Who stands behind the terrorists of September 11?

[drg]

Can the terrorism be used for covering up?
Read an article about:


Who stands behind the terrorists of September 11?
Want to see the truth - look at the root first. We saw things that they wanted to show us for their purpose. What is hidden?

http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/bill_gates.html

[trc3]

Hey I hate microsoft and billy gates as much as the next guy but I think that is a little farfetched.

[Bazoukas]

calm down.

  Thats just way off the wall.

 There is a difference between calling someone a prick and a dick, and another thing calling him a mass murderer.

 Lets dont get stupid here now ok?

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: bazoukas ]

[kent]

Listen to a true story:

Once upon a time a big ocean liner came to an unknown small Island in the ocean. The natives of the island never in their life saw anything bigger than a small boat they made. And when the big ocean liner came to the coast - nobody saw it.  Their eyes just refused to see something that could not fit in their imagination. Their mind did not believe their own eyes and denied to accept images of the huge ship!

The same is with you, guys. You were told here/there many times that Bill Gates is evil ... . The problem is you think you never saw a real evil and when they say - here it is - you just can't believe that the well-known bad guy is the real evil. The reality is just bigger than the range your imagination. You are even looking for facts to cover up the Big Bad Wolf in sheep's clothing but there are no facts there to cover up

[Calum]

em, what's your point? are you saying that bill gates is or isn't the antichrist?

bill gates is just a lucky, ruthless, selfish business person of the type that the USA officially prides itself on churning out.

He is the epitome of the bootboy/president ideal.

On the other hand using somebody as a scapegoat just because they are high profile and you don't like them (added to whether they are currently well liked by the media) is pretty two dimensional.

by the way, how is that a true story? where did that happen? i noticed it was actually devoid of any facts, can you fill me in please?

[voidmain]

Why is it that everything has to turn into a slam on the USA? It's really starting to get under my skin. I am from the USA. I am proud to be from the USA. I have lived and spent much time in many other countries although I was born and raised in the USA.

I do not look down upon anyone from any other country. I do not criticize anyone for being from another country. I certainly am not proud of Bill Gates or Microsoft, in fact I am totally against them. But, Microsoft is not the USA, they just happen to reside in the USA. They could have just as easily been from the UK, or Germany, or Canada, or ...

Now, could we keep the anti USA remarks out of this anti M$ site so we can band together in the common goal of eradicating Microsoft? There are plenty of other sites for political discussion...

Now I don't mean to piss anyone off and I thank you for your consideration.

[Calum]

voidmain you must have a guilty conscience or something. and i do not say this in any way to piss you off. I did not make any anti USA remarks. The USA has always stood for the whole bootboy becomes president thing. The states are built on that sense of altruistic capitalism, and after hundreds of years that type of society happens to breed people like bill gates. it is a sociological observation and in no way a slam on the states. At least that was not in any way the way i intended it.

[voidmain]

Well, I certainly don't want to sound like a whiner but when I read that stuff I see it as a slam, since many people are into slamming the USA lately.  I am sorry if I read it wrong. And I'll stop whining, but I would prefer to not see Bill Gates/Microsoft, and the USA in the same sentence.  M$ does not discriminate based on nationality when they suck people dry.

[Bazoukas]

I would also like to know about the Date, Place, people, involved in your "true story".

  As a prior cognitive psychology major I will argue that your "true story" is flawed.

  Visual Supresion (you might call it) doesnt work that way. No doubt shock is a factor in your "true story", but there is a mechanism called rationalization, which doesnt work against us all the time.

  And by the way, that Web site is way out there.
 I have no doubt that each goverment has its own dirty little secrets, but that web site is 9 warps ahead of Star Treak.

  And saying that the US planed that attack is just plain stupid. Bill Gates was behind this attack, to protect his company (if i read it right). OOOOoooooooooook!!!


  And as VoidMan said, enough with the AntiAmericanism. Most isms out there are for morons.  I will agree with Calum when he says that America has the "bootboy becomes president thing" but this whole nation has produced so many socialogical/technological wonders because of that.Its no wonder why all around the world when it comes into describing an American they all say "Those crazy Americans".
 
