It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saudi/US Terror War Post transplanted

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 01:43 PM
link   
This post was transplanted from this thread to keep it from going off topic

Originally posted by syntaxer
I do not support any preemptive military invasion resulting in loss of human life on both sides.

A country must wait until it is attacked before it can respond then? Preventative wars are not permissible? And why is this a preventative war? Bin ladin declared war on the Us. Then he attacked two of its embassies. THen he attacked its navy. Then, finally, he attacked its mainland and the headquarters of its military. The war had already begun.

Although in retrospect, I do support the implementation of strict sanctions on this Islamic fundalmentalist driven state (saudi arabia) which saw 17 of the 19 hijackers murder 3000+ Americans.

Saudi arabia should have crippling sanctions that result in death and starvation because some of its citizens attacked the US?


When Islamic terrorists purchase rogue Pakistani dirty nuke technology and shove it up America's you know what.. I'll get back to you on how significant it is to fight "the true war on terror" within the countries in question.

But you would have this 'true war' be fought only diplomatically, not militarily. Why put sanctions on saudi or pakistan when, to all appearances, they are cooperating, at least a little bit. Why is it wrong for the US to 'spread democracy' but ok for it to enforce devastating and deadly sanctions on a country merely because it has a fundamentalist religion that doesn't like the US? If that policy were enforced, I suspect peole would be equally up in arms against it.

the Bush admin/media has stapled the new war on terrorism in your head, implying it has something to do with invading/killing/conquering.

That is what war is. The official use of murderous force. War was declared on the US, how are 'sanctions' going to prevent it? How would sanctions on the taliban have prevented 911? How are sanctions going to prevent illegal sale of nuke tech and materials?

Would you be more concerned if Africa's internationalist jihadi terrorism were to significantly spread outside of the horn?

Most assuredly I would.

Would it not be in America's best interest to stop the anti-American jihad? To stop the resentment from spreading across the continent while it's still at premature status?

The US should be in the horn anyway what with the murder/death/genocide going on in the darfur. Truth is, one can't say that the Bush administration doesn't care about africa, its the american people that do not care. No one, anywhere, is calling for greater globalist involvement, outside of an attempt to highlight irony or hypocrisy. The Administration can not do everything that it'd like, because the american public is not willing to help those in need, even those desperately in need. THe american people can just barely be intersted to fight against their own enemies, let alone the enemies of other peoples.

Effective stratagies if we truly were fighting a war on terrorism

Considering how poor the reaction was to a militant, dictatorial regime that was openly opposed to the US, that never demonstrated to anyone that it didn't have the WMD it used to have, and that actually permited terrorits to train in its borders and funded terrorists abroad, no, I do not think that invading and occupying africa would've been more effective. Its a given that not every threatening and possibly threatening country can be attacked, therefore there must be a much smaller subset of countries that are the higest threats and the most difficult to deal with. After afghanistan, Iraq was a logical choice, more logical than the horn, which is not actively promoting international jihad and is more in a state of anarchy than anythign else, and more logical than say saudi or yemen, who do not have crippling sanctions already in place, who do not have a military that can destabilize the region, and who do not have any history of secular life or any real possibility of democratic reform, especially the type that can act as a catalyst for change in the region. And certainly, flourishing democracies in arabia will not promote democratic reform in saddam's iraq. So iraq was the logical choice, the most return for the most investment.

How many people have said that you can't fight terror with war? Well, then why concentrate your war ability on yemen or saudi, against an enemy where it will be the least effective?

Are you sure justice was served

Que iustas? What's justice? Money? Fufilment of the blood vendetta? Humiliation of the enemies people? Merely eye for eye? What's justice?

a single shred of evidence to convince us that justice for the families/victims/dead souls of sept 11th was served?

The execution of the perpetrators of the attacks is the only justice available to them. The government of saudi arabia cannot be held responsible for the actions of it citizens, and if it was actually supporting bin ladin's network, if it did have a hand in the 911 attack, if the Saud clan was a part of it, then there will be no monetary payments to victims families, there will be invasion capture and execution, not civil procedures. The very idea of the families being able to sue a sovereign state for actions its not responsible for is absurd.




posted on Feb, 24 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
A country must wait until it is attacked before it can respond then? Preventative wars are not permissible? And why is this a preventative war? Bin ladin declared war on the Us. Then he attacked two of its embassies. THen he attacked its navy. Then, finally, he attacked its mainland and the headquarters of its military. The war had already begun.


