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.

 

Why The Hamas Victory Is Great News!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum
Please support your position. We haven't had a successful attack on our country due directly to the actions of Bush and his administration (though, there have been MANY attempts).


With all due respect FFS, can you document these MANY attempts that have been thwarted? I know there have been people in Washington saying that some attempts have been stopped but no one has ever provided any real proof of these claims. People in Washington say all sorts of stuff that isn't remotely true.

For my money, when we have mile+ long sophisticated tunnels running from Mexico into the US that go undetected for months or possibly years, tens of thousands of illegals pouring over the boarders annually, and the CIA running a picture of a 'most wanted' Al Queda bio-chem expert that turns out to be an entirely different person I say the administration hasn't done Jack.




posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
do u consider yourself an innocent man freedom for sum? if u should perish in any future terrorist attack, i will feel no remorse for you. .


I am really trying to understand your position here.

So, when we are attacked, are you suggesting that we not attack in return because of the risk of killing innocents? If that is your position, what do you suggest we do? How should we respond when a country harbors terrorists and allows those criminals to continue training on their soil?

I suppose that if and when we are attacked again that you would just sit back and say "Oh well; I hope it doesn't happen again."



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
With all due respect FFS, can you document these MANY attempts that have been thwarted?


From the FBI's own "mouth" on thwarted terrorist attacks:

www.fbi.gov...

Relevent excerpts: (Under "Effectiveness of Counter Terrorism Operations")


A more useful measure is one we have used in organized crime cases – the number of disruptions and dismantlements. This measure counts every time we – either by ourselves or with our partners in the law enforcement and intelligence communities – conduct an operation which disables, prevents, or interrupts terrorist fundraising, recruiting, training, or operational planning. Since September 11, 2001, the FBI has participated in dozens of such operations, disrupting a wide variety of domestic and international terrorist undertakings.



The FBI uses the specific case of Lyman Faris to highlight the effectiveness of anti-terrosim programs currently in place:



Faris initially came to our attention when information from a foreign source linked Faris to terrorists who had plotted attacks to coincide with Millennium celebrations. With help from FBI Headquarters, agents and other JTTF members in our Cincinnati field office undertook an extensive investigation and ultimately interviewed Faris in March 2003. During the interview, Faris admitted that he had personal contact with several individuals tied to terrorism. At about the same time, another foreign source indicated that an Ohio-based truck driver had been tasked to attack U.S. bridges, and particularly the Brooklyn Bridge. Once that information came together, we quickly composed a targeted plan for Faris’ interview team, assigned operational leads to field offices and JTTFs around the country, and teamed up with NYPD investigators and analysts.

As a result of these activities, Faris was arrested, and he ultimately pled guilty to the charge of Providing Material Support or Resources to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. On October 28, 2003, Faris was sentenced to 20 years in prison. He has been interviewed subsequent to his sentencing as part of his cooperation agreement with the government.


There have been a plethora of arrests nation-wide of Islamists/cells who were actively engaged in terroist planning activities. Some of these received media notoriety. Most, however, have received little to no attention.

Here is a list of names of those arrested in the U.S. for terrorist related activities just since 911 (provided by DC Watson):



