1999 Russian President Yeltsin predicted that an invasion of Serbia by land forces would
lead to “European war for sure, and possibly a world war.” Russian General Seleznyov
reminded NATO that Russian nuclear missiles were still pointed towards the western
powers. This was the first serious mention of world war by a major international figure
during the 1990s. Not caring about Yeltsin’s warnings, Blair attempted to use his visit to
Washington for the NATO 50th anniversary on April 23 to convince Clinton to start the
ground invasion, but he was rebuffed.

NATO tried to justify its bombing by citing the large numbers of Albanian refugees
leaving Kosovo. There were also wild reports of Serb massacres of ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo. Many of these exaggerations were conduited from US State Department
spokesman Jamie Rubin to his wife, the meretricious CNN correspondent Christiana
Amanpour. The US claimed that 100,000 Albanians had been massacred and placed in
mass graves; postwar investigation showed that there were perhaps 3,000 – a tragedy, but
consistent with a guerrilla war of the type started by the KLA. The motivation for the
bombing was therefore a big lie, manufactured by the US government and its media
minions. (www.antiwar.com/justin/j082100.html)

How far was the aggressive clique within NATO prepared to go? According to Louis
Sell, Milosevic was bludgeoned into capitulation by a threat by Finnish NATO
spokesman Ahtisaari, who told the Serbs that “if he refused the deal, NATO was prepared
to attack a much broader range of targets – including the remaining bridges across the
Danube, the power and heating systems, and the telephone network.” (Sell 311) This was
a program of genocidal bombing with devastating delayed-action demographic impact –
the “bomb now, die later” method employed in Iraq.