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

1) "we are not only going after the terrorists but the supporters of terrorism". (No source found)
2)" 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)

Don't blame me that you can not figure out that 1 and 2 mean the same thing.

You can deny reality if you wish but do not expect me to take you seriously if you can not figure out that the meaning of the two above phrases is equivalent.

 

I claim that rational people consider using chemical weapons on civilians a form of terror. In any case it is crimes against humanity by definition.
Saddam was not in prison whilst gassing his own people. The Reagan administration supported Saddam while he was using chemical weapons and Bush Sr. continued to support Saddam after he had used them.

Who said anything about Global terrorist organization.

Of course Bush's words applied to the past. When Bush spoke them 911 was in the past. LOL

Are you claiming that we should not put people on trial for things done in the past ?

 

Obama does what wants Wall Street

 

Encyclopedia Britannica:
The third plane, American Airlines flight 77, taking off from Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., struck the southwest side of the Pentagon (just outside the city) at 9:37 am, touching off a fire in that section of the structure. Minutes later the Federal Aviation Authority ordered a nationwide ground stop....

Wow that answered all the questions about the plane at the Pentagon very informative

 

What a bunch of bs Britannica is. It doesn't answer one question that any of the scholars, scientists, and pilot's are asking in fact they are questioning the answers that Britannica gives. So really that was a complete waste of my time. I knew it would be but I thought I would at least read it for myself.

 

Maybe this will help.
Saddam Hussein's Support for International Terrorism

 

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others. The consensus of intelligence experts has been that these contacts never led to an operational relationship, and that consensus is backed up by reports from the independent 9/11 Commission and by declassified Defense Department reports[3] as well as by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, whose 2006 report of Phase II of its investigation into prewar intelligence reports concluded that there was no evidence of ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.[4] Critics of the Bush Administration have said Bush was intentionally building a case for war with Iraq without regard to factual evidence. On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes, "We could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period

 

You are right. He lies like every other politician.

 

They would if 1 was an actual quote but it is not, rather it is a fabrication you made as I searched and could came up with no source for it.

Provide the actual source for the first quote if we are to take you seriously in the least please.

Please post the widely accepted definition of terrorism you are working with as this does not fall under any of the major ones used today or, at that time.

Please provide the support they gave please. Oh, here is the definition of terrorism as per the FBI which is the one the US uses and, the one Bush would have been using

"18 U.S.C. § 2331 defines "international terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the Code, entitled "Terrorism”:

"International terrorism" means activities with the following three characteristics:

Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum.*"

So even if Saddam was an international dictator and France, China, Britain, Brazil and of course your Bush Sr had given support to Saddam for this it would not have fallen under the definition.

Golly, it was in the same speech that you one and only actual Bush quote came from;

" Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. "

He didn't say that every person who scared another person, every company that sent a scary letter to an individual but specified whom he was talking about and, it turned out that this is why the war on terror is called the 'Global War on Terror.'

Strange, he used present tense and, didn't refer to the Indian Thugge Terrorism of the middle ages or the Jewish Zealots circa AD70 or the Nizari Ismailis of the thirteenth century, heck, he didn't even refer to Hamas because they are not a Global Terrorist organization. And no, he used present tense because that is where the battle is right now - and in the future. If he had used past tense then you could expect every German to be rounded up for using your silly logic that any violent act is terrorism when they supported their government for using gas in WWI.

The court rooms would be overfull with Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, British etc as they supported Saddam in spades. However, this is not a conundrum as Saddam was not an international terrorist of global reach so nobody has to go to jail. Sides, Bush wasn't talking about putting supporters of terrorists in jail but rather shutting them down so they don't do it anymore by whatever means it took.

 

Doubt it, he is stating Saddam was a terrorist. Any fool knows he helped Hamas blow up Jews and stuff ad hid some Al Qaeda operatives from time to time so this won't help him at all.

What morbid questions do you wish answered? You know the plane hit the Pentagon so what exactly do you feel is necessary to know? Do you read a newspaper and when a traffic fatality is posted do you get angry because nobody tells you or shows you the injuries and blod stains? Do you demand that the investigators provide metallurgical specifics of the cars?

Now that you know what actually occurred you can rest easy. If you seek more information then write to the investigators and I'm sure they will be more than happy to provide details if they feel you need to know. In any case, now that the enyclopedia has allayed your suspicions and you know 911 occurred just as the official version stated you can relax a bit!

 

G. W. Bush started Iraq war for three major reasons: 1) to get more cheap oil, 2) to please Israel and 3)to avenge his daddy. Torture was wrong and it was outrageous violation of our principles and what we promised to the world after WWII. Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld should be investigated tried and jailed.

 

Agreed, war criminal's.

 

No that is not what I meant. I meant that your Britannica was useless. The statement's they make are what the scholars are questioning. If you are trying to convince me of the bs just give it up. I'm not under the spell any more. It's funny I read a book a couple weeks ago that was about brainwashing and mk-ultra. Since then I see the techniques being used by politicians and commercial's every day. The more enlightened I become the more obvious you become. What gets me though is it's not obvious to the brainwashed. I really feel for them. They run around here praising their political parties getting emotionally involved over nothing. Hating each other to the point of wanting to kill each other. What is sad though is one day they will get the chance to rip each other's heads off. All the while our political system is for show the politicians are all good buddies. Having dinner together, going golfing, making a boat load of cash together. My point is I'm never going to believe that the Muslim's did 911. So you can stop wasting your time. maybe it's not me you are trying to convince. That should be obvious to every one, but that spell has them. The subconscious programming they have been under causes them to reject key words when heard or seen. So I think you are wasting your time trying to keep them away. Oh but wait I just remembered it was loose change THAT BROKE THE SPELL ON ME.

