9/11: The Feds did it.

page: 7
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Lie. I always give a source. everyone knows that, liar.

LIE! You seldom give a source, and when you do, it's a biased, slanted, leftist source that is so far out even most of those who do not like Bush are incredulous to the fact that you would post such drivel.



He killed as governor with those on death row. Texas had the most inmates killed on death row than any other state. What did he do with a woman on death row who had found Jesus and was rehabilitating others? THROW THE SWITCH! AND HE EVEN MADE FUN OF HER AFTERWARDS! Now, he's in the White House and he's killing even more, Afghans, Iraqis, American soldiers, Americans at the WTC---it doesn't matter!

Bush didn't kill as governor, the sentences handed down by the Jury's and the Judiciary were carried out. Made jokes about a so-called "rehabilitated" criminal? Proof, Jackass. I thought you "always give sources"??? Where's this one, liar? Killing Afgans? Going after those who have attacked us and want to continue to do so, and those who supported them. Iraqi's? Deposing a ruthless dictator who murdered and tortured millions. US Soldiers? Sorry, Bungholio...It's the enemy that kills our soldiers, not the President. What an unmitigated revisionist you are. Americans at the WTC? Get off this one, you freaking moron. It's just too stupid to comment on



You are truly an unaldulterated, Kool-Aid sipping, goose-stepping repugnant idiot. Where did he get the means to kill all those Kurds? THE U.S.! Namely, Bush & co. We didn't even care when he was doing it! Now, we care, Rufus? Now, Saddam is some global supervillian that needs to be stopped when he cant even leave his own country? You are just a dummy.

Nice name calling...Mommy must be helping you again. Where are the sources? Bush gave him the Chems he used on the Kurds? I suppose we went in and divirted the water from the Shiite wetlands in the south of Iraq as well, eh? Besides being a total idiot, you are a lying sack who wouldn't know the truth if it was crawling up your...nose.

I have no idea why Clinton turned Osama down.

Because its a lie.

Oh...I see...it's a lie because you say it is. Even though the proof is all over the place in main stream media and the congressional record, because the Kernal says it's a lie, it is...


Wow...are you the epitome of the perfect moron or what????

What I really want to know is why you say you hate yourself...you are definatly the most repugnant dufus I have ever seen...
[Edited on 13-4-2004 by Colonel]




posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra


I dont know why I feel so strongly about this, but I know In my heart, If bush was not in office, 9-11 would not have happen.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Even so, we permitted it and so now we can't use it as an excuse to invade and kill by the thousands.

We did not permit it. We condemned it. In that case we let the UN dictate the response. We should have gotten him back then.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by SpittinCobra


I dont know why I feel so strongly about this, but I know In my heart, If bush was not in office, 9-11 would not have happen.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.



Nice to know that you are both omnipotent as well as stupid...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
We should have gotten him back then.


I agree with this.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Affirmative Reaction
Nice to know that you are both omnipotent as well as stupid...


Its nice to know that, you have a job in stand-up waiting for you.

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra
I dont know why I feel so strongly about this, but I know In my heart, If bush was not in office, 9-11 would not have happen.

I am simply amazed sometimes....

Something terrible happens and the belief is that it is all due to Bush. And all the allegations are speculations. All involved are guilty until proven innocent. If Bush did have something to do with it, and there is proof then fine...but to state that he is guilty because "I just know" is completely the opposite of what this country and the Constitution stands for.

Poeple seem to say that THEY have rights against the government. The government can't just brand them guilty, can't come take people away, can't come take their guns, and can't presume guilt. Yet when the shoe is on the other foot...what do these same innocent people say? The government or Bush must be guilty due to allegations. The burden is for the accused to prove their innocence.

The fact that one of these outspoken people here is supposed to be a lawyer, or work with the law is very scary. He obviously doesn't believe in due process and he doesn't believe in innocent until proven guilty. I should say he doesn't believe in those rights unless it applies to him or his cause...then he is a believer. How corrupt is that? That seems repugnant to me.

Again, that is a contrary to the basic ideals of the USA country. Has that been forgotten? Has the lure of this new millenuim witch-hunt been so strong that people will overlook the basic rights that all Americans have, including members of the government?

What about the terrorists that actually committed and supported 9/11?
It seems the USA is persecuting those poor fellows. Nevermind proof. We all know Bush is responsible.
We all know they planned it. We all know they supported it. Nevermind the proof. Nevermind the rights of innocent till proven guilty. Now if they came after me Joe Citizen...well, then I have the right to be proven guilty, but the government is just guilty. I know it.

