Chavez: U.S. used Haiti to test evironmental weapon

[alvin]

Now please excuse me...it's Saturday nite and there is a city full of women waiting to the pants while I my "point" home until the wee hours of the morning...

while peepz like bomb cola and PWW go at it alone to stew over the information and I'll leave them be as they tongue each others 'nads...

[the crackhouse]

the defense presented:

Exhibit A.) News report stating that Chavez said the U.S. used Haiti to test an "environmental" weapon...

Chavez said it. Did he have any proof for this accusation?
I can say you are a women and that you like to play golf. Do I have any proof for this assertion?

And, most important thing: do you have to contradict me with proofs when I didn't even built anything around my assertion?

So, Chavez can say anything he wants, it doesn't make him a truth dispenser.

Exhibit A: Needs basic proofs.

Exhibit B.) Documents confirming the fact that the international body crafted laws against the use of the "evironment" as a "weapon" by way of "earthquakes & tsunamis"...

These Laws were written in the 70's. Why, we may ask? Maybe because the ICRC's functions are also to protect the environment during armed conflicts.

By 1948, the Red Cross has been one of the greatest actors of disarmament, since Hiroshima was enough and preventing worse escalating conflicts.

Using warfare to poison the ground, set a place to high radiations, split chemical weapons all over, more than creating Quakes and gigantic maelstroms.

BUT WAIT! The USA never signed nor ratified the ENMOD convention, neither did the old USSR. Should we blame Vietnam for that?

so... Exhibit 2: Unrelated proofs.

Exhibit C.) testimony from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson discussing the need to fund "weather modification" research....

Seismology is the scientific study of Earthquakes.
Meteorology is the scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes.

Earth is the ground, Weather cannot process in the ground.

So... Exhibit 3: Absolutly Ynnnakurhate assertion.

there's not anything for me to talk about...the documentation that I presented speaks for itself...

The defense of Senor Chavez should now reviews her sources and try to build on solid ground.

Idance

[JJ11]

go here - http://www.deephousepage.com/forums/...d.php?t=210117

[alvin]

go here - http://www.deephousepage.com/forums/...d.php?t=210117

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-recovery.html

The Jan. 12 earthquake was on a fault line that passes near potential gas reserves, said Stephen Pierce, a geologist who worked in the region for 30 years for companies including the former Mobil Corp. The quake may have cracked rock formations along the fault, allowing gas or oil to temporarily seep toward the surface, he said yesterday in a telephone interview.

[alvin]

Chavez said it. Did he have any proof for this accusation?
I can say you are a women and that you like to play golf. Do I have any proof for this assertion?

And, most important thing: do you have to contradict me with proofs when I didn't even built anything around my assertion?

So, Chavez can say anything he wants, it doesn't make him a truth dispenser.

Exhibit A: Needs basic proofs.

Chavez simply stated(or was alleged to state) that the U.S. used "environmental" weapons on Haiti.

Has it been 100% confirmed that the U.S. did actually use this technology? NO.

But from the information I presented, the international body is concerned about this...

These Laws were written in the 70's. Why, we may ask? Maybe because the ICRC's functions are also to protect the environment during armed conflicts.

By 1948, the Red Cross has been one of the greatest actors of disarmament, since Hiroshima was enough and preventing worse escalating conflicts.

Using warfare to poison the ground, set a place to high radiations, split chemical weapons all over, more than creating Quakes and gigantic maelstroms.

BUT WAIT! The USA never signed nor ratified the ENMOD convention, neither did the old USSR. Should we blame Vietnam for that?

so... Exhibit 2: Unrelated proofs.

UNRELATED PROOFS...... the text of the law makes ABSOLUTELY NO MENTION of "radiation" or "chemical" weapons...but ENMOD does EXPLICITLY mention EARTHQUAKES and TSUNAMIS...

Seismology is the scientific study of Earthquakes.
Meteorology is the scientific study of the atmosphere that focuses on weather processes.

Earth is the ground, Weather cannot process in the ground.

So... Exhibit 3: Absolutly Ynnnakurhate assertion.

...DUDE...are you serious....??? I direct you to ARTICLE II of the ICRC document

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/FULL/460?OpenDocument

ARTICLE II

As used in article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its
biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

BIOTA
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/biota

the animal or plant life of a particular region.

