RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers

RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 6:45:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne you mean more credible than the judicial watch one that also came from there? Yeah.. I'm less than fond of some of the.. questionable.. sources that are often cited as support here. I guess some of the posters here get away with some pretty stupid things when citing partisan sites where readers aren't exactly offended by unsubstantiated arguments that happen to be in their favor. (Seriously, how many non-extereme partisans read these things? There's not exactly a middle ground to offend.) But, in any case, I do have to draw the line at alien conspiracy theory sites. ok so the judicial watch is an alien conspiracy organization imp. For Immediate Release Apr 20, 2005 Contact: Press Office PHONE DELETED FBI PROTECTS OSAMA BIN LADEN’S “RIGHT TO PRIVACY” IN DOCUMENT RELEASE Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights (Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that fights government corruption, announced today that it has obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) in which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) has invoked privacy right protections on behalf of al Qaeda terror leader Osama bin Laden. In a September 24, 2003 declassified “Secret” FBI report obtained by Judicial Watch, the FBI invoked Exemption 6 under FOIA law on behalf of bin Laden, which permits the government to withhold all information about U.S. persons in “personnel and medical files and similar files” when the disclosure of such information “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (2000)) short snip tell me whats alien about this? aside from you have never seen it before?

Real0ne -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 6:59:20 PM)
anyway ya all have a good evening, i am nursing a nice migrane tonite so i am 1/2 in the bag anyway. If you think this is fucking sobering wait till you see the little seen video that i found of the airplane hitting the tower from one of our honest joe nmews media outlets. i need to make copies and give my friends time to get it before putting it up just in case. LOL, but this one even set me back. i will try to post it later in the tyranny thread if this headache gets better.

CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:13:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Didn't the majority of the preparations for 9/11, on the part of Al Qaeda, occur during the Clinton era? Additionally, weren't security forces still acting under the same methods that were followed in Clinton's era? No and no. So the plan was made, the terrorists came here, enrolled in and mastered flight school, and coordinated in the few months between Clinton's departure from the White House and 9/11? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Unless you are referring to going to Home Depot to purchase box cutters. Meh, I guess it'd be included. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: Additionally, he could have continued to fund the anti-terrorism portion of the FBI who were watching a bunch of Islamic types take flight school in the US. Instead, he cut their funding and the funding of the INS bureau to investigate why they were in flight school and the visas associated with it. He cut funding to those investigating the terrorists that conducted 9/11? Could you cite this? I have previously.That's.. great.. but it'd help me more if I could see a cite.. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: There, those are two examples. Let me know if these are not enough for you and I will throw a few dozen more out. Substantiation would do. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I have posted on this in previous posts, please avail yourself of the links I have already provided. Let me know which source you have specific comments on or issues with and I will be happy to provide further substantiation. ..so you're asking me to go searching through other threads- as you have provided no links on this one- on a hunt for links you may've provided before that might have something to do with this subject? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. Enjoy Your research. I'm not searching through all the 8,397 posts you've made for links that might be relevant. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.p.s. Perhaps next time you will think twice before insulting another poster on the number of posts they have made in order to shore up your own position, and instead focus on and respond to what they are posting. A: Why would I be inclined to think again? B: ..there was no insult.. I mentioned the number of posts she made to point out that she wasn't an avid poster, so her decision to post there was unusual.. C: Why are you so emotional about all of this? I feel like anything I say is going to inspire further bitterness and passive aggressive behavior from you.

CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:15:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Isn't there some way to blame this all on Carter or maybe Kennedy? Ah, no. Let's blame it all on Bush instead. Just easier, plus we obviously don't like him as much. Plus, we need someone to blame, right? It has to be someone's fault.

CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:17:02 PM)
I believe I pointed out that the website you linked me earlier had alien conspiracies, real. (Which, if you click the link, you can readily see.) Could you cite this article and its relevance? Edit: To fit in the response to your next post.. I hope the headache feels better. Caffiene and Advil are both known to help with migranes.

johnxinxscruz -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:20:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Didn't the majority of the preparations for 9/11, on the part of Al Qaeda, occur during the Clinton era? Additionally, weren't security forces still acting under the same methods that were followed in Clinton's era? Technically, Al Qaeda didn't exist before 2001. Al Qaeda was a paper-tiger created by a NYC prosecutor so that he could seize Osama Bin Laden's assets in retaliation for the bombing of the USS Cole. In order to do that, he had to show that Osama was the head of a criminal organization/conspiracy. Therefore he transformed Osama's small fringe group within the Afghanistan jihadi movement into "a terrorist network". But, prior to 9/11, Osama was actually a fringe in Afghanistan, not the leader of the large decentralized terrorist community there. Osama Bin Laden didn't adopt the name Al Qaeda for his own activities until AFTER 9/11, when he realized that that's what the west was using to refer to his small clique. And, of course, it does him nothing but good to also accept the prestige of being called a mastermind of a vast organization. For references, I'll come back and follow up. It was a BBC documentary that talked about the rise and delusions of both the Neo-Cons and the Islamists. Someone else may know which one I'm talking about.