Nygdan.. Please provide us with smoking gun evidence that would implicate Osama Bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11. You're telling me a Saudi caveman exile and his "network" of Arab students from the desert mountains of Afghanistan, managed to elude US investigators on all levels (fbi/cia/nsa/norad/etc) to pull off the most sophisticated intelligence operation in world history by force of using box cutters? Further resulting in Jet fuel fires which perfectly imploded all WTC buildings? If those fires were so hot, how did Mohammed Atta's passport survived the hell fires?.. In conclusion, Please provide substantial evidence linking Osama Bin Laden (911 terror) to Saddam Huessien "pre-emptive" need to attack Iraq as retribution/justification. Let me guess, it was the WMD's right? No wait.. Terror camps right?.. Oh yea they changed it to Freedom and the spread of Democracy in 2003.. With your freedom would you like some Napalm?



Saudi arabia should have crippling sanctions that result in death and starvation because some of its citizens attacked the US?

Congratulations, you are now seeking the correct path towards enlightenment, my son... Direction towards those who were responsible should begin with asking yourself these very same questions (insert grasshopper joke here)..



But you would have this 'true war' be fought only diplomatically, not militarily. Why put sanctions on saudi or pakistan when, to all appearances, they are cooperating, at least a little bit. Why is it wrong for the US to 'spread democracy' but ok for it to enforce devastating and deadly sanctions on a country merely because it has a fundamentalist religion that doesn't like the US? If that policy were enforced, I suspect peole would be equally up in arms against it.


Actually the fundamentalist religion you speak of (Islam) never hated America to begin with, they began to dislike America when our foreign motives were manipulated into serving Israel/Zionists agendas.

"This war which the Bush government is a planning does not serve the basic interest in the long run of the American nation. It serves the imperialistic interest of Israel and the Zionist groups who have now a great say in the American policy."



That is what war is. The official use of murderous force. War was declared on the US, how are 'sanctions' going to prevent it? How would sanctions on the taliban have prevented 911? How are sanctions going to prevent illegal sale of nuke tech and materials?


We defeated the Taliban and conquered the country of Afghanistan quicker than trying to find a taxi in Manhattan during rush hour. Yet we directed the same murderous force you speak of onto Iraq based on pre-emptive lies. False truths that have resulted in nothing more other than to create even more anti-American resentment, breading a whole new country American hating terrorists followed by a huge price tag for our children to swallow in deficits etc.



The US should be in the horn anyway what with the murder/death/genocide going on in the darfur. Truth is, one can't say that the Bush administration doesn't care about africa, its the american people that do not care. No one, anywhere, is calling for greater globalist involvement, outside of an attempt to highlight irony or hypocrisy. The Administration can not do everything that it'd like, because the american public is not willing to help those in need, even those desperately in need. THe american people can just barely be intersted to fight against their own enemies, let alone the enemies of other peoples.


One of the many ongoing problems that humanity must overcome for the good of our species to survive.



Considering how poor the reaction was to a militant, dictatorial regime that was openly opposed to the US, that never demonstrated to anyone that it didn't have the WMD it used to have, and that actually permited terrorits to train in its borders and funded terrorists abroad, no, I do not think that invading and occupying africa would've been more effective. Its a given that not every threatening and possibly threatening country can be attacked, therefore there must be a much smaller subset of countries that are the higest threats and the most difficult to deal with. After afghanistan, Iraq was a logical choice, more logical than the horn, which is not actively promoting international jihad and is more in a state of anarchy than anythign else, and more logical than say saudi or yemen, who do not have crippling sanctions already in place, who do not have a military that can destabilize the region, and who do not have any history of secular life or any real possibility of democratic reform, especially the type that can act as a catalyst for change in the region. And certainly, flourishing democracies in arabia will not promote democratic reform in saddam's iraq. So iraq was the logical choice, the most return for the most investment.

How many people have said that you can't fight terror with war? Well, then why concentrate your war ability on yemen or saudi, against an enemy where it will be the least effective?