LITHOSPHERE
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Lithosphere

the solid part of a celestial body (as the earth); specifically : the outer part of the solid earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface, consisting of the crust and outermost layer of the mantle, and usually considered to be about 60 miles (100 kilometers) in thickness

HYDROSPHERE
http://www.natsource.com/markets/index.asp?s=104

The part of the Earth composed of water including clouds, oceans, seas, ice caps, glaciers, lakes, rivers, underground water supplies, and atmospheric water vapor

............

The defense of Senor Chavez should now reviews her sources and try to build on solid ground.

Idance

[alvin]

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-recovery.html

Haitian Prime Minister Jean-Max Bellerive met yesterday in Montreal with diplomats, including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to discuss redevelopment initiatives. Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon said wind power may play a role in rebuilding the Caribbean nation, where forests have been denuded for lack of fuel, the Canadian Press reported.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/238365

But Laskowski's optimism belies a minefield of potential problems awaiting his Vancouver-based company, Eurasian Minerals. (http://www.eurasianminerals.com/s/Haiti.asp)Although Canadian mining companies weather stormy political climates around the world, they have largely stayed clear of crisis-torn Haiti.

In late May, Eurasian Minerals announced the gold content found in several trenches cut into the hillsides here, driving its stock price up 40 per cent on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Laskowski says the company hopes to find billions of dollars worth of gold in the hills above La Miel, which is just a few kilometres from the border with the Dominican Republic.

Another Canadian-backed company recently resumed prospecting in Haiti after abandoning its claims a decade ago. Steve Lachapelle – a Quebec lawyer who is now chair of the board of the company, called St. Genevieve Haiti – says employees were threatened at gunpoint by partisans of ex-president Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

[alvin]

Haiti: Bonanza for Foreign Mining Companies
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=17165

[the crackhouse]

Alvin, you claim to be able to read between the lines, but instead you sometimes read outside the lines.

Ex. A:
Why should the international body react to this kind of diffamations?
Learn some diplomacy basics and be enlightned.

Ex. B: The US DIDN'T SIGN the ENMOD convention, so why bother? Unrelated!
A convention applies to the countries which signed and ratified it. (See International Convention about adoption for a good example of what applies to who, what has been signed and ratified by who.)

Ex. C: Don't try to confuse us. You quoted Hutchinson, who wants to change the weather. The WEATHER. Not the ground.
Weather is not composed of "underground water supplies", and Hutchinson is no part of the Red Cross.
Inacurate!

Try to dig deeper for your underground weather, it should be deeper than some "WTF dude"...

Idance

[the crackhouse]

You know Alvin, the links you do between your various sources are distorted. DOn't try to fool us.

You are jumping from a Senator's testimony for research upon " weather modification" to:
- The Red Cross convention of 1976 about disarmament and warfare "techniques".

But, your point is already lost cause:
A - You hang on as if "Weather cannot process in the ground" is a wrong assertion,
B - You quote the ICRC text about "litoshpere", when weather processes in the "atmosphere.

But you continue and tell us what is "litosphere".

While complaining about a Chavez who told:
A - Without any proof,
B - With this information being contradicted by Prince Hifi in post 3

that the US have been forming a Quake thanks to some war technology which:
A - Has never been witenessed by anyone,
B - Has nothing to do with weather modification (should be seismic).

And you jump on the idea that such "unknown technology" exists cause China can change the weather:
A - Which processes in the atmosphere,
B - and China is not some US state.

So, with all these proofs and facts of your distorted and out-of-focus logic, you want the international body to react to Chavez and act upon the USA which:
A - Never signified therefore never ratified the Convention you choose as an example,(so why would they give a flying fuck about it?)
B - Has better topics to offer to his diplomats, like working on the Haitian disaster.

I hope I didn't Powelled that shit too much, but that's how you always do.

So get your proofs from solid grounds, please.

Idance

[the crackhouse]

go here - http://www.deephousepage.com/forums/...d.php?t=210117

Which stupid nation will try to pump oil from a well known seismic area?

And how went, after 50 years alone of hell in Haiti, that they never tried to capture the promised land?

Oh. Maybe because it's because it's a good example of "how niggers can mess up a place"? like said our 204 posts's friend Rhodey.

Idance

[alvin]

Alvin, you claim to be able to read between the lines, but instead you sometimes read outside the lines.