Sinergy -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:21:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..so you're asking me to go searching through other threads- as you have provided no links on this one- on a hunt for links you may've provided before that might have something to do with this subject? I'm not searching through all the 8,397 posts you've made for links that might be relevant. So what you are saying is that you are demanding that I do all of your work for you, and implying that I am not providing substantiation to my post. You didnt read the links I already provided, what sort of guarantee do I have that after spending time finding the links that I posted that you wont simply ignore them a second time? Are you stating that you dont actually read what other people post and consider message boards to be your own personal bully pulpit? You didnt even bother to view a profile or two when a poster made a post to the wrong profile prior to being dismissive of the number of posts a person made, rather than actually respond to her position, even though the profiles are nearly identical. I was not put on this planet to support your laziness. If it works for you, keep it up. "Take the blue pill and you wake up in your bed tomorrow, believing whatever you want to believe." Morpheusergy

SusanofO -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:29:28 PM)
I am sorry but I grow weary of people who apparently object that Bush didn't "do enough" to prevent 9-11, and at the same time will object to warrantless phone wire-taps to prevent a similar occurrence. I am not sure why a warrantless phone wire-tap is necessary, but if for some reason it is, to catch a Terrorist, and doing that will prevent another 9-11, then there is no question in my mind of which option wins out. I don't think it's right, but given a choice, I opt for catching Terrorists. Sorry. People who seem to want to forget 9-11 happened, and thousands of people roaming the streets of NYC wondering what they ever did to deserve such a fate, and who think we will somehow be miraculously saved from another 9-11, as long as we play by rules that Terrorists already seem more than willing to ignore, are people I can easily lose patience with. These are people who will apparently stop at nothing to see us dead. They have training camps training people specifically how to kill us. And they were around long before Bush ever took office. If it comes down to them or us, sorry - but I vote for us. Maybe in some cases, it's not a clean or easy choice, but if it has to be made, that's the one I am making. I have "morals" - I also believe in self-defense. I am no particular fan of Bush, or his admisintration - but IMO, some of the same people bitching about our "tactics" seem to be some of the same folks who, I'd be willing to bet my last dollar, would turn around tommorrow and blame the Bush administration for "not doing enough to stop it", if another 9-11 occurred. They're already doing it. I also wonder why they seem to think that catching Terrorists is going to follow a predictable time-table, or why they think "we should have caught them by now"? Why would that be true? *And I already believe that 9-11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war, and think we shouldn't even be there (so please don't mention it in connection with catching Terrorists). - Susan

CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 7:38:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord ..so you're asking me to go searching through other threads- as you have provided no links on this one- on a hunt for links you may've provided before that might have something to do with this subject? I'm not searching through all the 8,397 posts you've made for links that might be relevant. So what you are saying is that you are demanding that I do all of your work for you, and implying that I am not providing substantiation to my post. What I'm asking is that you support your points, yes. And, correct, you, as of yet, have not substantiated your points here. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy You didnt read the links I already provided, what sort of guarantee do I have that after spending time finding the links that I posted that you wont simply ignore them a second time? Ah, my apologies. I realize I haven't read all zero of your links so-far provided. My apologies if there's one I missed, though a skimming of the nine pages of this thread makes this seem unlikely. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Are you stating that you dont actually read what other people post and consider message boards to be your own personal bully pulpit? What made you think this? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy You didnt even bother to view a profile or two when a poster made a post to the wrong profile prior to being dismissive of the number of posts a person made, rather than actually respond to her position, even though the profiles are nearly identical. Actually, I did respond to her position.. and noted that she seemed to be coming due to your involvement.. ..after which point, both of you seemed to be infuriated that I thought she started posting here because of you.. ..which is something that causes me to wonder why such an observation offended you so badly.. ..but.. yeah.. I answered her point.. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I was not put on this planet to support your laziness. If it works for you, keep it up. ..yeah, me not wanting to search well over eight thousand posts, checking every link in them for possible relevance to this topic is me being lazy.. I realize now that it was wholly unreasonable of me to expect you to cite your own claims, and that it's my responsiblity to search the net for the possibility that they might be true. My apologies. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy "Take the blue pill and you wake up in your bed tomorrow, believing whatever you want to believe." Morpheusergy ..yeah, Matrix was a good movie.

