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.


Why We Haven't Had More Attacks Before Bush!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 06:56 PM

Originally posted by tmac100
I would be very afraid by people who, in their liberties, believe there is a global conspiracy as our National Forefathers believed.

Now, see how that goes back to my time question? Basically, only our current leaders believe in a global conspiracy. However, tmac100 keeps referring to our current leaders as "our National Forefathers".

Strange, indeed ...

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 07:00 PM
It is strange since it didn't happen.

Since Homeland Security also wants my private information as you do, can they lie the same way also?

I didn't refer to our current national leaders as our American forefathers because someone who hates freedom says so. I have no opposition to the American forefathers. They didn't fail to protect us and then demand to be king and to then have the right to destroy everyone else.

For those who don't know, it is our current leaders with their vast army of propaganda that will not sleep if the American people, in their free liberties, believe there is a global conspiracy just because coverups, lies and treason escalates all the time.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by tmac100]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 08:57 PM
I don't know...the tone of this thread, circle logic and confusing syntax is just reminding me of a bot coded with a limited vocabulary. Barring that, Howard Dean's speechwriter for the Iowa primary pep talk, perhaps.

Let me know if anything intresting develops, until then I am done.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by Ahabstar]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:31 PM

Originally posted by centurion1211
If many people are having problems even understanding what the creator of this thread is trying to say, than I think the problem exists with the creator of the thread and their "style" of writing. I've read through this thread and have ended up concentrating on the responses in hopes of finding a glimmer of meaning. So far, none found, really.

Maybe you all are humoring this person way too much?

Yeah, this dude is getting way too much attention for someone who has no clue as to what he's talking about.

It's not so much not understanding what he's saying. I understand. I just don't get what he's trying to prove by stating incorrect information over and over again. What he said has been proven wrong over and over and over again yet he still continues his horribly incorrect rant. Why? Why continue?

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 09:36 PM

Originally posted by ferretman2
1993 world trade center bombing
Kobar Towers bombing
USS Cole Bombing

and other acts of terrorism against the US. This has all been covered here before.


Why be so arrogant in your reply? Someone took the effort to write what may or may not be a creditable post. To reply the way you did just shows ignorance. If I could vote for a Way Below Top Secret, you would get it Ferretman2.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 08:45 AM
tmac, you fail to read posts, you accuse others of not posting in clear or understandable manners and you clearly have not read the link I provided regarding Jefferson and the fight against terrorism.

with that, I will say this:

1. your questions have been answered. all of them. the first one regarding no terror before bush was answered with lists of terror attacks. Every question after that was answered as well. by not reading the posts, you miss the answers or you are simply not willing to learn from your mistakes.

2. accusing others of not posting in a clear and understandable manner is downright hilarious. your mangling of the english language is horrific but might be a clue to your lack of historical knowledge as well as it seems you skipped those classes.

3. Jefferson battled the Barbary Pirates. This was the first American war on terrorism. Go back, read the link and, learn a little.

Please don't accuse me of not answering your questions. I have. Repeatedly and what I am seeing now is that there is no "acceptable" answer in your eyes. This is either because you don't care about the answers but, rather, you want to prolong this moronic thread for reasons unknown or you simply refuse cannot grasp the concept of there being terrorism before Bush. You can't be that stubborn. Or can you?

Unless a new, unanswered question, is raised, this thread is done in my eyes. You've got members telling you how wrong you are. Nobody here is pro-bush or anti-bush, they're simply members pointing out your inability to grasp the obvious.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:16 AM
That's just why you are here Crakeur, with Bush and all others who have no conscience: because I don't answer questions.

Now when are you going to answer my questions? Did you answer why Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Ben Franklin should have realized the ultimate solution to terrorism and re-instituted the Patriot Act (the Inquisitions) back then?

Hey, if you are the people of the Inquisitions in Jack Chick's very vivid imaginations, then naturally on all free forums you will be sent to thought-police the place and then tell us then you have all the answers and tell them, yet the whole country is being run under absurdity.

It is your Inquisition IQs that would stage "independent investigations" of a certain major tragedy a year after the fact. You don't do that with all tragedies, but only with those that are caused by your clan.

It is still your Inquisition IQs that would tell us any president who fails to protect the American people must be rewarded with kingly powers above those who did not fail.

As we can see, the first question was not answered. Even to the point where I was daring you guys to answer the questions, you came back still with repeats as if you, when born, and like the other New World Order crew, were not born with conscience.

When did Ben Franklin and the others suggest or should have suggested to bring the rules of the Inquisitions with the Patriot Act back when America just started again? What was the answer to why Ben Franklin told us that he who would surrender a measure of his liberties for security deserves neither liberty nor security?