Randall "Ismail" Royer
Sami Al-Arian
Ghassan Elashi
Nuradin Abdi
José Padilla
Bassem K. Khafagi
Zacarias Moussaoui
Sami Ibrahim Isa Ardel Hadi
Abdurahman Alamoudi
Karim Iraq
Ahmed Omar Abu Ali
Ahmed Barodi
Sadeq Naji Ahmed
Mukhtar al-Bakri
Princess Buniah al-Saud
John Muhammad
Bashir Noorzai
Faysal Galab
Bayan Elashi
Ali al-Timimi
Shafal Mosed
Ibrahim Al-Niqrish
Sahim Alwan
Imam Fawaz Damra
Ihsan Elashyi
Yahya Goba
Ahmed Ressam
Yasein Taher
Ali bin Mussalim
Hasan Akbar
Basman Elashi
Nemr Ali Rahal
Hazim Elashi
Clayton Morgan, aka Isamu Dyson, aka Cayson Bin Don
Tarik ibn Osman Shah
Rafiq Sabir
Samir Yousif Shana
Munir Yousif Shana
Shabbir Ahmed
Arwah Jaber
Sheik Rahman
Hamid Hayat
Umer Hayat
Mohammad Adil Khan
Mansoor Hassan
Mohammad Hassan Adil
Mohammed Khalil Ghali
Samih Fadl Jamal
Hana Al Jader
Ramsey Youssef
Abdul Hakim Murad
Wali Khan
Muhammed Aatique
Nabil Gharbieh
Donald T. Surratt
Hammad Abdur-Raheem
Ibraham Ahmed al-Hamdi
Caliph Basha Ibn Abdur-Raheem
Seifullah Chapman
Masoud Ahmad Kahn
Dr. Rafil Dhafir
Rabih Haddad
Levar Haney Washington-(convert to Islam)
Gregory Vernon Patterson-(convert to Islam)
Abdullah Alnoshan
Khalid Fadlalla
Karim Ahmed Abdel Latif Ahmed
Mahoud Ahmed Abdel Latif Ahmed
Ahmed Mohamed Atta
Mohamed Ibrahim Gaber
Mohamed Palat Anwar Jozain
Homaidan Al-Turki
Aref Ahmed
Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad
Mahmud Faruq Brent
Shahawar Matin Siraj
Ibrahim Abu Mezer
Hammad Riaz Samana
Abdul Rauf Noormohamed
Naji Antoine Abi Khalil
Imam Jamil Al-Amin



[edit on 27-1-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Great news? WHaTT??

Oh yea.. err.. umm.. This IS great news!

The world is now several giant leaps closer to the apocolypse.. I'm just happY HapPY HAPPY!!!!





UGH.. (speeling coorection)

[edit on 27-1-2006 by TxSecret]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Freedom...

This doesn't support your contention that the administration has stopped MANY attacks since 9/11. The FBI has been doing this work well before the current administration. Your second example, for example, was under the Clinton administration. Remember, members of the FBI testified to Congress that their efforts to get people, later known to be involved in the 9/11 attacks, were thwarted by senior staffers.

Lots of people are being arrested with alleged terrorist ties --- this is true. We could probably generate a list of middle eastern surnames arrested prior to 2001 as well. Doesn't prove your point.

True, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. But what about the first WTC attack? Nothing for 8yrs after that one then this Administration takes over and WHAM! We get hit. So do you think maybe the bad guys were just patiently waiting after WTC 1 and are doing the same after WTC 2? Don't be so quick to attribute it to the administration. Not that they'd ever say anything to deceive us.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Freedom...

This doesn't support your contention that the administration has stopped MANY attacks since 9/11. The FBI has been doing this work well before the current administration.


I disagree jtma. All of our intelligence agencies have been handicapped for several years due to the policies of previous administrations going all the way back to the Kennedy administration. If they had been doing their job, as you assert; how do you explain 911 happening? Unless, of course, you're one of those wackos who believe the government was behind 911.

To name a couple problems: Before 911, the FBI, CIA, NSA, and other intelligence alphabet groups, rarely ever communicated with each other as each had its own little feifdom to protect. Also, the human element of information gathering was significantly reduce over the years and replaced with "electronic gathering". These issues, as well as others, all hampered effective intelligence gathering and have been significantly improved since 911.


Originally posted by jtma508
Your second example, for example, was under the Clinton administration.


He was only a "person of interest" during the Clinton era. He was arrested and prosecuted after 911.


Originally posted by jtma508
We could probably generate a list of middle eastern surnames arrested prior to 2001 as well. Doesn't prove your point.


Really?!? Well then--there's your challenge!! Please post here your list of middle eastern surnames arrested in the US who have direct ties to terrorism prior to 911.


Originally posted by jtma508
True, we haven't been attacked since 9/11. But what about the first WTC attack? Nothing for 8yrs after that one ....


While there had been no attacks on US soil, US interests worldwide were attacked during this time period. Please post here US interests attacked elsewhere since 911 (I'm not saying there haven't been--I just don't know/remember any)

Edited to tone down potentially perceived sarcastic words


[edit on 27-1-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   
I think we all agree these are interesting times.......
but theres always interesting times



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 06:12 PM
link   


Freedom_From_Sum

"Unless, of course, you're one of those wackos who believe the government was behind 911. "


Of course someone could also say:

"Unless, of course, you're one of those wackos who believe that 911 was conducted by just al qaida and 12 men with box cutters"

Amazing how that works both ways.



