1
   

911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB OUR NATION IS IN PERIL

 
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 12:05 pm
Einherjar wrote:
ForeverYoung wrote:
timberlandko wrote:
We ain't real big on vandals hereabouts, whatever they call themselves :wink:


Embarrassed

My ignorance is showing again. I don't 'get' that. Please break it down for me.

Embarrassed


Iconoclast used to mean people (Christians) with a passion for destroying "depictions of false gods" or "forbidden depictions of heavenly things". Such people vandalized museums, old churches, and the holy sites of other religions.


Thank you. I took it more from your explanation. What I meant was more of an independent thinker rather than ones so tied to particular dogma as the user group choices of "liberal" or "conservative" appeared to me.
0 Replies
 
ForeverYoung
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 12:09 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
Based on all this, she concludes that Bush would stand aside and let 9/11 happen. Right. Rafick, if this is how you form your opinions, I am understanding you a little better now.


Where does this come from? ... considering that the 1st WTC bombing occurred under Clinton's watch ... considering that he 'wagged the dog' by bombing the Sudan (was that the country?) to keep people from noticing his personal activities ... I just don't see how anyone can trust/like/support/etc. either of the 2 major parties. (but, that's just me)
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 12:35 pm
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
RexRed wrote:
Rafick

You are "stuck" because you cannot rightfully prove something that is an outright lie... You are trying to piece together a fantasy world, make a mountain out of a mole hill. Now if you were to start with the premise that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 then the "whole" picture would emerge and you would no longer be "stuck". Your premise is wrong and thus your conclusions are wrong. You are trying to rewrite history rather than let history speak for itself. You are leaving out the most important quality of our American government... truth.

If we wanted Iraq we would not be giving the country back to the Iraqis... We would be just taking it. Like we could have done with Germany, Japan etc... When you look at the American track record of the not so distant past you see that we are most certainly liberators and not occupiers. We have only intervened in the matters of the Middle East because we were "provoked" to do so. Yet, you want to erase years of valiant service to the world and replace it with your idea of American double dealing scoundrels... This is ignoring the one greatest virtue of our government leaders and country... truth.

You are "stuck" because you are ignoring the "truth". You are prefabricating history to fit your slanted idea of the facts. This only leads to wild speculative conclusions that have no true basis in reality. A true historian does not supply pieces into history to fit their own desired outcome they let history speak for itself and let the facts lead to their own rightful conclusions. This is not history you want, you want fiction. Historians do not color the truth with their own prejudice. They clear their mind of all presumption and let history tell it's own "story". I do not need a PHD to know this.

9/11 will not be remembered as an American conspiracy... I will guarantee you that. Because most people see the pieces of face value information regarding the matter and can see the truth without being blinded by partisan motives. Had Clinton been president would you be so adamite about your theories, would you be "stuck" then? The simple answer would be no...

All of your conjecture is simply that, conjecture... There is no truth or reality to your assertions whatsoever. You will always be "stuck" with this "theory" because it simply is, not true.

I would rather be a fly than a pile of poo...

Also, welcome to Able2Know...


hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

we'll control that country for the forseeable future...under the table perhaps, but nonetheless...how naive can you get?


And how much is it costing us a day to "control" that country? Very funny... but not naive...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 12:39 pm
Quote:
And how much is it costing us a day to "control" that country? Very funny... but not naive...


What makes you think that those who are driving this war give a damn about the cost to the American taxpayer?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 12:39 pm
you just don't get it do you? It doesn't matter how much it costs "us" to control the country...that's what taxpayers are for. What matters is how much it profits "them"...them being the handful of corporate execs that are in partnership with bush inc.......
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:54 pm
wow!!
From The Independent (U.K.) : "Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves....The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East."

http://www.geocities.com/pearly7000/bush/bush-companies.jpg
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:58 pm
Is it time again yet? Chopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchop Razz
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 03:59 pm
http://www.geocities.com/pearly7000/bush/bush-criminal.jpg

Sorry Mr Bush we wont ask Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 04:05 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Is it time again yet? Chopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchopchop Razz


OCCOM BILL the hat on your head in the avatar looks mexican, just wondering are you mexican by any chance? i got a joke for ya...