I was ready to sign up for the army and go fight Muslims for Israel because they are God's chosen people. What a crock of (*)(*)(*)(*). The bible should be referred to as the brainwashing book.

 

Look at photos and tell .....

1. Girl near the grave of her brother, who died in Iraq.


2. 12-year-old boy on his father's funeral - a sailor.


3. Soldiers returning from the war for the first time he sees his child.


4. Syria. This man knew that his children were killed.


....for what all this?

 

Terrorism isn't a crime. It's an act of war. Liberals were pretty quite when we executed Timothy McVey. Who did we execute for 9/11?

- - - Updated - - -

Seems you are implying they needed to attack us on 9/11.

 

Not trying to convince you of anything PC, merely asking you to prove your statement that 911 was a big lie and that the official version is wrong by showing us who actually did it and how and when followed by a timeline of sorts, something that anybody who knows 911 was a big lie could easily share.

So can you tell us and prove who did it and how or are you merely bloviating?

 

Obviously the terrorists felt a need to attack us on 9/11 since they did.

 

So Clinton and Congress were in on this when years earlier the made regime change the official policy towards Iraq? And the UNSC as well when they authorized the US to use any necessary means to get Iraq to comply with ceasefire conditions? But why would they not let Saddam sell oil if the US needed it ? And why on earth would the US facilitate and encourage democracy rather than drill, pump and ship oil from day one?

 

LOL If you can not figure out that the meaning of two sentences can be the same even thought the words are not exactly the same then go educate yourself.

I ask if you are suggesting that we not put people on trial for actions in the past and this (above) is what you have to say ? LOL

Since all actions for which we put folks on trial happened in the past I suppose we should just get rid of courts according to you.

If you do not agree that using poison gas on people is an act of terror nor crime against humanity then you are welcome to your opinion. I disagree.

 

So when did Bush Sr harbor Saddam as it means support and vice versa and, show us the widely accepted definition of terrorism you are using as to base your entire argument on something you made up is plain silly.

Oh, you forgot to mention what you were going to do with the millions of Chinese, Brazilians etc who supported Saddam the most nor have you shown Saddam to be a global terrorist (or even a terrorist at all for that matter).

Oh, I ask for facts rather than opinion so please, back yours up with something other than self written quotes.

 

I did not say Bush Sr. harbored Saddam. Quit making things up and attributing them to me. This seems to be your modus operandi.

I said that Bush Sr. supported Saddam (in this case financially), and this is a well established fact.

What is more ridiculous is your claim that terrorism does not include using poison gas on civilians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

Clearly Saddam committed acts of terrorism. Your attempted denial of this fact is abject nonsense.

Why should I do anything. It was not me that claimed that the US does not tolerate supporters of Terrorism, it was Bush.

It is Bush that, according to his own words, should be going after Bush Sr. Rumsfeld, and so on. Best to take the log out of your own eye before trying to pick the speck out of your brothers.

The hypocrisy is glaring.

 

Dude you are an ______ I answered you long ago about knowing every thing there is know about 911. NO I DON'T, IF I KNEW THAT INFORMATION I WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PLAN. That doesn't make Britannica right. I could easily sit here and make up a story to appease you, like the commission did. But I don't have time for bs.

 

You said that support and harbor meant the same thing when you made up that quote that you attributed to Bush, I merely showed that it does not mean the same thing.

Please provide the quote and link to this well established fact as I smell the usual stench of somebody making things up.

It does if it is done along the established parameters of terrorism which in Saddam's case it did not.

""In the international community, terrorism has no legally binding, criminal law definition.[1][2] Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (e.g., neutral military personnel or civilians).""

Saddam's intent was to get rid of peole not to create fear. From yourWiki;

"" The Iraqi High Criminal Court recognized the Halabja massacre as an act of genocide on March 1, 2010, a decision welcomed by the Kurdistan Regional Government. The attack was also condemned as a crime against humanity by the Parliament of Canada.""

Genocide and a crime against humanity. I take it that your charges of terrorism were not listened to in the trial.

Clearly from the above nobody other than nutters agree with you.

Well it would give your ranting a bit of credibility considering the international community and the Iraqi people don't agree with you one iota.

Was Rumsfeld supporting Saddam after Bush gave that speech? Was Saddam ever placed on a list as a global terrorist? Did you ever, just once ever charge that Brazil, Russia, Eastern Europe, India, France, Britain, China and the entire UN for buying Iraqi oil should be thrown into Gitmo for supporting Saddam?

Quite.

 

Well Hombre, looks like since you don't know much about it you are quite unqualified to state with any degree of certainty that ""911 was a big lie"" then wouldn't you agree?

It sure does as they are one of the world's leading authorities on historical and intellectual/factual records. If they state that 911 occurred a certain way you can be sure they did their due diligence as their record is fairly pristine compared to you tube which you seem to be very fond of using for some strange reason.

Just throw us a bone and name the actual perpetrators and their individual roles. Surely you have time for that or, can it be you don't have a bloody clue?

 

9/11 was about the biggest lie I can recall in recent history.