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
freedom for sum, excuse me , china is NOT at war with taiwan. about your al fraken comment, never heard one thing spoken from his mouth , am not familiar with any of his views, and its nice to know that since i believe killing innocent kids is immoral, that im brainwashed by the liberals. i watch fox news more then anything else on tv. more then cnn. go spew your vomit to someone else im sick of hearing it.


Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

Originally posted by elitegamer23
do u consider yourself an innocent man freedom for sum? if u should perish in any future terrorist attack, i will feel no remorse for you. .


I am really trying to understand your position here.

So, when we are attacked, are you suggesting that we not attack in return because of the risk of killing innocents? If that is your position, what do you suggest we do? How should we respond when a country harbors terrorists and allows those criminals to continue training on their soil?

I suppose that if and when we are attacked again that you would just sit back and say "Oh well; I hope it doesn't happen again."
.

i dont mind if we kill our true enemy, u seem to support the killing of innocent kids and women. i am sorry i disagree with u on that point, and i see no way killing INNOCENT MUSLIMS , will win this "war on terror"

[edit on 27-1-2006 by elitegamer23]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by TxSecret
Of course someone could also say:

"Unless, of course, you're one of those wackos who believe that 911 was conducted by just al qaida and 12 men with box cutters"

Amazing how that works both ways.


I only have this one thing to say in response Tx: If I believed for one second that my government was deliberately behind the planning and execution of an attack that killed almost 3000 of my fellow country men/women; I would leave. I would go to another country and give up my US citizenship. My question to you is: If you live in America, what the hell are you still doing here?

And just so you know: My ATS call sign is Freedom_FOR_sum.


[edit on 28-1-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
freedom for sum, excuse me , china is NOT at war with taiwan.


Show me where in this thread I said they were.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
... and its nice to know that since i believe killing innocent kids is immoral, that im brainwashed by the liberals.


The problem is that you only perceive this issue in black and white. While its always bad to kill innocents, I'm telling you that there are times when it's necessary.



Freedom_for_sum said
So, when we are attacked, are you suggesting that we not attack in return because of the risk of killing innocents? If that is your position, what do you suggest we do? How should we respond when a country harbors terrorists and allows those criminals to continue training on their soil?

I suppose that if and when we are attacked again that you would just sit back and say "Oh well; I hope it doesn't happen again."
.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
i dont mind if we kill our true enemy, u seem to support the killing of innocent kids and women. i am sorry i disagree with u on that point, and i see no way killing INNOCENT MUSLIMS , will win this "war on terror"


Nobody is intentionally targeting and killing "kids and women;" except of course, Islamists.

You still haven't answered the question. What would YOU do if YOU were in a leadership position? How would you have responded to 911 if you were president?

[edit on 28-1-2006 by Freedom_for_sum]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   
u said the democratic USA was more peaceful then many other nations so i pointed out the USA is currently in more wars then communist china. so u started ranting about how china is bothersome to taiwan. what does anything that china does to taiwan have to do with it, they are not at WAR. which was the point being made. name one country that china is currently at war with. NONE .

about your idea that killing innocents is sometimes neccassary . well with your thinking , the 3000 innocent people who died on 9/11 were neccassary deaths because al quada is fighting a war with the west . do u support 9/11 because sometimes killing innocents is needed? it got their point accross and it was a war victory for the radical muslims.

u say no one is targetting women or children besides the radical muslims. i saw a video the other day on ats (made by western media) and it showed an 8 year old palestinian girl who was shot in her head in her UN built and UN run school . this was not a bullet from any radical muslim. this was an isreali bullet. they are aware of this school so why were they targetting it. why would they even fire a single bullet that could find its way into this young girls head. or into this UN built school.