A US Border Patrol Agent catches an illegal alien in the bushes right by the border fence, he pulls him out and says "Sorry, you know the law, you've got to go back across the border right now." The mexican man pleads with them, "No, noooo Senior, I must stay in de USA! Pleeeze!" The Border Patrol Agent thinks to himself, I'm going to make it hard for him and says "Ok, I'll let you stay if you can use 3 english words in a sentence".....
The Mexican man of course agrees. The Border Patrol Agent tells him, "The 3 words are: Green, Pink and Yellow. Now use them in 1 sentence." The Mexican man thinks really hard for about 2 minutes, then says, "Hmmm, Ok. The phone, it went Green, Green, Green, I Pink it up and sez Yellow?" Laughing
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 07:25 pm
Shocked That's a Genuine Wisconsin Cheesehead... where are you from?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Dec, 2004 10:34 pm
naah its Mexican, Occom el capo de Queso
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Dec, 2004 03:35 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Shocked That's a Genuine Wisconsin Cheesehead... where are you from?


NYC
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 09:54 am
Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize
Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theorist Offers $100,000 Prize

Wed Dec 15, 2004 03:44 PM ET
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=7105614

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Jimmy Walter has spent more than $3 million promoting a conspiracy theory the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were "an inside job" and he is offering more cash to anyone who proves him wrong.

The millionaire activist is so convinced of a government cover-up he is offering a $100,000 reward to any engineering student who can prove the World Trade Center buildings crashed the way the government says.

"Of course, we expect no winners," Walter, 57, heir to an $11 million fortune from his father's home building business, said in a telephone interview from California on Wednesday.

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 09:56 am
Re: wow!!
Rafick wrote:
From The Independent (U.K.) : "Once an American regime is installed in Baghdad, our oil companies will have access to 112 billion barrels of oil. With unproven reserves, we might actually end up controlling almost a quarter of the world's total reserves....The US Department of Energy announced at the beginning of this month that by 2025, US oil imports will account for perhaps 70 per cent of total US domestic demand. (It was 55 per cent two years ago.) As Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute put it bleakly this week, "US oil deposits are increasingly depleted, and many other non-OPEC fields are beginning to run dry. The bulk of future supplies will have to come from the Gulf region." No wonder the whole Bush energy policy is based on the increasing consumption of oil. Some 70 per cent of the world's proven oil reserves are in the Middle East."

http://www.geocities.com/pearly7000/bush/bush-companies.jpg



You don't get it... Had we left Saddam, there would be no need for oil, food, life, liberty or anything. We would be in a nuclear war by now. Get your priorities straight. First there comes "life" then there comes liberty then then pursuit of happiness........ then oil and other commodities. Not the other way around... Saddam was a terror to "life" first... any idiot with a brain and a sense of self preservation knows this.

We were getting all of the oil we needed from Saddam through the oil for food program so oil was obviously not the reason. If that was the case we would be attacking Saudi Arabia or Venezuela right now instead. Give that some thought... Your logic is so full of holes it leaks... It was the threat to life and the connection of Saddam to the pursuit of WMD including anthrax and other "WMD". His eventual connections to WMD and terrorists prompted the attack "NOT OIL".

You actually have no valid point you are just coming into this post to scream "FIRE" so you can then post your propaganda hate pictures of Bush to soothe your frustration of not getting your way in the election. Get some therapy... I have news for you the "blue" states are shrinking as we speak. It is because people are so tired of your parties rant. Why don't you try and be part of the solution rather than be a major contributor to the chaos?
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 10:19 am
The reason we went to war with Iraq was that there was an imminent danger to the United States that Saddam Hussein would give terrorists access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. This reasoning can be broken down into three parts. One is that Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Two is that Saddam Hussein was working with the terrorists. Three is that the combination of the two was a clear and present danger to the United States.

There were also the following reasons, but they were secondary. Saddam Hussein was not following UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein had previously attacked his neighbors. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who violently oppressed his countrymen. Saddam Hussein desired to research and produce weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate the former President Bush. Saddam Hussein was supporting Palestinian terrorists. None of these reasons, by themselves or in any combination, were enough to justify going to war with Iraq. This is because many other countries have these characteristics while not being an imminent threat to the United States

By today, the primary reasons for going to war with Iraq have been shown to be completely false. The Duelfer report concludes that there have not been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the mid-1990s, and that Saddam's intent to acquire them were blocked by sanctions and UN inspections. The mobile weapons labs turned out to be trucks for producing hydrogen for artillery weather balloons, originally sold to Iraq by the British. The executive summary of the 9-11 Commission report does not even make mention of Saddam Hussein or any Iraqi groups, but states that, "the 9/11 attack was driven by Usama Bin Ladin." The Report on Prewar Intelligence states, "most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), were either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