Ex. A:
Why should the international body react to this kind of diffamations?
Learn some diplomacy basics and be enlightned.

and you need to stop attempting to add language to a body of law that never was included in the first place...

Ex. B: The US DIDN'T SIGN the ENMOD convention, so why bother? Unrelated!
A convention applies to the countries which signed and ratified it. (See International Convention about adoption for a good example of what applies to who, what has been signed and ratified by who.)

Which is possibly why Chavez is accusing the U.S. of using "evironmental" weapons...DUH!!!

And when has the U.S. been overly concerned with "law" and treaties???

Ex. C: Don't try to confuse us. You quoted Hutchinson, who wants to change the weather. The WEATHER. Not the ground.
Weather is not composed of "underground water supplies", and Hutchinson is no part of the Red Cross.
Inacurate!

Try to dig deeper for your underground weather, it should be deeper than some "WTF dude"...

Idance

Don't try to confuse you??

You are the one attempting to inject words such as "nuclear" and "chemical" into this document when the document SPECIFICALLY mentions EVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES that can be used to DELIBERATELY MANIPULATE THE EARTH Vis-à-vis THE OUTER PART OF THE SOLID EARTH COMPOSED OF ROCK



If you are confused on something that is clearly written in plain English that even a child can understand...its obvious that you should go back to primary school...

If you are denying what is in plain sight, how can you honestly claim that I have the power to confuse...???

and of course Hutchinson is talking about "weather modification"...but I don't believe she or anyone else at that hearing bothered to disclose the full text of whatever the actual resolution included...Hutchinson(along with the rest of Congress) are basically TALKING HEADS and the details of Senate hearings go above the head of the general populace...Hutchinson and crew are discussing the CLIFFS NOTES or condesed, outlined version of things...

[the crackhouse]

and you need to stop attempting to add language to a body of law that never was included in the first place...





Which is possibly why Chavez is accusing the U.S. of using "evironmental" weapons...DUH!!!

And when has the U.S. been overly concerned with "law" and treaties???



Don't try to confuse you??

You are the one attempting to inject words such as "nuclear" and "chemical" into this document when the document SPECIFICALLY mentions EVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES that can be used to DELIBERATELY MANIPULATE THE EARTH Vis-à-vis THE OUTER PART OF THE SOLID EARTH COMPOSED OF ROCK



If you are confused on something that is clearly written in plain English that even a child can understand...its obvious that you should go back to primary school...

If you are denying what is in plain sight, how can you honestly claim that I have the power to confuse...???

and of course Hutchinson is talking about "weather modification"...but I don't believe she or anyone else at that hearing bothered to disclose the full text of whatever the actual resolution included...Hutchinson(along with the rest of Congress) are basically TALKING HEADS and the details of Senate hearings go above the head of the general populace...Hutchinson and crew are discussing the CLIFFS NOTES or condesed, outlined version of things...

Just re-read my post and you'll see that I was speaking of 1948. Maths also beggin at primary school.
So don't try again to spill some fog screens.

You are the one who is trying to inject "Litosphere" when "Atmosphere" is needed. You just fell in your own trap, truth hunter!

Even if I was wrong on this part (and I'm not cause you're trying to confuse us again), you didn't bother to elaborate over my other points.

Quant à mon anglais, que je travaille en effet depuis la primaire, je veux bien avouer qu'il n'est pas le meilleur sur ces forums, mais suffisant pour traquer tes manques délibérés de justesse dans le traitement de tes développements.

Au boulot si tu n'as jamais fait de français, tu aurais dû commencer en primaire. C'était encore une tentative bien en-dessous de la ceinture.

Idance

[the crackhouse]

You are the one attempting to inject words such as "nuclear" and "chemical" into this document when the document SPECIFICALLY mentions EVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES that can be used to DELIBERATELY MANIPULATE THE EARTH Vis-à-vis THE OUTER PART OF THE SOLID EARTH COMPOSED OF ROCK

An undergound nuke should manipulate the earth, rocking it badly, don't you think?

Or maybe the US used magic?

Idance

[alvin]

You know Alvin, the links you do between your various sources are distorted. DOn't try to fool us.

So I'm "distorting" language that is in plain English...

ARTICLE X

This Convention, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall send duly certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States.

and was translated into other languages as to there not being any doubt...

You are jumping from a Senator's testimony for research upon " weather modification" to:
- The Red Cross convention of 1976 about disarmament and warfare "techniques".