and the usa doesnt target women? what about this ? if a muslim takes a western woman hostage(jill carrol) its terrorism. so does this not mean the usa are targetting and terrorizing women.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and your question of what would i do if i was president. i would take all the rights possible away from the usa citizens with the patriot act 1&2. i would allow the nsa to spy on our citizens. i would start a war in iraq with no plan for the peace. i would find any means possible to help my buddies "the elite" make billions of dollars of profit from the wars i am about to embark on. i was being sarcastic in all of that.

its hard to say what i would do. maybe first i would start a war on "al quada" and not SADDAM or muslims in general. yeah afganistan needed to b invaded,it was a safe haven for al quada. afganistan needed international intervention years ago, maybe after russia left their failed war their. the idea that we invaded iraq because of WMD is a joke because we used to know where these weapons were and since we invaded we cant track one single WMD that iraq used to own. is in not more realistic that these WMD that we invaded iraq for will find their way into a major usa city now simple because we dont kno where they are as opposed to knowing they were in iraq. this war on terrosim is not going to b won with bullets and bombs. from either side. this war on terrorism is deeper then that. its not like ww1, ww2 or vietnam or korea. its about the rich and powerful on the planet controlling and supressing the weak and poor. its about religious fanatics on ALL sides.
what would i have done after 9/11. i would have faught AL QUADA to the end. i would have figured out why people who have no dreams and no hope decide becomming radical muslims is their choice or only option. was al quada in iraq? NO. that is where your confused, u think 9/11 was created by iraq. well your wrong. understand this is not a war that can b won with killing, its a war that will b won within the hearts and minds of our enemies. and u dont use bullets to get there. yeah we will have battles that need to b faught. but if we chose the wrong battles, we only create more terrorist. we have not come one step closer to ENDING this war on terrorism. its time to lift up people who grow up to become terrorist, and killing their fathers, brothers, mothers, sisters, friends and classmates will not end their hatred for the west and america. give them hope. not a reason to hate.

something else i would have done as a decent president. repeal the tax cuts on the top 1% or maybe even top 3% of the usa. if im going to have the poor and middle class fight this fight on the battle fields , the least i can do is have the super rich pay for the fight. they are the ones who are profiting from these wars. who says they need a new hummer h3 to park next to their hummer h2. repeal their tax cuts. cant they finance the wars. were currently spending the usa into oblivion . we are losing this war in ways. were about to go 9 trillion in debt. can we afford this war on terrorism. are we losing it because we are killing our economy , and our country as we knew it.

[edit on 28-1-2006 by elitegamer23]

[edit on 28-1-2006 by elitegamer23]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freedom_for_sum

You need to study up on WWII. Tens of thousands of innocents died in that war; yet today, we are "at peace" with Germany AND Japan. In fact, they are allies!! Despite those deaths, Millions were spared their lives as brutal leaders, and their parties, were destroyed or eliminated.



That's what you think, or that is what you have been told to be true by the same government that doesn't want it's people to live in 'fear' from the people that we dropped two atomic bombs on.
The Japanese are not at peace with U.S.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Freedom... I think where we disagree is that you take what the gov't says as gospel. I don't. The FBI may say that their list is of people with "direct ties to terrorism" but they have no proof of this. And there are countless examples of this where they make this claim and then later release the people. Blame previous administrations back to Kennedy if you want but I'm not buying it.

Unlike you, I don't have 100% confidence that I know what actually happened on 9/11. I don't believe I have enough facts to label either side 'wackos'. What I do know is that there are way too many inconsistencies to accept the 'official' story at face value. Any thinking person HAS to have questions. Why was the WTC steel scrapped so soon? That would NEVER happen in any investigation until the steel could be completely examined. Where is all the plane debris from the Pentagon (the papers, seats, steel, airplane parts, etc.? Consumed in the post-crash fire? Please. Something isn't right about the whole thing. I'm not a wacko. I just haven't been drinking Crawford Punch.

The Administration has continuously misled us and this fact is not open to debate. Just look at the changing rationale the Administration used to justify the invasion of Iraq. How many different answers have we been given? So yes, I have a trust issue with the gov't. I don't take what they say at face value and anyone who does is a fool.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   
The threadstarter, and referenced article, are exactly right I've tried to make the same point regarding the return of Gaza to the Palestinians.