This reminds me of a woman who is raped and beaten in the streets. It must have been her fault. She must have worn skimpy clothes. She must have deserved it. She knew it was going to happen, she was told by police the street was dangerous. She caused it, not the men who raped her. Wait, maybe it's the police department's fault. They must have had prior knowledge. In fact, the police were under-funded so it must have been a government plot to rape the woman. They probably trained the rapists. In fact, Bush knew about the whole thing.

How absurd.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Again, that is a contrary to the basic ideals of the USA country. Has that been forgotten? Has the lure of this new millenuim witch-hunt been so strong that people will overlook the basic rights that all Americans have, including members of the government?


If we, the people got this. Explain this to me, why do we have to pay to get out before our trial, if we can pay a bond. If not guilty, why cant you be free till proved guilty?

I agree alot of what you said was absured.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   
Typical repugnant tactic. When questoins and facts are presented, tarnish the messenger and speak to patriotism. Its getting old.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpittinCobra

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Again, that is a contrary to the basic ideals of the USA country. Has that been forgotten? Has the lure of this new millenuim witch-hunt been so strong that people will overlook the basic rights that all Americans have, including members of the government?


If we, the people got this. Explain this to me, why do we have to pay to get out before our trial, if we can pay a bond. If not guilty, why cant you be free till proved guilty?

I agree alot of what you said was absured.



Because the vast majority of those accused ARE guilty, and if there was no incentive to show up for trial, ie bond, they would run like rabbits. That is the reason the bond process was instituted in the first place.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:27 PM
link   
They dont know that for sure, if they did they would have all the answers. They pursume, or use data that they have to come to these conclusions, thats the only think I have done with your friend bush.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by SpittinCobra


I dont know why I feel so strongly about this, but I know In my heart, If bush was not in office, 9-11 would not have happen.


I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Typical tactic....


Sure, have it your way...

I feel it.
I know it.

Forget the LAW.
Forget DUE PROCESS.
Forget INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Lets just skip all that and start burning people.
Maybe torture some confessions out of the guilty.
Find some good hanging trees while we're at it.

If you don't see that these basic rights are extended to everyone regardless of race, religion, age, or job description...then America has gone downhill.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Donald Rumsfeld -Reagan's Envoy- provided Iraq with
chemical & biological weapons
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]

July, 1984. CIA begins giving Iraq intelligence necessary to calibrate its mustard gas attacks on Iranian troops. [19]

January 14, 1984. State Department memo acknowledges United States shipment of "dual-use" export hardware and technology. Dual use items are civilian items such as heavy trucks, armored ambulances and communications gear as well as industrial technology that can have a military application. [2]

March, 1986. The United States with Great Britain block all Security Council resolutions condemning Iraq's use of chemical weapons, and on March 21 the US becomes the only country refusing to sign a Security Council statement condemning Iraq's use of these weapons. [10]

May, 1986. The US Department of Commerce licenses 70 biological exports to Iraq between May of 1985 and 1989, including at least 21 batches of lethal strains of anthrax. [3]

May, 1986. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of weapons grade botulin poison to Iraq. [7]

March, 1987. President Reagan bows to the findings of the Tower Commission admitting the sale of arms to Iran in exchange for hostages. Oliver North uses the profits from the sale to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua. [17]

Late 1987. The Iraqi Air Force begins using chemical agents against Kurdish resistance forces in northern Iraq. [1]

February, 1988. Saddam Hussein begins the "Anfal" campaign against the Kurds of northern Iraq. The Iraq regime used chemical weapons against the Kurds killing over 100,000 civilians and destroying over 1,200 Kurdish villages. [8]

April, 1988. US Department of Commerce approves shipment of chemicals used in manufacture of mustard gas. [7]

August, 1988. Four major battles were fought from April to August 1988, in which the Iraqis massively and effectively used chemical weapons to defeat the Iranians. Nerve gas and blister agents such as mustard gas are used. By this time the US Defense Intelligence Agency is heavily involved with Saddam Hussein in battle plan assistance, intelligence gathering and post battle debriefing. In the last major battle with of the war, 65,000 Iranians are killed, many with poison gas. Use of chemical weapons in war is in violation of the Geneva accords of 1925. [6] & [13]

References:

