Dick "Allow Torture" Cheney: Approaching a new 9/11, but much worse

Try to pay attention. I said they have no need to attack the US. I did not say all their goals are met.

 

The Bush quotes on this subject;

Your original assertion of Bush's quote;

"we are not only going after the terrorists but the supporters of terrorism". (No source found)

And your newer one;

"We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them’ (Bush 2001). " (Source found)

Your latest one " The United States makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror and those who support and harbor them, because they're equally as guilty of murder. "(Source October of 2005)

"It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. "

Hardly.

1. Saddam was not a terrorist.

2. Saddam was not engaging in terrorist activities while in prison hence, his father was not supporting him at the time.

3. Saddam was not even a dictator of global reach much less a terrorist of global reach.

4. His father never was a nation who harbored him.

5. Bush didn't put terrorists on trial, he took them out.

I say you look up the definition of global terrorist organization and see if Saddam fits the bill, tell us what support his father had for Saddam in 1987 when the attack took place, look up a widely held definition of terrorism and see if a chemical attack against ones own people to force those same people to do something fits the bill, then look up who was president at the time during the attack (not terrorism but attack), show how Bush's words intended in going back in time to deal with those who harbored terrorism rather than meant those who were doing it, show how his intent was to put anybody on trial, and then, show us the support Saddam was being given to terrorize globally (not take action against people in his own nation in what is not terrorism but a military attack on civilians) but globally.

I look forward to your well researched reply.

In any case, Bush's words are in the present and future tense meaning those who do and will do, not those who have done in the past. If your ludicrous claims of Saddam being a terrorist of global reach were true then his father was not guilty but rather the US troops who held him in prison during his trial would be as they harbored him, the entire Iraqi peoples were guilty, . As well, any nation that did or had done business with him would also be so France should be attacked or rather every French citizen should be placed on trial along with every Chinese person, anybody that talked to him, gave him a nickle or the time of day etc etc etc.

Gifted, this is great, I look forward to your reply!

 

And as an air traffic controller on the East coast, your theory that it wasn't those 4 planes flying into those buildings puts me and my colleagues "in on it". Along with thousands, if not tens of thousands of other Americans that would have to be "in on it". You are saying my colleagues worked imaginary planes and talked to imaginary pilots? In dozens of radar facilities, from Ohio to the East coast, Bush had hundreds of air traffic controllers pretend there were 4 planes that didn't exist? Your ideas are ludicrous, and it's obvious you didn't think this through before opening your mouth.

 

We have been raised from birth to be good soldiers, all the feel good patriotic movies, GI JOE, transformers, super heroes cartoons. It's all for a reason. It's pre-training for war.

 

Considering war has ravaged every nation on Earth for the last few thousand years, I certainly hope my nations' leaders prepare the population for war. It would be foolish not to, right?

 

Then what happened to the plane at the Pentagon? Where did it go? No engines, where'd they go. You and your colleagues didn't have anything to do with that day. You did what you were told. I am guessing you didn't even work in the area of the supposed attacks, so you just know what you were told. If the MOSSAD can infiltrate the government they will have no problem infiltrating an air traffic controller. Look I am sure you are a good person but I don't trust a malignant government, I won't put anything past them. Sorry but I believe the wool has been pulled over your eyes. Have you seen any of the videos about 9/11?

 

You have a point there, but pre planning a childhood is very dangerous to our communities. Newtown... any other school shooting is the result of that pre-training. I think you can train people in boot camp and be just fine.

 

I read a review of the Hip Hop hit Loose Change that unlike the official story asks questions but has no answers.

 

Www

blah blah blah, Zionist bs blah blah blah. Another racist Zionist imagine that. What is wrong with hip hop?

 

Not sure if your intent is to name call or ask a question. Please rephrase your reply to clarify and we can move on thanks.

 

A question mark in the English language means it was a question. What is wrong with hip hop? Are you Donald Sterling? You got a problem with African Americans?

 

Not at all, your post was muddled as you were simply calling me names with a question mark thrown in so I asked for clarification as to the intent of it. I know that conducting yourself unemotionally on a forum might be a foreign concept to you but it makes the discussion flow much easier - unless one is so used to name calling that it is second nature to do so in which case seeking a more primitive venue such as a grade school play ground might provide more satisfaction.

 

What are you talking about, I have been laughing at you. I love it how calling you a Zionist is name calling. Look at your signature. You brag about it. Now it's a swear word? Come on dude you are not that interesting to me. Your racist side came out and I called you on it. Way to shut down.

 

A bit off topic are we not? Please start a thread about me if this is what you wish to discuss.

 

you are funny. Yep it is true

 

Indeed, you were a bit off topic so I shall go back to where we were;

I read a review of the Hip Hop hit Loose Change that unlike the official story asks questions but has no answers.


Oh, , let me know when you wish to stop hijacking others threads and start an off topic thread about me so I can read it.

 

911Truth.Org: Questions about the 9/11 attacks? 9/11 Truth ...
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Scholars for 9/11 Truth - Home
Scientists for 9/11 Truth

 

Questions. Hmm, no answers though. Too bad nobody other than the official story answers the questions.

Indeed. So they are also asking questions but can't tell us anything about how, when, where, why and provide a complete timeline like the official story as told by the most authoritive institutions in the world do.

Yet they don't have any answers so why bother going to read questions when one can simply go to Encyclopedia Britannica and get them?

 

Alex Jones might be a sponsor on one of those sites, or they may use hip hop for music Mr. Bedson will say those two things make it all not true. See for yourself if you haven't already.

 

Did those 4 planes depart or not? The way air traffic works is that many trainees who are not actively working planes sit at unused scopes and listen and monitor the traffic. Several air traffic centers would have had to tell their trainees to go to the other room if they were in on some false tracking of planes. This would have affected hundreds of people, and it would be the first and only time in history that air traffic controllers were quarantined from the IFR room. And that is what would have had to have happened, unless you are saying all of the hundreds of ATCers at several air traffic facilities were in on the plot.

No, your 9/11 theory is on the far end of a spectrum of propaganda aimed at Cheney and Bush so as to seize their political power. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

 

Well none of them even tell us who actually did it so how on earth are we to believe they know anything when they can't even name the perpetrators with any certainty as the official version does?

 

No law enforcement agencies are investigating. It's hard to get search warrants for the average person.

Let's investigate who owns encyclopedia Britannica in just a few minutes.

Why bother why concern yourself then? You are the only one responding to my post's. It's comical, you are a propagandist, you keep saying the same thing over and over again. How many times do you need to respond?

 

They won't lie like the government does every day. Really you asked such a silly question

 

Jacqui (Jacob) Eli Safra is a Swiss investor, descendant of the Lebanon-Swiss Jewish Safra banking family.[1] Some of his investments include Encyclopædia Britannica, Merriam-Webster, and Spring Mountain Vineyard, a large wine-growing estate located in Saint Helena, California. He is the nephew of Edmond Safra.

Under the name J.E. Beaucaire (the name of the character played by Bob Hope in the film Monsieur Beaucaire), Safra appeared in minor roles in three movies and financed eight Woody Allen films through a production company, Sweetland Films, run with girlfriend Jean Doumanian, a close friend of Allen

Yup a Zionist not to be trusted unless you are a Zionist yourself. Well encyclopedia Britannica is out the window for a trusted source.

 

Pilots For 9/11 Truth