The biggest reason that Israel has so little moral legitimacy in most of the world is that they're seen to be bullies, and they haven't been seen by many people to have sufficient legitimate basis for their attacks on the Palestinians.

The Palestinians have claimed that all they wanted was independence. Israel has consistently countered with a logically weak, "Well, even if they did have independence they still wouldn't stop attacking us, because what they really want is to destroy us." That excuse just got shabbier and shabbier over time, and turned a lot of people against Israel.

To analogize-- imagine that you're walking down a sidewalk and you see a man sitting on top of another man hitting him over and over. You try to pull him off of the other man, but he resists. You tell him to let the man up, but he refuses, claiming that if he lets him up, the other man is just going to attack him, then he continues holding him down and hitting him. You tell him to at least stop hitting him, but he claims that if he does stop, the other man will just hit him, and sure enough, whenever he does hesitate, the other man hits him. So the man on top starts hitting the other man again. Obviously, the man who's being held down is hitting the man on top any chance he gets, but how can anyone tell why? Maybe he's only hitting him BECAUSE the other man is holding him down. Wouldn't you?

This is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue, but it was exactly the state of affairs in Israel/Palestine. There's only so long that one man can hold another man down and hit him based only on the CLAIM that if he were to let him up, the other man would start hitting him. The man on top will always end up just looking like a bully.

So Israel has to let the Palestinians up. The Palestinians claim that that's all they want, and Israel claims that it's not. Fine. Now we get to see the truth. If a new Palestinian state can mind its own business and actually pursue the independence they've claimed for so long to want WITHOUT attacking Israel, then the issue's resolved. If the Palestinians continue to attack Israel, even after gaining the independence they've claimed was their only goal, then AND ONLY THEN will Israel regain some measure of justification for their own actions.


That said-- it's absolutely certain that the Palestinians WILL continue to attack Israel, even if Israel has to stage it. War in the Middle East is a central strategy for the international powers-that-be, so war there WILL be. I see it as quite likely that the Palestinians are getting an opportunity to create their own state specifically so that Israel CAN gain the moral justification of which I've spoken when the Palestinians (or Mossad posing as Palestinians) do attack them. The Palestinians are doomed-- their state will exist ONLY so that war in the Middle East will continue. There are simply too many power-drunk scumbags in Israel and in the US who have too much of a vested interest in the continuation of hostilities there, so those hostilities WILL continue, no matter what it takes.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
u said the democratic USA was more peaceful then many other nations so i pointed out the USA is currently in more wars then communist china.


We are at war because we were attacked!! Do you think that China would just sit back and do nothing if they were attacked?


Originally posted by elitegamer23
name one country that china is currently at war with. NONE .


Give them time--Taiwan is in their sights.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
well with your thinking , the 3000 innocent people who died on 9/11 were neccassary deaths because al quada is fighting a war with the west .


Since you seem comfortable playing the devil's advocate: Please explain how any reasonable person could believe Al Qaeda is justified in the 911 attacks? What Islamic nation did we attack? What country does Al Qaeda represent?


Originally posted by elitegamer23
u say no one is targetting women or children besides the radical muslims. i saw a video the other day on ats (made by western media) and it showed an 8 year old palestinian girl who was shot in her head... this was an isreali bullet. they are aware of this school so why were they targetting it.


You should research for yourself when you see stuff like this. It's hard to avoid innocent casualties when your enemy is firing at you from positions where children are standing.



(2) On August 12, Hockstader reported on the suicide bombing near Haifa, in an article entitled, "Terror Resurfaces In Israeli Cafe Blast." He wrote: "Also today, Israeli soldiers fatally shot an 8- year-old Palestinian girl in the head and wounded 12 other people during an exchange of fire with Palestinian gunmen in the West Bank city of Hebron, news agencies reported."

An HonestReporting member wrote to The Washington Post´s ombudsman, complaining that Hockstader´s report suggested that Israeli soldiers deliberately shot the girl. Both BBC and CNN reports indicated that the girl was shot inadvertently during an exchange of fire. [CNN: She "was shot in the head and killed Sunday in her house in the West Bank town of Hebron during a gunfight nearby." BBC: The "Palestinian girl was killed in crossfire between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian gunmen."



