That's exactly my point, and you're somewhat assisting me to make it. You said whether it was the Government, or the terrorists, what difference would it make? My point was, if the government had absolutely no issue at all planning, and executing a plan to fly 3 planes into buildings, and one into the ground, killing approximately 3,000 people at the time, and more afterwards from illnesses due to cleaning up Ground Zero, then yes. I would legitimately be afraid that the Government would\could come kill me for no, or any reason at all. That being said, I do not believe the Government was behind 9/11, I believe that a terrorist faction known as Al-Qeada was behind 9/11. Hence why I don't believe my Government will execute me anytime soon. My point wasn't that I think the Government will get me, it's that you saying "what's the difference?" didn't make much sense to me. Who perpatrated the crime is extremely important to me, and most of the reason why I'm here. To combat the woo woo. Not...entirely my point. If I wanted to get away from a murderous Government, following the laws on how to get out probably wouldn't be my largest concern. I definitely wouldn't fly, as that's the most monitored way of traveling. However, again, I don't ever see this happening. On 9/11 "they" didn't select one person out of 300 hundred million, they selected two gigantic (*)(*)(*)(*)ing office buildings, the Pentagon, and insert_target_here, containing a bunch of people. They then flew planes, planted bombs, planted thermite, placed a mini nuke, aimed their space ray, or whatever your particular theory to destruction is, and weakened the structures until they collapsed. So in this case I wouldn't be afraid for my individual life. I would be afraid because I work for a worldwide fortune 500 company that represents a lot of the U.S.'s wealth, and if they went after our financial targets it's possible mine could be on a list. Yup, I think I clarified it as much as I possibly could.
It's a bit infeasible and unrealistic for the US govt to organise mass murder on a national scale without involving the military who would more than likely be against it. How exactly would you escape? Row to Cuba? Then you have the additional problem of remaining in whichever country you decided to run to. So what they'll just repeat the same tactics and hope to get away with it a 2nd time. I was quoting someone else. I forgot to actually put the quote in.
Mind reading again? Consulting the great spirits? I know she came back from the dead and testified in court. Sniping citizens, which constitutional amendment was that again? - - - Updated - - - when the government willfully snipes an american citizen that is a foul up huh? What would you call it if an american citizen sniped an agent?
they couldnt bomb pearl either. how incredibly small minded. bio weapons and nukes only require a few planes in the air and a few rogue agents.
Japan struck Pearl harbour. It's an extremely well known fact. I think you've read too many Tom Clancy novels RIP No the government did not do that. An ATF agent did. I say foul up because there are alot of things that can go wrong with an organised body of armed soldiers/police etc. If a private citizen decided to randomly kill an agent then that would be premeditated murder.
Guy, I don't know what you're arguing with me about, but it's getting a little dense. I am not saying it is feasible, or that it is realistic for the government to kill it's people. There was an entire (*)(*)(*)(*)ing paragraph of me saying exactly that, are you reading my posts? Let me say it plainly so that you can understand a bit more easily. I, PLAGUE311, DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS BEHIND 9/11 IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM. I AM NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST, AND YOU ARE AGREEING WITH THE WORDS I AM SAYING, DESPITE NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU ARE. You get me? I don't think the Government did it, and that was never my point. Your phrase stated, "If it were the terrorists, or the Government behind it, then what is the difference?" Not verbatim, just what you basically said, I replied by saying if the Government WAS behind it, it would be a GIGANTIC difference. I don't think you're understanding that part yet. You're arguing against me to prove the same point. Is that how the Jews got to America during WWII? The only options to get anywhere when leaving from America is a plane or a row boat? Are you serious right now? There is a list of countries you can go to, and political asylum is something that is granted in several countries. To think that there are no options outside of rowing to Cuba is ridiculous in and of itself. I wish I understood your angle. I am not saying they would do the same thing. I am saying if they were smart enough, or devious enough to fly planes into buildings, and the Pentagon, and if their continued goal was to ruin financial, or money making businesses to destroy the economy of the West, then that would put me in jeapordy. (I made kind of a dumb statement previously and said we represent a lot of the US's wealth, that is obviously not true. No one company does, I was attempting to prove a point. I retract that statment.) If they figured out something as simplistic and devastating as using planes as missiles, I'm sure they'll think up something else. That's why we have the NSA, etc. Because that wasn't the only thought or plan that AQ had, they have others. You also forget to hit the "Reply With Quote" function when you're editing posts. If you hit the "Reply With Quote" it will give you a series of information between two brackets. If you copy and paste that before each sentence you want to quote it will take the person to that quote. At least that's how I do it. Yours looks like [QU.OTE=Pro-Consul.;1063155731.], except with no "." in it, because I had to break the "code".