  I dont think Calum though was making bad remarks about the USA in general. I think what he ment to say is that because of this bootboy attitude morons sometimes get lucky.

  And am not saying USA is the start and end of all Civilizations. But generalizing is so easy for people and people are lazy by nature.
   Bill Gates just got fuking lucky and on top of that he is smart enough to take advantage of his luck.    

  And if you brake it down ideologicaly, according to the American Ideals, Bill Gates is like Stalin.

  Each country can be the content of bad jokes and bad remarks, but as I said again in another post, there is so much good going around the world but WE dont wanna see it. Its how we wired ourselves through the eons.
 And no am not a treehuger. Infact After I graduate I am seriously thinking of going in the US-Military.

 Anyway that was my 2 worthless cents.

  Lets all hug now  am buying Ouzo.  

[kent]

It is not against Americans - it is against the man who drives them down.

Look at a version of the industry development without Bill Gates (from the beginning):

Bill Gates didn't create DOS. There was a better alternative to DOS but it was not ready to the prime time. So, without Bill Gates IBM would take DOS or a better version but it would happen a bit later than Bill Gates stole DOS. Then IBM would go to antitrust, and Dell, Gateway and others would develop much better than now. If Apple for a long period of time had 100% opportunities be a super-monopoly during Bill Gates existence but he did not use its chances - what the difference is there Bill Gates or not? Apple won't be a super-monopoly anyway. What we missed?

Thus, Microsoft has engaged super-monopolistic practices that grew into its super-monopoly. Building of super-monopoly only on the first stage looks as healthy competition but the reality it is always the same from the first stage - it is building a super-monopoly. Please, do not use wrong words to describe it. (or you can explain why IBM, AT&T etc. were broken by antitrust law, and only Microsoft is going to get only a minor slap?)

Can you tell me what Bill Gates invented for his entire carrier? Excellent money-draining business gang? Or DOJ/public cheating machine?

There is conspiracy (by facts). There are reasons to say that huge companies involved ...

For instance, terrorists "hated" the U.S. so much that they chose to spread Anthrax, which could contaminate nobody (!) except a person who came in direct contact with it. But Anthrax (it was made in the U.S.) caused production of an enormous amount of Cipro (antibiotics). Did Bill Gates invest money in the pharmaceutical industry? (Please, do your own research if you truly wish to know the truth and want to help

[Calum]

well if i remember right the only fully functional operating system seriously on the go at the time IBM/Gates did their deal would have been UNIX and its variants. am i right? realistically i think there must have been some more systems kicking about out there but they would have been hobbyist affairs, much like DOS was until Gates marketted it to IBM aggressively.

Now correct me if i am wrong, but AT&T were not allowed legally to sell UNIX? something like that anyway, i know that's not totally right because a lot of universities et c bought licences (open source, but strictly non-disclosure). At that time there was no free software foundation, GNU didn't exist, The Berkeley people had not finished their UNIX-alike operating system and were still using utilities and apps of their own devising on a central UNIX OS, am i right so far? i am not too up on my history so somebody please correct or append if you can.

So the reason Bill Gates did his deal with IBM was first dumb luck, but mostly aggressive marketting. contrary to popular belief being in the right place at the right time is not entirely about luck. Gates was in the right place at the right time because he is a mercenary entrepreneur. He sold licences to an operating system he had not even bought yet to IBM, and got away with it, purely because all the other people who had an operating system to call their own were either too laid back to try and sell to IBM, or uninterested in the moneymaking side of things, interested more in actually developing the technology.
Gates proves his colours a few years later when he screws IBM over when it suited him, pulling out of OS/2 and leaving IBM high and dry. He did the same to Apple . Gates is a businessman, he saw a market and aggressively elbowed his way in there. In the US the hard facts should lead people to admire his determination. And i do not say that to slight the US, just saying Gates is from the states so ther eyou go. The conservative party here think in much the same way in some respects, the liberal government that got such a majority in australia is not entirely dissimilar (smooth veneer on top when it's going okay, dirty tricks and lies as soon as the going gets tough).

