It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


If there really are terrorists!

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:33 PM
ehh actually their main goal is not "the utter annihilation of the US and all its inhabitants via large explosions." If you read the 1996 and 1998 fatwa's by osama bin laden, his goals will be much more clear. He does not call for the nuclear destruction of the US. His first and foremost "main" goal is to remove US troops from the middle east. 2nd is to remove the Royal figures of saudi arabia and put his own people in power.

terrorism is not about killing america. Its about political agenda. AQ's agenda is the removal of all "unholy people" from the "holy" land so that they may be replaced with people who follow his own form of islam, which is nothing like the one practiced by the other billion muslims. To assume these terrorist do not exist simply because they have not attacked the US in some time is nothing short of rediculous. US troops are still attacked by terrorists. OTHER COUNTRIES are still attacked by terrorists all the time nearly every day. here are 27 pages worth of reasons why some people think terrorists do exist all of which took place in one month.

AQ would eventually like to see the fall of the US. but they are in no way going to bomb it into oblivion to do so. AQ's lack of US strikes is postulated in several theories:

1. ruin us foriegn diplomacy by bombing all its allies.
2. drag on the us war in Iraq and push it into iran to cause a severe drop in US favor around the world.
3. they have tried to attack but failed.
4. do not currently have the resources.

Its hard to imagine the current government would have developed the idea of muslim terrorists well before they were even close to being in administration. but thats just my thought. maybe you should tell your ideas to those who died in car bombs. shootings. grenades. martyrs. plane hijackings. chemical agents. etc. better yet tell their families.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 09:43 PM
if terrorist is not about killing america then why did they slam 3 airplanes into american buildings. why not slam airplanes into the american embassy on their "holy land"?

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:17 PM
there's not enough proof out there to say terrorists slammed 3 airplanes into buildings.

... there's too much CONFLICTING information to specifically LABEL Them as the culprits.

I mean, wouldnt you just directly go for the whitehouse with 3 planes?

The terrorists ambition IS to remove troops from the middle east..
so if terrorists REALLY did hit the USA.. wouldnt a honest and decent president realised how vulnerable they were to mass attack... and start changing there foreign policy.. instead of sending in hunderds of thousands of troops straight nito the middleast... and then claiming the worlds safer, even tho youve done the ONE thing your terrorists SUPPOSIDLY hit your for
It doesnt make sense.

Something is fishy with terrosist theory,

I mean being the president won an election considered by all to be rigged
being all the terrorist evidence from the tradecentres was sealed and hidden from the public
being the pentagon looks more like a missle strike rather than a plane attack
and being the US Was CERTAIN with cold hard PROOF iraq had wmds and was behind sept11 in one way or another.. which ALL turned out to be complete RUBBISH

What else do you need to believe this is all a government chirade?
Ive yet to see ONE thing come from the US government which turned out to be.. CORRECT!

The US government controls the media, and therefore will only show what helps there story..
doesnt matter the suicide plane hijackers that supposidly slammed the planes into buildings are as we speak protesting in there countries taht they are very much alive... the US government dosnt care? hell they havent even achnolodged it.

And thats why terrorists is just a smokescreen created by the US government.

Thast why, since sept11 there havent been any attacks..
BUT they are always capable of releasing video's right at the MOST opportune time for the government.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:21 PM
So what would you do if you were president. Say someone slammed 3 airplanes into govt buildings killed 3000 people and the cia told me that it was osama but i dont believe them.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:39 PM
If I were president.. and ENOUGH Proof had been given to me to say
alqaeda hit you.
I woulda bombed the absoltute DAYLIGHTS outta the taliban..
and sent troops in ASAP To find him and get him.

what I WOUDLNT of done.. is bomb them, wait 2 months THEN Sendi n troops..
and even today they say they know where he is.. but they arent picking him up?... narp I woudlnt of done that either.

I sure as hell WOULDNT of invaded IRAQ..

BUT this all stems to difference where u say ' the cia told me that osama '
the CIA obviously cant get 2 + 2 right, so why would I Trust them?
IRAQ and WMD's.. the hijackers whom are still alive.. hell.. MOSSAD was supposidly tracking these guys.. where were the CIA?

so yes. I woudlnt of done ANYTHING the way the president has.

look at the current situation of IRAQ, the USA and the world in general after what he's done..