Nygdan, stop swallowing the CNN/Fox "war on terrorism" chicken soup propaganda for the warmongering soul man!.. It's hard for me to comprehend when you talk of "highest threats" in regards to Afghanistan. Did we go into Afghanistan and find WMDs? No.. Did we find massive Al-Qaeda terrorist camps? No.. Did we even accomplish the objective, heck did we even find Osama Bin Laden? No.. Remember that cool diagram that Rumsfeld showed us on national TV depicting a complex, highly funded terrorist mastermind center believe to be located in Afghanistan? Yea that didn't exist.. Afghanistan has never been a threat to anyone, most importantly, even in the region.. So, unless you're UNOCAL looking to build Caspian sea pipelines, or perhaps you're a covert spy agency with an insatiable appetite to control the worlds supply of HEROIN.. Then Afghanistan was never a threat to begin with.. And further more, we all know how Iraq's "highest threat" status eventually panned itself out to be nothing more than fabricated "true lies"



Que iustas? What's justice? Money? Fufilment of the blood vendetta? Humiliation of the enemies people? Merely eye for eye? What's justice?


3000+ souls were murdered by 19 hijackers, 17 of them were Saudi's. Today somehow, 6 of those hijackers are still alive, so go figure!
I'm simply stating that we "America" should keep it's eye focused on the ball that was September 11th 2001..



The execution of the perpetrators of the attacks is the only justice available to them.


Great!.. 6 of those Saudi national "terrorists" from 9/11 are still alive and walking on two feet with a heart beat. Why haven't they been brought to justice?



The government of saudi arabia cannot be held responsible for the actions of it citizens


And Iraq should?



The very idea of the families being able to sue a sovereign state for actions its not responsible for is absurd.


Should the families have followed the footsteps of our administration and sued Iraq for 9/11 instead?



[edit on 24-2-2005 by syntaxer]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
I've compiled a small list of references that provide substance in defending my argument.

www.foxnews.com...

news.yahoo.com.../ap/20050224/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saudi_death_notices_1

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by syntaxer
Please provide us with smoking gun evidence that would implicate Osama Bin Laden was behind the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

I refuse. There are, at the moment, two fundamental people's in the world, those who think that bush did 911, those who think that bin ladin did 911. There can be no discussion between the two.

Anyway, you were the one saying saudi arabia should be sanctioned because so many of the hijackers were saudis. What 'smoking gun' evidence' demonstrates this? Videos? Documents? Bin ladin stated he did 911, he was surprised how quickly the building went down, and he declared war on the US and attacked it at least twice before.


You're telling me a Saudi caveman exile and his "network" of Arab students from the desert mountains of Afghanistan, managed to elude US investigators on all levels (fbi/cia/nsa/norad/etc) to pull off the most sophisticated intelligence operation in world history by force of using box cutters?
It was not sophisticated, nor an intelligence operation, and 'primitives' have proven very capable in the past. Besides, outside of the research to determine what to hit, what did this require? Get on the planes and fly them. Airline pilots aren't exactly the creme de la creme of the global intelligensia.



Actually the fundamentalist religion you speak of (Islam) never hated America to begin with,

From the very begining of US Suadi relations, the saudis were disdainful of the modern western US. Fundamentalist religions, even when they are fundamentalist christians, loathe liberal democracies and open societies. Lets not pretend that the fundamentalists amoung the muslims are somehow different.


they began to dislike America when our foreign motives were manipulated into serving Israel/Zionists agendas.

Oh, yes, those eviiiii joooos, its the jooos now is it? So because the US supported a UN mandate for the existence of an ethinic jewish state in palestine, that somehow excuses people in afghanistan for engaging in international terrorism?





Yet we directed the same murderous force you speak of onto Iraq based on pre-emptive lies. False truths that have resulted in nothing more

It has not been demonstrated that bush lied. It has been demonstrated that he selected intelligence that supported his preconceived notions.


other than to create even more anti-American resentment,

And where is this resentment? When did iraqis come to the US to knock down teh sears tower or bomb federal buildings? Since the invasion there've been elections in iraq, the prospect of an open society, a truce between those 'evil zionists' and the palestinians, and even the possible withdrawl of the occupying syrian forces from lebanon. Iraq was obvisouly a better choice than saudi arabia or iran.


One of the many ongoing problems that humanity must overcome for the good of our species to survive.