Why did you lie Crakeur? I thought that was only a talent of Bush! The propaganda team can do it too? That goes for the rest of the despot propaganda team who proves their issues with just blank statements that I don't know what I'm talking about. Just Crakeur claiming that all my questions were answered proves that they were understood? Why come and tell me all my questions were answered with your other propaganda buddies telling us my postings can't be understood? Why would you undershoot your own team?

Why did you lie? Show us the existence of one without a conscience. The book of Revelation, signifying the last days gives condemnations against "all liars." Is there some kind of reason why lying will be a major problem in the last days?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by tmac100]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:38 AM
tmac, here's the answers you seek:

1. the inquisition, what a show.
2. Ben Franklin did it with the candlestick in the library
3. 317.04

I need to run now. My NWO meeting is about to start and I want to make sure that I get a seat next to Rovey. He always brings twizzlers and I love twizzlers. (you do know that twizzlers will be the new gold when the NWO takes over, right?)

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 09:48 AM
You sure wouldn't tell Judge Judy those words if she asked you the same question.

You mean you guys telling us major investigations must take place a year later and we must reward presidents who fail to protect us didn't come from a candlestick library?

Are you telling us we are forced to have leadership with your IQs??

You mean Ben Franklin would have the absurdity and insanity to recommend the Inquisitions that they had just won liberties out of?

Why did you lie again Crakeur? Is it from religion? When are you going to cleanly and clearly answer the questions? Is that why Bush institutes secrecy in destroying individuals: because he also is unable to give answers for his behavior?

Now it's time for the NWO buff to run! Day after day other tyrants tell us my posts can't be understood, so they stay with posts that aren't in the vernacular for thread after thread, and now have to run! And now they have to joke about their treasonous and conspiratorial affiliations after proving it moment by moment in their posts!

[edit on 16-6-2006 by tmac100]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:14 AM
dude, you have serious Judge Judy issues. Would you like me to get in touch with her for you? I happen to know her (not kidding about that).

I'll be sure to tell her that some guy, with a bunch of serious questions (what? I don't know) would like to talk with her.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:17 AM
I thought you left for a meeting!!

Oh are we leaving the issues and the answering of the questions again? Who would want to run from those?

My! Much dialogue for some posts you guys always claim can't be understood!

I would be very successful in a Judge Judy court. But Judge Judy will easily can anyone who give double-talk or lies. You are the ones with the Judge Judy issues. It is just that watchers of TV on that show know that her methods of finding the truth are on the mark. They can see when litigants are evading the truth. She instantly cans them. The same is true of Judge Matthis and the others.

Those judges will tell them they have lost their cases just by wasting the time of those present.

The end of the Inquisitions came when dialogues were staged in the open. Then is when freedom came upon the modern world. Because it is in the open, people trained to divert from clean answers in the open air are sent in order to struggle to take us back. Just yesterday Bush said that we are a transparent society, as he more and more puts the government into secrecy and claims he must be able to destroy anyone in secret for failing to protect us. He had to do this, because if he destroys the wrong person or people, they would be able to prove their innocence and show really where the monster is.

By the way, one main disease of conspirator posters, as was with the Inquisitions, is their inability to condemn people who demand the extermination of all who are not Catholic. I have massive dialogues that you know about showing people who boldly posted on the internet that all non-Catholics must die. After that a whole army of people entered to get us to stop exposing this, and that army is what made those posters so bold, because they would not condemn their hate.

I am confident you also, viewing people who support genocide from the Jack Chick clan, will do everything also as here to make sure you only condemn those who expose these people.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by tmac100]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:22 AM
you watch too much tv. turn off the boob tube and start reading some history books. you might learn something.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:26 AM
I already learned about freedom to disagree with a deceptive tyrant. I prove my points in different ways than the Inquisitors of Rome.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:30 AM
Since you are so sensible as the conspiratorial thought-police, what would be your reaction if you see staunch Bush supporters posting on the newsgroups that all non-Catholics must die?

Would you then start a great big crusade to protect them and only condemn those who expose them according to the dictates of Homeland Security? People, as you know, boldly did this on the newsgroups because of a great army of people they know supports their claims and who would protect them. The vast numbers of people who opposed me in the same way you did, set the stage for security in America by making sure such people do this again and again and again.

I would see such people as serious threats in this critical hour. It must be that you also would dismiss them since those people obviously also support the Inquisitions.

Just showing where your mind, in "security," stands. Forum after forum after forum I exclusively am attacked for not liking their threats against billions of lives. Those who do this always support the current absurdities and Bush policies.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by tmac100]

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 11:54 PM
Yes, posters on the internet condemned the lives of billions of people just because they are not Catholic. After that, strange people acting as thought police claiming to come from many different religions and persuasions only attack anyone who doesn't like such statements of mass death.

I use this as a litmus test to see the strength of Jack Chick's very vivid imagination. Those who push absurdities on the American system and support president Bush have proven over and over again that they dare not condemn people who decree the deaths of billions on any public medium.

The dialogues proving this are on my website.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in