Therefore, since Saddam had no weapons, and no substantive links to terrorists, there could not possibly have been any imminent danger from Iraq to the United States. While it was true that sanctions and UN programs were under strain, this warranted a realignment of military-backed policy, not an all-out war. For example, just as in the case of Libya, we could have pushed Saddam to allow UN-enforced curbs on weapons programs in exchange for lifting of sanctions. One thing is clear, we neither prevented any terrorism nor served justice to those who attacked us by invading Iraq at such high expense.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 11:26 am
rafick, insteada readin' and parrotin' what others say about 'em, read for yourself the 9/11 Report, all 3 Kay Reports, both Deulfer Reports, and the Prewar Intelligence Assessment - all available online. While some in The Media clearly have an ax to grind, they have no case to make. As to "Why the US went to war with Iraq", read Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 677, 678, 690, 681, 688, 707, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205, 1284, and 1441, US Public Laws 102-1, 105-338, 107-40, 107-243, Executive Order 13224, and the Presidential Letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Senate, March 21 2003.

You're perfectly welcome to have a gripe, but you ain't got nothin' you can take to court - which, in the end, means you ain't got nothin' but a gripe.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Dec, 2004 07:13 pm
Rafick wrote:
The reason we went to war with Iraq was that there was an imminent danger to the United States that Saddam Hussein would give terrorists access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. This reasoning can be broken down into three parts. One is that Saddam Hussein had chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. Two is that Saddam Hussein was working with the terrorists. Three is that the combination of the two was a clear and present danger to the United States.

There were also the following reasons, but they were secondary. Saddam Hussein was not following UN resolutions. Saddam Hussein had previously attacked his neighbors. Saddam Hussein was a dictator who violently oppressed his countrymen. Saddam Hussein desired to research and produce weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein had tried to assassinate the former President Bush. Saddam Hussein was supporting Palestinian terrorists. None of these reasons, by themselves or in any combination, were enough to justify going to war with Iraq. This is because many other countries have these characteristics while not being an imminent threat to the United States

By today, the primary reasons for going to war with Iraq have been shown to be completely false. The Duelfer report concludes that there have not been any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq since the mid-1990s, and that Saddam's intent to acquire them were blocked by sanctions and UN inspections. The mobile weapons labs turned out to be trucks for producing hydrogen for artillery weather balloons, originally sold to Iraq by the British. The executive summary of the 9-11 Commission report does not even make mention of Saddam Hussein or any Iraqi groups, but states that, "the 9/11 attack was driven by Usama Bin Ladin." The Report on Prewar Intelligence states, "most of the major key judgments in the Intelligence Community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), were either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting."

Therefore, since Saddam had no weapons, and no substantive links to terrorists, there could not possibly have been any imminent danger from Iraq to the United States. While it was true that sanctions and UN programs were under strain, this warranted a realignment of military-backed policy, not an all-out war. For example, just as in the case of Libya, we could have pushed Saddam to allow UN-enforced curbs on weapons programs in exchange for lifting of sanctions. One thing is clear, we neither prevented any terrorism nor served justice to those who attacked us by invading Iraq at such high expense.


And, when you cut and paste in a post, it is extremely bad form to not provide a link to where you copied your text from, or to even indicate the text you've posted is not your own.

Heres the link to where you got the above:

http://www.somacon.com/blog/page10.php
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 12:04 am
In opposition:
Cutting and pasting without serious defense or support of you own makes your posts about as relevant as....um...cow ****.

In support:
It's good to question what we're told and what "facts" we're given by those in the loop.

In opposition:
Quoting and making reference to hack websites makes your posts as relevant as...um...crusty cow ****.

That viseo was neat...and I haven't seen many images that evidence to contradict the video's information--which does not validate the information on the video.

I personally love conspiracy theories because we get glimpses of the powers that be, and the intentions vs. the actions of those individuals/groups.