But, your point is already lost cause:
A - You hang on as if "Weather cannot process in the ground" is a wrong assertion,
B - You quote the ICRC text about "litoshpere", when weather processes in the "atmosphere.


But you continue and tell us what is "litosphere".

While complaining about a Chavez who told:
A - Without any proof,
B - With this information being contradicted by Prince Hifi in post 3

that the US have been forming a Quake thanks to some war technology which:
A - Has never been witenessed by anyone,
B - Has nothing to do with weather modification (should be seismic).

And you jump on the idea that such "unknown technology" exists cause China can change the weather:
A - Which processes in the atmosphere,
B - and China is not some US state.

So, with all these proofs and facts of your distorted and out-of-focus logic, you want the international body to react to Chavez and act upon the USA which:
A - Never signified therefore never ratified the Convention you choose as an example,(so why would they give a flying fuck about it?)
B - Has better topics to offer to his diplomats, like working on the Haitian disaster.

I hope I didn't Powelled that shit too much, but that's how you always do.

So get your proofs from solid grounds, please.

Idance

Dude...the "environment" ARE INTERRELATED TO "weather" and "atmosphere" and vice versa!!!

If the earth orginally was a VAPOR ie. (atmo-)sphere where did the BIOTA, LITHOSPHERE, HYDROSPHERE, etc.) ie. "environment" come from if there was nothing here but "air"...???

You are posting a ton of B.S. and you are doing you best to interject extremely tertiary subject matter into the discussion...while wholeheartedly IGNORING what has put forth, in black and white...

The ENMOD Convention is
specifically intended to prevent use of
the environment as a means of
warfare

As examples, the Understandings
also include a non-exhaustive list of
phenomena that could result from the
use of environmental modification
techniques: earthquakes and
tsunamis; an upset in the ecological
balance of a region;

changes in
weather patterns (clouds,
precipitation, cyclones and tornadic
storms);

changes in climate patterns;
changes in ocean currents; changes
in the state of the ozone layer and
changes in the state of the
ionosphere.

yoo hoo...do you notice the SEMICOLONS...

A mark of punctuation ( ; ) used to connect independent clauses and indicating a closer relationship between the clauses than a period does.

the EVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES share a relationship yet are independent by way of biota, hydrosphere, lithosphere, atmosphere, outerspace, etc...of course you aren't going to directly cause a earthquake by "cloud seeding"...and the document makes note of this fact....

[alvin]

An undergound nuke should manipulate the earth, rocking it badly, don't you think?

Or maybe the US used magic?

Idance

perhaps it was mother nature?

[alvin]

Just re-read my post and you'll see that I was speaking of 1948. Maths also beggin at primary school.
So don't try again to spill some fog screens.

You are the one who is trying to inject "Litosphere" when "Atmosphere" is needed. You just fell in your own trap, truth hunter!

Even if I was wrong on this part (and I'm not cause you're trying to confuse us again), you didn't bother to elaborate over my other points.

Quant à mon anglais, que je travaille en effet depuis la primaire, je veux bien avouer qu'il n'est pas le meilleur sur ces forums, mais suffisant pour traquer tes manques délibérés de justesse dans le traitement de tes développements.

Au boulot si tu n'as jamais fait de français, tu aurais dû commencer en primaire. C'était encore une tentative bien en-dessous de la ceinture.

Idance

ah no you didn't...so you busting out the French on me...

when all else fails...bust out a foreign languge...

well since its close to Feburary and "black" History month is upon us...let me bust out the EBONICS for you...

NIGGA PLEASE!!!

[House]

"Weather Machine"........ LOL- some of you cats should be embarrassed



http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq...yID=6&faqID=16

FAQs - Common Myths about Earthquakes
« Previous FAQ | All FAQ's | Next FAQ »

Q: Is there earthquake weather?

A: In the 4th Century B.C., Aristotle proposed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves. Small tremors were thought to have been caused by air pushing on the cavern roofs, and large ones by the air breaking the surface. This theory lead to a belief in earthquake weather, that because a large amount of air was trapped underground, the weather would be hot and calm before an earthquake. A later theory stated that earthquakes occurred in calm, cloudy conditions, and were usually preceded by strong winds, fireballs, and meteors.