So how is that supposed to happen if the US can't intervene in a state where the dictator gases his own civilian, occupies other countries explicitly for oil and territorial expansion, and uses death squads and instiutionalized rape to control its citizenry? If action was not permissible in Iraq, then its not permissible in the darfur either.

Nygdan, stop swallowing the CNN/Fox "war on terrorism" chicken soup propaganda for the warmongering soul man!..



It's hard for me to comprehend when you talk of "highest threats" in regards to Afghanistan.

Thats because you think that the entire war was engineered by a treasonous establishment that only serves the interests of the monied powers.



Did we go into Afghanistan and find WMDs?

The US destroyed the islamic repubilic of the taliban and did great damage to the al-qaida terror network.


No.. Did we find massive Al-Qaeda terrorist camps?

What do you think those underground installations in the mountains were? Weathered out caves?



Afghanistan has never been a threat to anyone, most importantly, even in the region

Again, you only beleive this because you beleive that bin ladin is unrelated to 911. If one accepts that bin ladin and al-qaida are dangerous, then the enabling taliban were a primary target and did do great harm, to the people in the twin towers, to the servicemen on the cole, and the the poeple in the twin embassies


And further more, we all know how Iraq's "highest threat" status eventually panned itself out to be nothing more than fabricated "true lies"

they were not fabrications, tho I agree they were terrible instances of how distorting bias can be in an analysis. Regardless, it was demonstrated that even with those sanctions; which were killing apparently thousands of civilians a year, and which the international community was begining to consider stoping, even with those sanctions the dictatorial regime was actively working to reconstitute its wmd programs. Heck it only allowed the inspectors back in when there was a direct and very real threat of war. Besides which, iraq never demonstrated to either set of inspectors that they had infact destroyed their wmd. No inspector, not ritter nor blix, ever said, in their capacity as inspectors, either that iraq had demonstrated that it had destroyed those weapons or that they themselves were convinced that those weapons were destroyed. To this day no one has ever been able to demonstrate how and where iraq destroyed their stockpiles. And we do know that they were bnot cooperating with the inspectors, because of the war. That itself was a condition of the whole situation. In najaf there were camoflagued, hidden, chemical factories, that were not disclosed to inspectors (depsite that propaganda table display), in a city that the inspectors had visited. Not to mention the anomalous possible mobile weapons lab that had been chemically scrubbed so as to eradicate any evidence of any use, nor the actual illegal long range missiles that they did in fact have.
All of that indicates that iraq was in fact an extreme threat, not because of its current and immeadiate capability, but because of something far more sinister and dangerous, their intent. While the iranians and north koreans can dance around with inspectors and iran can say it has a nuke plant to produce electrical energy, even tho they are one of the worlds huge oil exporters, none of that reveals real intent. But iraq was already defeated from teh first gulf war. Had near daily clashes in the no fly zones. Used evacuation helicopters to supress the swamp arab rebellion, and preffered to 'suffer' under international sanctions rather than have whatever it was that they were up to revealed. That is what made them a high threat, that is what made them such a great and disturbing danger. Nothing could be accomplished in that region or anywhere on the terror war with a hussein ruled iraq.

Today somehow, 6 of those hijackers are still alive, so go figure!

All of the hijackers died in the crash. None of them are still alive.


I'm simply stating that we "America" should keep it's eye focused on the ball that was September 11th 2001

I am honestly, extremely curious as to what that should be.

I have discussed with some people, who were moderately supportive of the idea, and who ultimately 'backed' the afghan war, of instead of war having something like a trial of bin ladin with the taliban as something of the jury to demonstrate that it was indeed he who 'did' 911, and that this would be part of a global plan to address the issue thru diplomacy and the rule of itnernational law. Others have had other non military ideas too.
What are you suggestions, which I would find interesting as usually people who think bin ladin is innocent don't get to promote their strategy.


The execution of the perpetrators of the attacks is the only justice available to them.



Great!.. 6 of those Saudi national "terrorists" from 9/11 are still alive and walking on two feet with a heart beat. Why haven't they been brought to justice?

Obviously anyone who is still alive today was not one of the hijackers. I don't know if you suggest that they surived or that the names given of the hijackers were fake.