I am a firm beliver in the fact that with power comes corruption, but to what extent, I am unsure. Something like 9/11 would not surprise me, if it were to be discovered to be a Bush cover-up--but nevertheless, I won't go on a limb to declare it as fact without substantial evidence proving it so.
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 07:37 am
The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush
The 9/11 Evidence that May Hang George W. Bush

The Case Against G.W. Bush: a Preliminary "Hearing" in the Court of Common Sense

At the very least Bush allowed 9/11 to happen. But the evidence indicates his guilt involves more than just a huge intentional sin of omission - this now seems certain. So it is ulcer-fomenting to watch him, Cheney, Condoleeza Rice and their PR army try to sell America yet another Big Lie - that they had no idea such a thing as 9/11 could happen...they could never have imagined it in their wildest dreams...they had no specific warnings...there was nothing unusual about the summer 2001 warnings, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I have compiled some material that clearly shows that the above litany is blatantly, arrogantly false. But first, let's hold a preliminary hearing in the "Court of Common sense".

To see through a wall of propaganda and determine what's really going on, one must tune out the spin completely and take a good, objective look at what has been DONE and what the parties involved have to GAIN by their actions. Let's look at the well-documented facts:

First, when Bush, Rice and the other top Reichmeisters discarded the warning on August 6, Bush's approval ratings had sunk to just 49% - this is the red zone for a president. As any political expert or presidential historian: Hit 45%, and impeachment may soon loom on the horizon.

Second, Bush's actions throughout his entire life show a clear and consistent pattern: without exception, he has always chosen the path that will benefit himself and his corporate friends the most and will do so in the face of even the most outraged criticism.

Third, the stolen election of 2000 proves that Bush was willing to participate in a very daring, very large scale crime in pursuit of power.

Fourth, Bush's father's approval ratings went from shaky to astronomical within a month of declaring war on an "evil terrorist" leader back in 1991. This lesson could hardly have been lost on Bush, Jr.: Start a war and the emotions of the public can be whipped up to a point that will push presidential approval ratings way, way up.

So, given the above facts as "evidence," what do you imagine a self-serving man who has faced no serious opposition from Congress, the press, or the American public would be likely to do? A bookie would most certainly lay odds that Bush would stand aside and allow an event like 9/11 to happen.

Another action that must be considered in the cold hard light of day is Bush's behavior after 9/11. He seized upon national fears, worked at intensifying them, and immediately, without waiting for Congress or serious discussions with other nations, called for an attack on Afghanistan and a global war on terrorism. At the same time, he worked through John Ashcroft with stunning swiftness to dismantle civil liberties. These are not the actions of a leader who wants to keep his nation calm, reassured, and standing tall in its principles in the wake of tragedy. They are the actions of an opportunist who knows, from watching his father's presidency, that the window of opportunity for consolidating his power will be narrow: Bush Sr.'s approval rating high lasted only a few months.

Last, why would Bush admit to having been warned about 9/11 in the first place? In the corporate and political world, this admission is a strategy that has been used over and over by creeps who are guilty of huge crimes and know the heat is on. By confessing to a lesser charge, they try to draw the heat away from the main, more dangerous issue. Ken Lay, the head of Anderson, and every criminal who has ever copped or tried to cop a plea bargain have used this ploy. If Bush were innocent of any complicity in 9/11, why should he make ANY statement? It is always the guilty who feel the need to make statements: "I am not a crook!", "I never had sex with that woman!" Or how about that row of tobacco industry CEO's who all swore that none of them knew their product was harmful or addictive?

Therefore, based on the evidence, I would say we have a phony president who is as guilty as hell, who knows that someone has the goods on him and is breathing down his neck. He is gambling that by making a preemptive strike while he still has control of the media, he can spin a protective wall around himself. Thus, we have Dick Cheney appearing on 5/19 on Meet the Press, being "interviewed" about the 9/11 flap by his friend and neighbor Russert. Yep, that's right -both interviewer and interviewee live in the feudally exclusive Kalorama suburb of D.C., where houses START at around $1 million. In fact, on the same program, Russert had the arrogance to even mention how he'd seen his buddy out taking the air on his new "It" scooter. How cozy! And this is what is being served to America in the name of a free and honest press. Ya got a problem? Just pick a pal in the press corps and tell him what questions you want him/her to ask you so you can spin them in just the way you want.

read on click here : http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00071.htm
0 Replies
 
Rafick
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2004 07:40 am
Arrest the President Now!

Enough 9/11 evidence exists to hang Bush, imprison thousands.

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/arrest_bush_now.htm
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/24/2025 at 02:49:14