However, there is no connection between weather and earthquakes. They are the result of geologic processes within the earth and can happen in any weather and at any time during the year. Earthquakes originate miles underground. Wind, precipitation, temperature, and barometric pressure changes affect only the surface and shallow subsurface of the Earth. Earthquakes are focused at depths well out of the reach of weather, and the forces that cause earthquakes are much larger than the weather forces. Earthquakes occur in all types of weather, in all climate zones, in all seasons of the year, and at any time of day. Sometimes, we are asked: "Do earthquakes change the weather in any way? Earthquakes themselves do not cause weather to change. Earthquakes, however, are a part of global tectonics, a process that often changes the elevation of the land and its morphology. Tectonics can cause inland areas to become coastal or vice versa. Changes significant enough to alter the climate occur over millions of years.

[alvin]

"Weather Machine"........ LOL- some of you cats should be embarrassed



http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq...yID=6&faqID=16

FAQs - Common Myths about Earthquakes
« Previous FAQ | All FAQ's | Next FAQ »

Q: Is there earthquake weather?

A: In the 4th Century B.C., Aristotle proposed that earthquakes were caused by winds trapped in subterranean caves. Small tremors were thought to have been caused by air pushing on the cavern roofs, and large ones by the air breaking the surface. This theory lead to a belief in earthquake weather, that because a large amount of air was trapped underground, the weather would be hot and calm before an earthquake. A later theory stated that earthquakes occurred in calm, cloudy conditions, and were usually preceded by strong winds, fireballs, and meteors.

However, there is no connection between weather and earthquakes. They are the result of geologic processes within the earth and can happen in any weather and at any time during the year. Earthquakes originate miles underground. Wind, precipitation, temperature, and barometric pressure changes affect only the surface and shallow subsurface of the Earth. Earthquakes are focused at depths well out of the reach of weather, and the forces that cause earthquakes are much larger than the weather forces. Earthquakes occur in all types of weather, in all climate zones, in all seasons of the year, and at any time of day. Sometimes, we are asked: "Do earthquakes change the weather in any way? Earthquakes themselves do not cause weather to change. Earthquakes, however, are a part of global tectonics, a process that often changes the elevation of the land and its morphology. Tectonics can cause inland areas to become coastal or vice versa. Changes significant enough to alter the climate occur over millions of years.

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/FULL/460?OpenDocument

Understanding relating to article II

It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examples are illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use of environmental modification techniques as
defined in article II of the Convention: earthquakes; tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changes in climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state of the ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

It is further understood that all the phenomena listed above, when produced by a military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techiques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury. Thus, military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II, so as to cause those phenomena as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.

And they left it open to include environmental weapons of the future...

It is recognized, moreover, that the list of examples set out above is not exhaustive. Other phenomena which could result from the use of environmental modification techniques as defined in article II could also be appropriately included. The absence of such phenomena from the list does not in any way imply that the undertaking contained in article I would not be applicable to those phenomena, provided the criteria set out in that article were met.

[MarkK]

ah no you didn't...so you busting out the French on me...

when all else fails...bust out a foreign languge...

well since its close to Feburary and "black" History month is upon us...let me bust out the EBONICS for you...

NIGGA PLEASE!!!

Alvin, why don't you argue in a language other than you own?

[House]

http://www.icrc.org/IHL.NSF/FULL/460?OpenDocument





And they left it open to include environmental weapons of the future...

alvin, you need to send out an SOS - Stuck On Stupid

"Weather Machine"

Thats right up there with one of your other supposed "facts" - the 1 billion dollar Treasury Bond ( surprisingly, that doesnt exist either)

no matter how many links you post - your credibility still equals zero

"Weather Machine" - lol. There's a sucker born every minute; but to bite twice within the span of 8 months? You must attend a "special school"

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/bu...al/26fake.html

Mystery of Fake U.S. Bonds Fuels Web Theories

Some confiscated bonds had a face value of $500 million each, but only $105 million in Treasury bearer bonds is outstanding.


By ELISABETTA POVOLEDO
Published: June 25, 2009
Ever since two middle-aged men with Japanese passports were caught in Italy this month trying to smuggle a purported $134.5 billion in United States government bearer bonds into Switzerland, the Internet has been abuzz with theories.

Was the Japanese government, or some other creditor nation, secretly trying to dump Treasury bonds to drive down the value of the dollar? Had the Italian mafia stolen the equivalent of 1 percent of the American gross domestic product, using the paper, which supposedly was instantly convertible into cash, to run a giant scam?