I think a monkey could of.. sorry WOULD OF done a better job
what would u of done?

These things are what maeks me think this is all a fixed effort

1. President gets elected even tho COUNTLESS recounts say he LOST.
2. Novice arab terorists supposidly fly boeing planes into buildings. Professors, air plane professionals say the flynig tactics used would be nearly impossible for NOVICE pilots to acheive.
3. The president waits 2 months to send in troops after osama
4. The president accuses IRAQ of being behind it, AND having WMD's
5. These accusations appear to be wrong based on FAKED, FORGED and WRONG Evidence.
6. The President BLACKED out the Sept11 enquiery

So lets keep that in mind and look at todays
1. Osama is still on the loose, even tho they know wehre he is
2. IRAQ had no WMD's and was NOTHING of a threat.
3. We STILL havent seen proof from sept11 whom was involved
4. Cheney authorises nuclear weapons in the case of another 911.. REGARDLESS if IRAN is the culprit they will be nuked

Come on..
this doesnt scream out CURROPTION to you?
What would it take for people to see the truth here.. a signed photo of osama and bush at the Ranch? The Missle Fin from the pentagon?

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:47 PM
dude you know how easy it is for you to go and bag on the cia, you wouldnt survive a day in the life of a cia agent. The fact that these guys are in another country spying knowing if they get caught theyre country will deny their exsistence. When a cia agent is in the field he'll do his job right because his life depends on it. the president has reason enough to believe something the cia would say, if the cia says that iraq is a threat than im sure that the american soilders over there doing the fighting are fighting their hardest because they know that if iraq pulls something out like osama did theyll be 3000 more dead civilians.

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 10:56 PM
Wow .. u cant even answer your own quetsions.

I never said a thing about the CIA Agents...
Theyre brave donig a risky job..

But Id like to find out what proof they found in IRAQ that was without a shadow of a doubt rock solid evidence of WMD's. or even them beign a threat
espceialyl since NOW.. its been proven there's NOTHING THERE!

IF Alqaeda hit America.. and I dont think they did but your government is trying to convince you sheep fo that soo ill stick to that tune.
Why.... WHY?????????????????????????????????
do the on thing.. they supposidly hit you for?
Why not eradicate Alqaeda...
what did IRAQ have to do with anything?

That is enough reasoning ALONE To convince people that this government has alteria motives for the sept11 attacks.

its just not cricket!

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 11:21 PM
There is proof terrorists of Al Qaeda flew those planes into the buildings, what the hell are you talking about. When you hear the black box and the dude says ALLAH AKBAR im guessing he must have just been a regular joe shcmo

posted on Sep, 14 2005 @ 11:28 PM
why not?
is it really hard for you to say those words?
And if thats the ONLY ROCK HARD proof that you can come up with..
I could go out and committ mass amounsto f crimes, as long as i leave something that lying about i should be fine.

If thats the only proof they have, I feel it isnt enough to brand a group terrorists and thus murder them.

Why does an american gvoernment not have to obey its own laws?
no offence to you.
but i put that proof in the same box as the IRAQ wmd proof.

[edit on 14-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 05:20 PM
ahh i see what you mean. you want us to wait till iraq kills 3000 american civilians so then we can say, "Hey, guess what? We've been attacked." Now we can go into iraq

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Danie]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:37 PM
1) Hitting the world trade center was FIRSTLY a political statement and secondly about killing americans. If all they wanted to do was kill americans they could have flown all 4 planes head on into wall street, times square, and the WTC buildings. The WTC was picked not only for its number of people but for what it stands for. The pentagon isn't filled to the brim with 50,000 people, nor would hitting it with a plane destroy the entire thing. It was hit for its messege to the US people and government.

2) WMD's and al-qaeda are completely different subjects. The war in Iraq was only a by-product of 9/11. it was done because the transition from the "global war on terrorism" to the war in iraq was a fairly easy thing to do. It was always clear that bush was going to push the US back into the middle east. 9/11 was just his lucky penny. At the most, if you want to get into a real conspiracy, you could argue that the bush administration knew 9/11 was coming but made no efforts to stop it. But to argue it was planned and perpatrated by them is a bit much.

This is how the war in Iraq started:

U.S. : We think you have WMD's
Saddam: w-who whats?
U.S. chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam: i think you have the wrong number.
U.S. : We're sending over UN inspectors.
Saddam: *girly hispanic voice* no esta aqui..
U.S. : *drops bombs*

we all know what ensued.