Also, void main i know how you feel about Gates being associated with the US, we all have our cross to bear. For my part i can't stand it when Scotland is mentioned in the same sentence as "Great" Britain...

[drg]

Well, Bill Gates was too stupid to finalize DOS as it should be; therefore, he spoiled it and implemented it everywhere he could. Since that time Bill Gates spoiled everything he legally or illegally acquired/touched. The man who leads the industry has no brains of his own!  (Yes, he is a good mercenary entrepreneur but not a professional). When MS DOS met competition that was better than MS DOS, what did Bill Gates do?  Yes, played dirty games that they did not expect. They were too decent to compete with the young evil. If a neophyte in computers and programming such as Bill Gates, who did not even finish college was able to invent spoiled DOS - any average professional would do it much better without spoiling it. Because of Bill Gates

[Calum]

good post, drg, now:
 

quote:Originally posted by drg:
Well, Bill Gates was too stupid to finalize DOS as it should be; therefore, he spoiled it and implemented it everywhere he could. Since that time Bill Gates spoiled everything he legally or illegally acquired/touched. The man who leads the industry has no brains of his own!  (Yes, he is a good mercenary entrepreneur but not a professional). When MS DOS met competition that was better than MS DOS, what did Bill Gates do?  Yes, played dirty games that they did not expect. They were too decent to compete with the young evil.

Bill Gates is a much better entrepreneur than you think in that case. If he had perfected DOS, would there be any reason for people to keep buying his product? At the time it was considered much more normal and acceptable to copy software and there were a lot less checks and balances to stop people doing it too.
Ever heard of planned obsolescence? well Microsoft's software is programmed obsolescence.

 

quote:If a neophyte in computers and programming such as Bill Gates, who did not even finish college was able to invent spoiled DOS - any average professional would do it much better without spoiling it.

This is my point. Richard Stallman, take him for instance. He set up the free software foundation not long after bill gates set up Microsoft. Which of them is more successful? which of them is more respected? which is more well known? Even many *nix users think of RMS with disdain. He is a good programmer but did not have the nasty ruthlessnes and sense of timing that Gates has.
 

quote:Because of Bill Gates’s incompetence in computers – not only does the industry have huge losses, but the whole country.  Every year the losses are $11 billions (they are growing), because poorly designed Windows are everywhere (extra security, protection, …    .

Not true. Through windows, Microsoft is deliberately increasing the bloatware so new hardware needs to be bought (the old being too slow or not having enough memory to run the latest version), having such a shitty system that many third party security 'suites' need to be bought, and now they are coding hardware and software together, to make people buy new software for each piece of hardware and vice versa. All this gives the economy a HUGE boost. How many companies would not exist now if not for the 'incompetence' of Bill Gates? If not for planned obsolescence and the need to make systems do something that they cannot do out of the box, the IT economy would have collapsed under its own growth a long time ago.
 

quote:Does the government know about it? If I know - they must know too. Therefore, there are two logical conclusions - either the government is too stupid, or they are under Bill Gates’ power. Thus, politics of the U.S. are defined by … (whom?).

Politics in any country are defined by who's got the most money. Pure and simple.

 

quote:Maybe I am not completely right but if we will miss the danger – G.W. Bush can easily enter the country into WW III because the domestic corporation(s) could stay above him. (Is everything under control and there is nothing to worry about?) The majority people missed Hitler in 1939 before WW II. We can repeat the same mistake again – we would have miss Hitler II again.
You may read “How IBM helped the Nazis” to get an idea about what is going on nowadays. (What do you think – the moral of “money bags” became better now or are they foxier?)

You jump to many conclusions. IBM were under contract to the nazis. they got the choice whether to tender for this contract or not, am i right? and they decided, ethics aside, they would go for it. It was a different world back then. No UN, No NATO. The British army still officially used germ and chemical warfare against enemies. Analogue telegraph was the height of communications. A different world...