Adding spice was the whole Bond — James Bond — aspect of the tale. A crowded customs checkpoint near the Alps; two men traveling on a local train, professing that they had nothing to declare; and a false-bottom suitcase containing United States government bonds made out in stratospheric denominations.

In all, the Italian financial police and customs guards confiscated 249 paper bonds, each supposedly worth $500 million, and 10 bonds with a face value of $1 billion each.

Too bad the bonds were fake.

“The whole thing is a total fraud,” Stephen Meyerhardt, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, said Thursday. “They don’t look anything like real securities, which in any case were never issued in any of those denominations.”

The highest denomination ever issued by the Treasury Department was $10,000, he said. The Italian financial police claimed some of the paper was “Kennedy bonds” from the 1930s, but no such bonds ever existed. And the total of Treasury bearer bonds still outstanding is a mere $105 million; the Treasury has been issuing bonds in electronic form since 1986.

But none of this has stopped the rumor mill from grinding away. After reports of the seizure began to trickle out of Italy, the blogosphere sprang into action, the ponderings fueled by suspicions that the mainstream media was willfully ignoring the tale.

The story took on greater life after Italian authorities — who have refused to talk about the scandal — declined to declare the bonds fakes until they were examined by Washington. After all, although the Guardia di Finanza suspected the bonds were false, if they were not, the Italian treasury stood to profit from a law that permits the government to pocket up to 40 percent of the total value of cash or securities smuggled into the country over the legal export limit, which is 10,000 euros.

Repeated telephone calls to the prosecutors’ office in Como, Italy, that is handling the investigation were not returned.

Darrin Blackford, a spokesman for the United States Secret Service, which was contacted by the Italian financial police and the prosecutor’s office to determine the “legitimacy of the seized financial instruments,” said that his agency had verified the bonds were “fictitious instruments and were never issued by the United States government.”

Col. Rodolfo Mecarelli, the provincial commander of the financial police in Como, said the investigations were focused on “understanding who these men were and where they were from.”

Or where they might have been going. “Switzerland may not have been their final destination,” he said in a recent interview. “They could have taken a plane anywhere.”

Also unknown are the whereabouts of the two men, who were released after being stopped in early June. Italian law does not call for the criminal arrest of persons found to be taking funds without permission to another country. It might have been another matter if the police had determined immediately that the bonds were false.

“The men were questioned, but not arrested,” said Naoki Oyakawa, an official at the Japanese consulate in Milan, which contacted judicial officials in Como after reading about the seizure in the Italian papers.

He said the two men had valid Japanese passports, but he would not elaborate further on their identities. “We don’t know where they are now,” he said. “We have had no contact with the two men. They have not asked us for our help.”

What the bonds were for remains unclear. “It’s not the sort of thing that you can just go into a bank and convert,” said Colonel Mecarelli. “But they may have been useful to guarantee business deals among people who don’t use cash.”

Agencies that deal with financial crimes, including Europol, declined to comment while the Italian investigation was still under way.

The Treasury Department says it is stumped, too.

“I can’t speak to the motives of the person or persons who tried to do this,” Mr. Meyerhardt said. “I would guess that they were trying to find someone foolish enough to buy the securities for real money.”

[the crackhouse]

ah no you didn't...so you busting out the French on me...

when all else fails...bust out a foreign languge...

well since its close to Feburary and "black" History month is upon us...let me bust out the EBONICS for you...

NIGGA PLEASE!!!

Did you know that english is a foreign language to me?
So your "go back to primary school" was really low.

That was a bright answer to your comment. But maybe you wish to read my french sources and argue about it?

If you used Google translator, you could have seen that I did my french diatribe on the same subject "ENGLISH. Motherfucker do you speak it?"

Well, just a lil' bit, and enough to ask you (again), not to use my words and find yours.

You parrot.

Idance

[House]

alvins weather machine meets alvins Billion Dollar Bill meets Jesus meeting a dinosaur = Haitian earthquake and oil

[the crackhouse]

yoo hoo...do you notice the SEMICOLONS...

I don't see any semicolons, but I see you as a colon explorer.

Idance

[mjoseph]

alvin why do you have a pic of venus of willendorf as your avatar?

[the crackhouse]

alvin why do you have a pic of venus of willendorf as your avatar?

Makes me want to come back to my white madonna avatar.

Idance