Sinergy -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 8:03:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord What I'm asking is that you support your points, yes. And, correct, you, as of yet, have not substantiated your points here. Incorrect. I have supported them. You have not bothered to read them. There is a difference. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Are you stating that you dont actually read what other people post and consider message boards to be your own personal bully pulpit? What made you think this? Because you refuse to read other peoples posts, insult the people who do post, and then demand that they provide you a spoon feeding of the points from the posts you refuse to read. I posted the information you are asking for at least a year ago. Presumably in your coming up to speed on what has been posted before you got here you read it. Apparently, in your mind, the message boards are something put here solely for your amusement. By the way, was your insult about passive-aggression from a clinical and hands-on perspective of a licensed practitioner? Or simply a poorly aimed and inarticulate attempt to pick a fight with me? I hope that is working for you. Sinergy

NeedToUseYou -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 8:16:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: johnxinxscruz quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Didn't the majority of the preparations for 9/11, on the part of Al Qaeda, occur during the Clinton era? Additionally, weren't security forces still acting under the same methods that were followed in Clinton's era? Technically, Al Qaeda didn't exist before 2001. Al Qaeda was a paper-tiger created by a NYC prosecutor so that he could seize Osama Bin Laden's assets in retaliation for the bombing of the USS Cole. In order to do that, he had to show that Osama was the head of a criminal organization/conspiracy. Therefore he transformed Osama's small fringe group within the Afghanistan jihadi movement into "a terrorist network". But, prior to 9/11, Osama was actually a fringe in Afghanistan, not the leader of the large decentralized terrorist community there. Osama Bin Laden didn't adopt the name Al Qaeda for his own activities until AFTER 9/11, when he realized that that's what the west was using to refer to his small clique. And, of course, it does him nothing but good to also accept the prestige of being called a mastermind of a vast organization. For references, I'll come back and follow up. It was a BBC documentary that talked about the rise and delusions of both the Neo-Cons and the Islamists. Someone else may know which one I'm talking about. It's a three part series but what your referring to is the last of the three. It's a good series. I recormmend them all. The link to the relevant one is below, all three are on google video. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&q=The+Power+of+Nightmares&total=337&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

SugarMyChurro -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 8:23:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: johnxinxscruz Someone else may know which one I'm talking about. I think you refer to "The Power of Nightmares." Links to it and other great things can be found here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=1269041 If all you have is 5 minutes, then at least watch "What Barry Says" - it's brilliant!

SugarMyChurro -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 8:33:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I am sorry but I grow weary of people who apparently object that Bush didn't "do enough" to prevent 9-11, and at the same time will object to warrantless phone wire-taps to prevent a similar occurrence. I am not sure why a warrantless phone wire-tap is necessary, but if for some reason it is, to catch a Terrorist, and doing that will prevent another 9-11, then there is no question in my mind of which option wins out. That's a joke, right? Expecting the president to followup on meaningful security briefings and allowing him to alternatively violate our rights for no apparent reason are two wholly discreet concepts. You are just being provocative - I don't believe you meant what you wrote there.

BamaD -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 8:51:40 PM)
In answer I bring up a minor, apparently meaningless point......the 9/11 highjackers would have been just as happy attacking the Saudi government as attacking Americans.

johnxinxscruz -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 9:32:00 PM)
yeah, you two remembered the title of the documentary I was referring to (I was referring to the whole thing, not just the last installment): The Power of Nightmares. Thanks, to both of you, for providing links to it, as well :-)

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 9:34:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD In answer I bring up a minor, apparently meaningless point......the 9/11 highjackers would have been just as happy attacking the Saudi government as attacking Americans. True,and their ilk still is.

johnxinxscruz -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 9:45:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I am sorry but I grow weary of people who apparently object that Bush didn't "do enough" to prevent 9-11, and at the same time will object to warrantless phone wire-taps to prevent a similar occurrence. It isn't an "either X or Y" situation. The fact that he could have done more doesn't mean he should have gone (and should go now) to the opposite extreme of undermining our American values. He could have followed up on the plausible intel he had before 9/11, which was not domestic intel, and done more than nothing. That doesn't mean that he should have gone to the opposite extreme of creating a police state and jingo-ist culture that causes people to make McCarthyism seem down right libertarian. quote: I am not sure why a warrantless phone wire-tap is necessary, but if for some reason it is, to catch a Terrorist, and doing that will prevent another 9-11, then there is no question in my mind of which option wins out. I don't think it's right, but given a choice, I opt for catching Terrorists. Sorry. You're willing to give your constitutional rights, the very things that give meaning to your claim to being American, without even knowing whether or not it's necessary? I hope you're playing devil's advocate. The alternate explanation would be rather scary.