I never said that you did. I'm saying that the odds of the govt actually doing anything like this a bit remote. This was what I was trying to get at. You're not reading what I've written. The Canadian border would likely be heavily monitored if it ever came to a situation where the US govt was seriously concerned over the escape of certain persons. Yes there's always Mexico but it's the same situation and the places that aren't monitored would mean a long trek through dry deserts. Yes political is granted across the globs as per UN international law. But proving that you are a genuine refugee is difficult. In order to damage the US economy they would do a hell of alot of damage simultaneously and across the whole of the US. So the odds of you being in a building that is going raided or blown up etc is a bit slim. I will keep that in mind.
so the atf is not a government agency? an agent does not represent the government is that your theory? when an agent randomly shoots a citizen its justified but when a citizen shoots an agent its a crime eh? what amendment is that again?
Yes No. But you cannot guarantee that that particular agent will act appropriately. I did not say that at all.
The odds of the Government doing it is nil. They can't. Pretty sure I did, but I'm done with this line of argument after this post anywhere, as it's all irrelevant. You'd be surprised, however, I probably wouldn't flee to Canada. I'm not much for gravy and French Fries. Although, I am only an hour from the border, so I guess I could. LoL....yeah, the Mexico border is very heavily monitored. If the US Government was killing it's people en masse, the political asylum would be lenient from other countries. Plus, if the US did anything of the sort it would be highly televised, and shown to the world. Which would only increase the leniency. We don't know. The original target of 9/11 was going to be nuclear plants, which would have a devestating effect on the US, fiscally. Also, the cost of cleanup, and then the shutting down of companies that were effected. You never know who they are going after next, as most of the companies that got hit didn't expect it either. No one really did. Obviously you didn't since you failed to utilize that yet again.
Well there you go. We agree. Well they could always curtail the media or shut it down before they go and do something like that. But we have already established that it's impossible for the US govt to do that. If they can make a NPP blowout well then yes the surrounding areas would have to be evacuated but it would not break the US economy. Yes I did. I just did not care to do it. Btw when I explained what I did I was not looking for instruction.
Impossible with the amount of avenues that we have available for us to communicate. You could shut down every TV station in the US, but it would still be impossible. No way. If we had 4 Nuclear Power Plant strikes that blew up it would shut down A LOT. It might not break the U.S. Economy but it would absolutely put us in turmoil. I don't even know, it might break the U.S. economy. Nuclear Explosions are massive.... It's called board etiquette, of course you don't have too. It just makes it easier to read. Do whatever you want, way to show your rebelliousness.
Well it's rather fortunate that explosions from NP plants are very different from nuclear weaponry. What usually happens is a relatively small explosion occurs due to the build up of pressure. But the actual big bangs that nuclear weapons cause aren't really possible without a Tritium core as it is an "amplifier". And in general not all nuclear explosions are massive as some warheads are designed have a small blast area which classifies them as tactical weapons. That's funny considering you've used foul language in our exchanges. I'm not rebelling against anything. I merely told you that I was not responding in that way that's all.
The entire point of the conversation is moot as there is absolutely no evidence to believe the "gubmint" had something to do with this, and that it was not what we all saw on TV and real on the ground. It's nothing more than an attempt by the Nutters to obfuscate because they cannot disprove the real evidence. K-whats's his face does this on a regular basis because he completely unable to disprove the plane parts found in and around the Pentagon, are the result of AA Flight 77 so he resorts to all this misdirection... Nothing to see here.
they destroyed evidence and committed willful negligence evidence? some people will never understand evidence and it aint me LOL
You enjoy snitches don't you champ? Some scummy federal agents asked him to saw off a shotgun, then arrested him and tried to get him to betray his friends. When he refused to join them as their snitch, they snuck onto his property and murdered his son and his wife. Nice guys eh?
somebody is smoking some really good (*)(*)(*)(*) or just plain liars not only is that a lie but they had it all planned out, and the irony? Same thing they did for 911. I am sure you do not see the connection?
Shocker!..another non-specific nonsense claim. "they" - Who is "they" and prove "they" had any part in anything? Evidence - "something which shows that something else exists or is true". 1. Eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon. 2. Identified plane parts (and human remains) were found in the and around the damaged area of the Pentagon. 3. AA Flight 77 was tracked on radar to the Pentagon....where it left the radar. 4. An Eyewitnesses saw the plane clip light poles prior to crashing into the Pentagon 5. That same woman pickup and saved a piece of the planes wingtip that was left after clipping a light pole. The construction of which, is not used in a missile. All of these are evidence that a plane, AA Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. You can attempt to redefine "evidence" because those fact prove you Nuts but, everyone will know how dishonest you are. I'm guessing the already do.
He was already known as a minor player in organized domestic terrorism. Nothing unethical about turning one of them for the protection of civilization.
eeeww...."snitch"..."lefty"...so, I guess someone with much sharper critical thinking skills, than you....must be a "gubmint" plant. Why is it you can't prove any Nutter claims?
..or, the simple fact, they can't back up their nutter claims. These people want to ignore the facts in front of them and make up their own claims and then say, "well it could have happened that (their) way so, until you prove it can't, it did!