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:43 PM
Yep Danie thats right.
If IRAQ hadda killed 3000 americans It woulda been justified.
but they didnt.
Im surprised if you can COUNT to 2 my friend.

Iraq wasnt in possession, and wasnt a threat, so they woudlnt of killed 3000 people.

But the man supposidly responsible still walks free?.. go figure huh?
also danie you still avoid answering your own quetsiosn

what would u of done after sept11?

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:51 PM
why are you defending the man who killed thousands of his own people. If he didnt think anything about killing his own people what makes you think he wouldnt kill americans or british. people are always saying why does america have to be the military police??? because if we dont do anything to stop him, who will???

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:55 PM
i would of gone into afghanistan and into iraq like the cia told me

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 06:57 PM
and the man responsible is not walking free, he is hiding in some cave in some mountain in the middle of nowhere. taking mocking videos of himself threatning america know that hell never be able to do anything

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:00 PM
Danie, Agit8dChop, please go to your "mCENTER" and check your U2U's before my palms get sweaty and a finger slips...

A reply is expected.


posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:32 PM
...I didnt want this to turn into this sorta argument.
Pro IRAQ or not..

But if you want to then fine.

Sure Saddam killed thousands of his OWN people.
But fanatical people need a ruthless RULER!

HE did wat was nessecary to keep his people in check.
and he didnt have WMD, and wasnt a threat to America.
so yes.. he may of been a murderous TYRANT.. but he's not the WORST in the world.

IF that was th reasoning for the war, why did they pass up the ones that were WORSE?..

Osama isnt HIDING ni a cave.. he's making video's.. instructing people.
If the US was hellbent on removing the MAJOR REASON of sept11 he would of been killed a long time ago.

He is still alive.. and the americans went into IRAQ.. where is the logic.

Your merely another sheep follownig the same BS your government is feeding the other gullabel sheep of your country.

I dont want to argue with people liek you, bceause its like hitting yourh ead against a wall. No matter how many holes come out of the ' official story ' your always so quick to throw out a smart ass comment thinking it justifies your gullability.
Frankly if you want to believe the US Went into IRAQ To eliminate Alqaeda and the global threat that your curopt governmetn wants you to.. so be it .

I dont really care if you can count to 2 or not.
being that u needed to create a post simply counting to 2, makes me see your imaturity that you think posting that really matters.

either way.

Enjoy, because youve killed off my thread now by making it into a debate over IRAQ


[edit on 15-9-2005 by Agit8dChop]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:36 PM
I just answered that i would have gone into afghanistan and then gone into iraq as the cia told me to, but clarify something for me, if you believe that alqueda has nothing to do on the wtc who do you believe responsible?

[edit on 15-9-2005 by Danie]

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 07:49 PM
If I knew who did it, you think id be sitting here reading conspiracy theories from people?

This theoretical situation YOUR THE PRESIDENT. YOU DECIDE not the CIA.
And it doesnt matter Rumsfield was bullying th CIA prior to the invasion? or the evidence you got was fake and forged and that you KNEW this?

And one in there right mind would of realised IRAQ was not a threat.
They had alterior motives, plain and simple.
And If alqaeda was responsible IF....

then wouldnt it of been smarter to send all that IRAQI Coalition soilders into Afghan FIRST>?..
I mean. he killed 3000 americans..
so hey.. lets go after saddam who's been quiet the last 10yrs.

Doesnt matter this murder of 3000 americans is still running through the forrest.. still plotting attacks and traunting the US...
because we removed Saddam, we didnt find any weapons and hey look.. all our evidence was FAKE.. But honestly.. we thought it was the right thing to do? come on.
If this was a war on terror, they would of hit the terrorists. not a sovereign nation who hadnt threatend of hurt the usa in over 10yrs.


on a side note..
when i told u you couldnt count to 2..
did that offend you in such a way you felt you didnt want to participate in this site?
because we may not agree on the same point.. and may of had a WEAK pot shot at each other for a bit of spice.
but i find it ridiculous now.. that ATS is monitoring these threads and warning people when a debate gets heated..

Again I BEG of you ATS MODS.. dont wreck this site by turning it into a kids forum!

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in