Owner59 -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 10:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: johnxinxscruz quote: ORIGINAL: SusanofO I am sorry but I grow weary of people who apparently object that Bush didn't "do enough" to prevent 9-11, and at the same time will object to warrantless phone wire-taps to prevent a similar occurrence. It isn't an "either X or Y" situation. The fact that he could have done more doesn't mean he should have gone (and should go now) to the opposite extreme of undermining our American values. He could have followed up on the plausible intel he had before 9/11, which was not domestic intel, and done more than nothing. That doesn't mean that he should have gone to the opposite extreme of creating a police state and jingo-ist culture that causes people to make McCarthyism seem down right libertarian. quote: I am not sure why a warrantless phone wire-tap is necessary, but if for some reason it is, to catch a Terrorist, and doing that will prevent another 9-11, then there is no question in my mind of which option wins out. I don't think it's right, but given a choice, I opt for catching Terrorists. Sorry. You're willing to give your constitutional rights, the very things that give meaning to your claim to being American, without even knowing whether or not it's necessary? I hope you're playing devil's advocate. The alternate explanation would be rather scary. "You're willing to give your constitutional rights, the very things that give meaning to your claim to being American, without even knowing whether or not it's necessary?" Good point. Susan,Susan my dear.I must point out that hundreds of thousands, of Amerians have fought and died,for over 200 years, to bring these precious,unique,and awesome rights, to us.We owe it to them ,to preserve what they gave us .Otherwise,we`re dishonoring them and saying their sacrifice was meaningless. Read what Dr. Ron Paul has to say.I agree with him. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6743

SuzanneKneeling -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 10:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro Isn't there some way to blame this all on Carter or maybe Kennedy? Ah, no. Let's blame it all on Bush instead. Just easier, plus we obviously don't like him as much. Plus, we need someone to blame, right? It has to be someone's fault. Actually, a convincing argument could be made that it was Eisenhower's fault. Nobody in this country seems to know or care what we did to Iran in 1953, but it set the tone for enduring resentment toward the U.S. All because so much of our God-given oil was inexplicably hiding under their sand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax And then Reagan helped Al Qaida get its start by funding the Mujaheddin.

CuriousLord -> RE: 9/11 non-sympathisers (9/12/2007 10:17:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord What I'm asking is that you support your points, yes. And, correct, you, as of yet, have not substantiated your points here. Incorrect. I have supported them. You have not bothered to read them. There is a difference. I haven't bothered to read unnamed threads, many of which are probably ones you've posted before I've even joined CM? Please don't tell me that you're this dense. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Are you stating that you dont actually read what other people post and consider message boards to be your own personal bully pulpit? What made you think this? Note: Fixed the messed up quote tags here.. I think you missed one, or something. Because you refuse to read other peoples posts, insult the people who do post, and then demand that they provide you a spoon feeding of the points from the posts you refuse to read. What posts haven't I read? What insults have I made? Is asking for someone to cite their claims "spoon feeding"? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I posted the information you are asking for at least a year ago. Presumably in your coming up to speed on what has been posted before you got here you read it. ..you want me to know what you posted a year ago for a point you're trying to make today..? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Apparently, in your mind, the message boards are something put here solely for your amusement. Or for debate.. with logic, and sources for claims, and talking about personal opinions/feelings, and.. well, you know, those sorts of things. My apologies if I happen to enjoy posting here. My sympathies that you don't. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy By the way, was your insult about passive-aggression from a clinical and hands-on perspective of a licensed practitioner? More of an observation. Would I need a medical liscense to tell you that a sneeze and cough with no notable fever is likely a cold? quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Or simply a poorly aimed and inarticulate attempt to pick a fight with me? Just an observation on your.. aggressive.. disposition that seems to grow increasily disturbed. quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy I hope that is working for you. This sort of sarcasm being an instance of observation..

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875