The government of saudi arabia cannot be held responsible for the actions of it citizens


And Iraq should?
The Sauds can't be held responsible because they did not encourage or support the attacks and have since the attacks made terror arrests. NOt enough, but more than hussein did with iraqi terrorists. Hussein was not attacked because of the actions of iraqi citizens, he was attacked because of his own personal actions. He himself was the target and he was attacked as directly as possible. To do what the US did in Iraq in Saudi Arabia would mean to not attack the nation but to send troopers in to kidnap saudi citiznes return them to the US and try them in secret military tribunals. Do you support this or do you support pressuring the saudi government to crack down on their own and monitor that?



The very idea of the families being able to sue a sovereign state for actions its not responsible for is absurd.



Should the families have followed the footsteps of our administration and sued Iraq for 9/11 instead?

That hardly makes sense as iraq had nothing to do with 911 and the justification for war need not involve participation in the 911 attacks. Iraq was a threat, especially in the post-911 interventionist-militant democratic revolution policy. If the 911 families are so concerned perhaps they should travel to saudi arabia and commit acts of terrorism in that country, since that seems to be the acceptable thing amoung militant fundamentalists.

"Secret Media Penetrates Saudi Arabia "
This contains nothing linking the saud house to this communication network. If you have information that links it I would be interseted. I have read in some policy magazines that there is somethign of a rift within the house where one side is supportive of the wahhabist clergy and the other side is dependant upon it, with much bluring. I suspect that this internal rift (tho apparently rift is an overstatement) is in large part the domestic/internal policy 'cause' for the success of and motivation for al-qaida but that it may also be exploited, to set the less supportive side against the other, to pressure the kingdom and get what is wanted out if it that way, rather than sending troopers.

the fox article notes that there are saudis popping up in iraq because of" an aggressive anti-terror campaign in the kingdom has made it harder for them to operate in Saudi Arabia". This seems to support the idea that invasion and militant democritization is not the only option in saudi arabia.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   


Anyway, you were the one saying saudi arabia should be sanctioned because so many of the hijackers were saudis. What 'smoking gun' evidence' demonstrates this? Videos? Documents? Bin ladin stated he did 911, he was surprised how quickly the building went down, and he declared war on the US and attacked it at least twice before.


www.miami.com...

The only evidence even remotely close to Osama Bin Laden "smoking gun" mastermind behind 911 was completely fabricated. Three months after the attacks the Pentagon claimed that some unnamed source found a video tape in Afghanistan. Yes a single homemade video showing Osama Bin Laden bragging and admitting his role in the attacks. How convenient! I'm sure Al-Qaeda was careless enough to leave a "confession video" waiting to be discovered knowing that US forces we're on there way into Afghanistan. The video was shown on the news with English subtitles because the voice was so barely audible that even people in Arab nations had to rely on the Pentagon’s translated subtitles.





It was not sophisticated, nor an intelligence operation, and 'primitives' have proven very capable in the past. Besides, outside of the research to determine what to hit, what did this require? Get on the planes and fly them. Airline pilots aren't exactly the creme de la creme of the global intelligensia.




Calling all passangers, this is your cave dwelling primitives speaking, please fasen your seatbelts. Today the creme de la creme will be flying this plane with a wingspan of 156 feet into a building 207 feet wide...
Corodinates please!



Oh, yes, those eviiiii joooos, its the jooos now is it? So because the US supported a UN mandate for the existence of an ethinic jewish state in palestine, that somehow excuses people in afghanistan for engaging in international terrorism?


You're associating my comments with anti-semitism, that's exactly what America's Zionist controlled media has implemented over the years. Israel was awarded a fully recognized independent state, instead of accepting what was given, they continued to push a Zionist agenda obtaining more territory from Palestinians. The Gaza west bank area where we see Palestine/Israel conflicts today is situated outside of the territory that was awarded to Israel after WWII.. I'm not a sympathizer, however rational thinking would have me question how is that any different than Saddam invading Kuwait in a quest to expand Iraqi territory? In fact! At some point Kuwait belonged to Iraq as the most integral southern port province. I suggest you research as to why/how they became independant.



It has not been demonstrated that bush lied. It has been demonstrated that he selected intelligence that supported his preconceived notions.