Originally posted by elitegamer23
and the usa doesnt target women? what about this ? if a muslim takes a western woman hostage(jill carrol) its terrorism. so does this not mean the usa are targetting and terrorizing women.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Why don't you read the article all the way through. It also says:


Iraq's deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and "we are not Saddam." A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an "imperative threat" are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

Of this episode, Johnson said, "It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held."


I am at least willing to wait and see how this plays out before closed-mindedly believeing an ABC news report


Originally posted by elitegamer23
its hard to say what i would do. maybe first i would start a war on "al quada" ... yeah afganistan needed to b invaded,it was a safe haven for al quada.


First , you're critical of the US, the "big bad democracy," for being at war and then you state the above. You sir, are a hipocrit!!


Originally posted by elitegamer23
the idea that we invaded iraq because of WMD is a joke


This issue is being debated here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by elitegamer23
what would i have done after 9/11. i would have faught AL QUADA to the end.


This must also include fighting those countries who help Al Qeada.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
i would have figured out why people who have no dreams and no hope decide becomming radical muslims is their choice or only option.


There's nothing you can do. It's in their nature and this issue is being discussed here.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
was al quada in iraq? NO.


False! Not only was Al Zawahiri in Iraq, but he also received medical treatment--BEFORE THE WAR!


Originally posted by elitegamer23
that is where your confused, u think 9/11 was created by iraq.


Where did I write that? I think YOU'RE confused


Originally posted by elitegamer23
its a war that will b won within the hearts and minds of our enemies.


This enemy has no heart, or soul; and they are out of their minds; strictly guided by an evil ideolgy that will never resolve to coexist with democracy or western culture.

I am, and forever will be, greatful that at the very least, the Bush administration understands this and is acting on this premise.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
we only create more terrorist.


This argument is no different than saying a scantily dressed woman is responsible for being raped. We do not "create terrorists". They are created by fundamentalists who teach a literal interpretation of Islam.


Originally posted by elitegamer23
its time to lift up people who grow up to become terrorist,


Why don't they "lift" themselves up? Why are we responsible for the welfare and esteem of people in these other nations?

The rest of your post is way off topic and not worth responding to.]



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
again your just spewing more vomit freedom for sum. IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US.so explain why we are at war with IRAQ. CHINA IS NOT AT WAR WITH TAIWAN. GIVE IT TIME? its the usa stance to protect taiwan if attacked by china. they wont attack anytime soon. you look ignorant when u assume things. im sorry i have to attend to my daughter, i dont have any time to aruge with u right now or id reply more.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
I say f*ck em, let em shoot themselves!!!



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by elitegamer23
why would a possible large scale war with many innocents dying on both sides in the middle east be a good thing? let me tell u, i dont think hamas winning this election is a completely great occurance, but there are two democratic election results in the last 6 years that made me lose more hope for mankind.

It could be good because a formerly fringe group is now the ruling party and will have to accept responsibility for the votes they received. They are no longer just a group self appointed by god to oppose israel they are the freely elected rep's of the majority of the palestinians. they could find new perspectives and change the course of bloodshed in the mid east.



posted on Jan, 29 2006 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
Why was the WTC steel scrapped so soon? That would NEVER happen in any investigation until the steel could be completely examined.


Who knows? There was alot of scrap metal and there also were issues relating to hazardous waste. Your assertion that "that would NEVER happen in any investigation" is wrong. The Alphred P. Murrah building (Oklamhoma City Bombing) was deomolished one month after it was half-destroyed.


Originally posted by jtma508
Where is all the plane debris from the Pentagon (the papers, seats, steel, airplane parts, etc.? Consumed in the post-crash fire? Please. Something isn't right about the whole thing. I'm not a wacko. I just haven't been drinking Crawford Punch.


Please. There are threads where this is being debated ad-nauseum. I will tell you that as a pilot who flies for one of the airlines that lost two aircraft that day; I lost fellow crewmembers that day and constantly feel the pinch of the financial strain those attacks have had on my company. I purposely avoid those threads because they are a bunch of BS. Please don't bring that BS here. If you seriously believe your government is behind some plot to kill its own citizens or commit terrorist attacks on its own soil--then I put to you the question I previously asked Tx.



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join