1 Washingtonpost.com. December 30, 2002
2 Jonathan Broder. Nuclear times, Winter 1990-91
3 Kurt Nimno. AlterNet. September 23, 2002
4 Newyorktimes.com. August 29, 2002
5 ABC Nightline. June9, 1992
6 Counter Punch, October 10, 2002
7 Riegle Report: Dual Use Exports. Senate Committee on Banking. May 25, 1994
8 Timeline: A walk Through Iraq's History. U.S. Department of State
9 Doing Business: The Arming of Iraq. Daniel Robichear
10 Glen Rangwala. Labor Left Briefing, 16 September, 2002
11 Financial Times of London. July 3, 1991
12 Elson E. Boles. Counter Punch. October 10, 2002
13 Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. Iranchamber.com
14 Columbia Journalism Review. March/April 1993. Iraqgate
15 Times Online. December 31, 2002. How U.S. Helped Iraq Build Deadly Arsenal
16 Bush's Secret Mission. The New Yorker Magazine. November 2, 1992
17 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia: Iran-Contra Affair
18 Congressional Record. July 27, 1992. Representative Henry B. Gonzalez
19 Bob Woodward. CIA Aiding Iraq in Gulf War. Washington Post. 15 December, 1986
20 Case Study: The Anfal Campaign. www.gendercide.com



Anything else?

If we were really concerned about tyranical dictators, I'm sure we would have done the "right" thing and taken our precious democrazy to Cuba a long time ago.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Forget the LAW.
Forget DUE PROCESS.
Forget INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Lets just skip all that and start burning people.
Maybe torture some confessions out of the guilty.
Find some good hanging trees while we're at it.

If you don't see that these basic rights are extended to everyone regardless of race, religion, age, or job description...then America has gone downhill.


Isn't that what Ashcroft wants? Isn't that what's going on in Gitmo? Is that the Patriot Act? Isn't that the Bush Admin gameplan?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I do think it is interesting, the ferver of the crowd. Not a single "good point Zedd, innocent until guilty is the law so lets go throught a trial and see what happens".

Not even a nod of the hat so to speak.

Just attack from a position of screw the law, they're all guilty. Just attack with allegations, speculation, and name-calling.
This from the same people that campaign against the very same thing being done to them. Hypocracy not democracy seems to be the method to the madness.

Not one person could even see the point that was made, and yet they consider themselves educated.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
Isn't that what Ashcroft wants? Isn't that what's going on in Gitmo? Is that the Patriot Act? Isn't that the Bush Admin gameplan?

And your opposed to that right? Opposed to that being done to you?
But in favor when it is done to others to fit your agenda?

So you are no better than that which you claim to be against.

Hypocracy at it's best. That is my only point.
Lets have a trial before we hang the slaves, master...



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:44 PM
link   
No, see, you can't reason with a repugnant b/c they are bullies. They have turned so since Newt Gingrich took over the party and Rush joined them. They have turned bully and there is only one way to deal with a bully---stand up to them. Then, when you do, they cry and whimper, playing the victim and appeal to your sense or morality and patriotism.

Its an old tactic, Zed, and no one is falling for it.

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by Colonel]



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel

Originally posted by ZeddicusZulZorander
Forget the LAW.
Forget DUE PROCESS.
Forget INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

Lets just skip all that and start burning people.
Maybe torture some confessions out of the guilty.
Find some good hanging trees while we're at it.

If you don't see that these basic rights are extended to everyone regardless of race, religion, age, or job description...then America has gone downhill.


Isn't that what Ashcroft wants? Isn't that what's going on in Gitmo? Is that the Patriot Act? Isn't that the Bush Admin gameplan?



Yeah yeah yeah, that's the Bush plan. Kill every body. Yer such a moron. You have no clue what the Patriot act does in the first place. You still believe that all it does is take away all your rights as a citizen because that's what rense.com and whatreallyhappened.com tells you. What a freaking sheep you are.



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:48 PM
link   
I guess I should listen to YOU right, Mr. NewsMax?



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Colonel
No, see, you can't reason with a repugnant b/c they are bullies. They have turned so since Newt Gingrich took over the party and Rush joined them. They have turned bully and there is only one way to deal with a bully---stand up to them. Then, when you do, they cry and whimper, playing the victim and appeal to your sense or morality and patriotism.

Its an old tactic, Zed, and no one is falling for it.

[Edited on 13-4-2004 by Colonel]


The only bully here is you, dinkus. And now that there are several standing up to you, you are trying an old Palestinian tactic...calling your opponant that which you are. Sorry, not buying it. The problem is, you HAVE no sense of morality or patriotism. All you do is make crap up, and then call names and berate people when they disagree with you. Old tactic, Kernal...and no one is falling for it...





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join