It's fun to reminisce, that being said i suggest you watch Bush's state of the union from 2002... If you were to crop Britney Spear's head and plopped it on Beyonce's body, and try to convince the world with evidence of Britney finally having some soul.. No, it wouldn't work with fabricated lie writen all over it!..



And where is this resentment? When did iraqis come to the US to knock down teh sears tower or bomb federal buildings? Since the invasion there've been elections in iraq, the prospect of an open society, a truce between those 'evil zionists' and the palestinians, and even the possible withdrawl of the occupying syrian forces from lebanon. Iraq was obvisouly a better choice than saudi arabia or iran.




I'm not sure what dimension of this world you live in Nygdan. You appear oblivious to the fact that "anti-Americanism" resentment has grown to astronomical proportions since Bush's supreme court awarded him office in 2000. By the way.. Iraqi's have never come to the US with a military or civilian agenda to kill and take American lives.. Although sadly, with the domino effects of this war, I fear the same cannot not be said for our children, or our children's children who will continue to absorb the aftermath of this unjust war..



The US destroyed the islamic repubilic of the taliban and did great damage to the al-qaida terror network.

What do you think those underground installations in the mountains were? Weathered out caves?


Not a single shred of evidence has been found or released indicating "great damage" to this so-called highly sofisiticated Al-Qaeda terror network located in Afghanistan. If you read US military testimonies you would be well aware that Al-Qeada camps/bases never exsisted. However, UNOCAL got it's pipeline and some intelligence agency assumed possesion of the worlds number 1 distributor of Herion. You're right! we found nothing more than weathered out caves containing 'at best' small ammunitions of vintage Soviet Union weaponry from the Mujahideen 80's.



All of the hijackers died in the crash. None of them are still alive.

Obviously anyone who is still alive today was not one of the hijackers. I don't know if you suggest that they surived or that the names given of the hijackers were fake.


www.guardian.co.uk...

It is obvious that this "evidence" was planted by individuals wishing to direct the blame towards Osama Bin Laden.

www.worldmessenger.20m.com...



8 of 19 hijackers, nearly half are alive and living well. How embarrassing!.. Nygdan, this goes back to the method of "selected intelligence" that supported Bush's "preconceived notions" regarding the need for preemptive strike on Iraq.
FABRICATED!



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Nygdan, did you say something anti-"jewish?" Because they are issuing everyone that says something particularly against serpents a warning.
Israel was behind 9/11 though. That's what this war on terror is all about.
This is all Israel's plan.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Asia Minor
did you say something anti-"jewish?" Because they are issuing everyone that says something particularly against serpents a warning.

Serpents eh? Why should I even be the least concerned about any recommendation from a rampant racist twit like yourself?


syntaxer
How convenient!

Like I said, there isn't any real ability for 'bush (or whoever) did 911' people and 'bin ladin did 911 people' to arrive at any common ground on that specific subject. YOu think bin ladin's a patsy, I think he's an international terrorist. You think the only people that can fly jetliners are people trained by the airlines, I think those guys could do it. You think its a suspicious that there was evidence , that it was planted, I think it was too, but by them. They wanted the US to know it was al-qaida, they needed to maintain plausible deniability amoung the broader arab world by denying it, or at least maintain a front.

So if I understand properly you do infact think that 911 was done by bush, not arab terrorists or others? I had suspected at one point that perhaps you felt it was another terror group, rather than Bush or Bin Ladin, which is an interesting middle ground.

I'm not trying to 'back off' from the point, and I think the general topic itself is something people can discuss, but on who did 911? No, there are no soft opinions on that, its normally one or the other. YOu noted that i must be 'in another dimension'. Indeed I am. Indeed bush/bin ladin people are in two entirely different and completely opposed worlds. Bushdidit people are the last bastion of reason and common sense in a world gone mad thats being lead by the nose by a cold, corrupt, and evil fraud who's probably only a cog in a much larger and more insidious wheel. Binladindidit people are faced with the terror and horror of waking up to havoc and destruction because of inaction and temporizing. Bindladindidit people see Bushdidit people as fools, bushdidit people see the others as tools. There's no 'reasoning' between sides, just 'nodding and smiling and backing away from the crazyman/robot'.

Not to insult tho, I just don't think either of the other is going to see anything to change anyone's mind. I suspect that the only 'confirmation' will be in a few years when bush is out of office and things start getting more 'normalized'.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join