Microsoft are, as far as i know, being offered no tender from, for instance Iraq. He could write a program to help them develop nuclear weaponry! that would set Iraq back at least 20 years...
I don't think, in this day of enhanced communication, that Gates would in any way take part in international politics in case it came out in the wash, regardless of his actual ethics (such as they are).

[ September 24, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[pkd_lives]

Hmmmm...

I have to ask what The agenda is of few of these newer posters. There is a start with suggestions that Bill Gates is somehow responsable for 9/11. Please don't insult my intelligence. I do not for one second believe this, there is not 'evidence' to back it up, and most of the statements are heresay, inconclusive and in some cases outright defamatory. IF such a thing were true then you would need hard evidence to convince this board. We are smart people, not the sort to jump around believing any statement that puts those we hate in a bad light.

M$ is a monopoly, not a 'super-monopoly', they have abused their power with browsers and on the desktop. They have no server monopoly.

Bill Gates and Microsoft have been to court many times. The company has been convicted of piracy. It has given large sums of money, product and services to the Peruvian goverment, and Norway (I think), in exchange for certain benefits. I would call this Bribery but it is NOT bribery by legal definition. I feel that with all the court cases they have lost there is evidence to support that they do business in an underhanded way that warrants investigation.

Now big business in general has a large effect on the world, and yes it influences politics, but a war would not Benefit M$ in anyway. It would instead boost their competition. That M$ strongly lobby various Senators, Govenors, Ministers, etc. is not a point that will be argued, and yes they do it to get their point of view put before the voting electorate of the govening body. This is big business practice. I consider it wrong and immoral but it is not illegal. And yes by using persuasion of those in power they can get laws past that are maybe more favourable to them.

And with regard the anti USA statements. I know most of you out there are not racisit fascist types, you are using generalisations that you may not realise are wrong. Many of you may be suprised to know that many many Americans DO NOT consider the money grabbing success story to be good representation of the country. In fact more Americans are chilled out relaxed, intelligent and very very welcoming and considerate of other people, than foreign media sterotypes would have you believe. It's the same as Soctland and Kilts (or GB), dutch and EDAM and Windmills, Greeks and Philosophy and ouzo, etc. Sterotypes and generalisations are wrong. I am afraid I stick with Void Main on this. It does SOMETIMES feel that these statements are critical of the US instead of the protagonist under debate. Now critising the US under circumstances that are applicable, i.e passing stupid laws that will further Palladium - well now that's part of the reason we are all here.

[Calum]

quote:And with regard the anti USA statements. I know most of you out there are not racisit fascist types, you are using generalisations that you may not realise are wrong. Many of you may be suprised to know that many many Americans DO NOT consider the money grabbing success story to be good representation of the country. In fact more Americans are chilled out relaxed, intelligent and very very welcoming and considerate of other people, than foreign media sterotypes would have you believe. It's the same as Soctland and Kilts (or GB), dutch and EDAM and Windmills, Greeks and Philosophy and ouzo, etc. Sterotypes and generalisations are wrong. I am afraid I stick with Void Main on this. It does SOMETIMES feel that these statements are critical of the US instead of the protagonist under debate. Now critising the US under circumstances that are applicable, i.e passing stupid laws that will further Palladium - well now that's part of the reason we are all here.

i am very glad to hear you say this and i agree thoroughly. i will however stand by my previous statements, because there is a big difference between a stereotype and the basis for a society. Capitalism is an ideal. The 'American dream' is an ideal, that many Americans live for. How many other countries make their four year old kids worship the countries flag every day?

Anyway, the point is that i think the US would officially stand up and say that the American dream is an ideal that America still stands for to this day. That is not a stereotype, and whether or not a large amount of Americans choose to be the sort of people that don't revere this idea, this is still the official line of their country. If they want people to change their attitude about Americans, they must take an active hand in their own affairs and, for instance, vote in a government that will not say hasty things about the American dream if that's not what they really believe in. In much the same way, anything i have to say about England's dominance over Scotland is sour grapes until the Scots actually work up some gumption and use their votes for a change to become a European country in their own right.