9-11 Conspiracy Theorists

I suggest this book
http://www.amazon.com/People-Are-Screwing-America-Franken/dp/0060761288/ref=sr_11_1/103-7983088-7627049?ie=UTF8

So were the faked satellite shots of Iraqi tanks massing on the Saudi borders.
http://www.representativepress.org/LiesAboutIraq.html

yes yes.. skip over the entier POINT of the post to point out the "atrosites" that did happen.. nice... do you consider the dead children of Iraq killed by american bombs an atrosity?

dude I was there, I saw the bodies. If you would like to continue your irrelevent, rather tasteless line of thought be my guest, but you won't get far

there were tanks there, trust me. Maybe not when the photos were taken, but there were tanks there.

Well, so you agree that the US is under a terrorist threat and needs to be fought. Good start, I'm proud of you.

Now explain to me how a police action and criminal investigation would work for an overseas based terrorist group?

And what about nations that did allow terrorists to use their resources, provided camps to train, and so on. I'm not saying that every response should be an invasion, but at some point it might be necessary. I take it from your posts that you think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong. At what point do you think an invasion is appropriate, or are you saying it is never justified.

I do think that it was Congress who dropped the ball by not declaring war on Afghanistan, but that's a whole separate issue.

The best solution for a longer term defense against terrorism is something between conventional military action and a criminal investigation. But that's far easier said than done.

The US is under a greater terrorist threat now then it has ever been! Mostly because of the incredibly bad choices of the Bush Administration.

Investigations such as I mention with the cooperation of friendly Governments was once feasible and DID work --and work quite well. Bush's administration has in 5 years since 9-11 squandered every single bit of goodwill this nation ever had with other countries.

Your assumption that I think the invasion of Afghanistan was wrong is a false assumption.
Not only do I think it was a correct action --but it should have used greater force, more boots on the ground and it was infact where we should have focused our military.

But Bush blew it in his zeal to get to Iraq and try to one up his Daddy. He took his eyes off the prize and now the Taliban is back AND Iraq has become something it never was --a hotbed of Islamic terrorists training on an active battlefield. Good show!

Mission Accomplished.

Kendra, cut that out!

I can't find anything to disagree with in your post.

Edit - yes I did. Separate post.

Not proven by any stretch.

Even the FBI watchlist doesn't accuse him.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

you are almost 100% stating my opinion, I think Bush Sr. should have let us go all the way to Baghdad in '91. There was already an uprising going on in Iraq so it would have been easier to leave afterwards IMO.

But you'e been saying that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack but instead part of some US government conspiracy. Therefore, you support the invasion of a country who had nothing to do with 9/11. Not only that, you would attack them with even greater force than was actually used.

You mean other than the part where he himself talked about it and congratulated himself?

Oh, that's right. Must have been staged. Go ahead and believe that if you like, but I'll reiterate what I said earlier here: I don't trust anything that requires that much mental gymnastics to subscribe to.

I have never said it wasn't a Terrorist attack. I have said that I don't believe the Government's version of the events of that day, and in that non-belief questions arise as to whether or not our Government let those events happen on purpose.

It's clear that many of the elements involved (Al Qaida) had been trained and sheltered in Afghanistan and that the Taliban would continue to harbor terrorists of the same ilk. Bin Laden included. And we knew Bin Laden was there in Tora Bora.

I DO think Bin Laden was involved --though not as much as he has been painted, and not without the complicity of certain rogue elements in our Government to make sure the targets were achievable. Who ordered NORAD to stand down?

This begs the question though --why didn't Bush committ himself to capturing or killing Bin Laden?

The only conclusion I can make is that he didn't wish to. In the absence of answers from my Government --I am left still with questions.

Myself? I'd have liked Bin Laden caught --and put on trial so that I would have answers.

It's a faked Video. Bin Laden denied it as well (an odd activity for a terrorist) Generally terrorists lay claim that they did it --it's the very reason for them doing it.

In any event --and not for you madame ostrich --I'll include a link for other's to read and decide for themselves if it was Bin Laden on the tape.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html

We report. You decide.

It's mentioned, but it isn't specifically tied to 9/11 as such.



There's no claim that these things didn't happen, nor is there a claim that terrorism doesn't exist as such. That Al Qaeda could seriously have achieved penetration in the US? Yes, that is very much called into question, and in fact it's shown that we had achieved full penetration of them.



You're assuming that Bush played a major role (other than a speaking one). He really, apparently, did not, although he certainly is far from not guilty. However, as far as a contingency plan to use as an excuse for an invasion? Yes, that would have to have been started years ago. Does that suggest that Clinton has some things to answer for, too? Why, I suppose it does.

If I promise to force my way through that silly thing, will you, in turn, read the one I recommended? Then we compare notes after? If you'll go for this, I'll actually hold up my end of the bargain.

Otherwise, I need you to sell me on this a little more. Why do I care about what appears to be a highly partisan, emotionally charged rant session that goes out of its way to target Al Franken for whatever reason? Especially given that I support neither the Republican nor the Democratic parties to begin with?

if you will give me till christmas to read yours, I am kinda busy atm with school just starting. and thats more of a lighthearted read, I'm sure there is more that can be read into it, but I found it more entertaining

Then we agree to compare notes by Christmas?

I will try to get it read, I make no promises to when I will be done. But I will make my best effort.

Then I will do the same.

I would rather be



than

Micheal moore is number 1? omfg.. is standing up for worker rights and pointing out how god aweful the American administration is really that bad?


funny Quote I read on it "The Title Should Be: 110 People Bernard Goldberg Doesn't Like"

In what is now known as the Middle East, some 8000 years ago, somebody from one village stole the goat the someone in a village in the next valley.

It's been tit for tat and an eye for an eye, growing like a snowball rolling down a hill ever since.

He is?

Well, whatever. I suppose I'll know the whole list eventually. I will definitely report back with my findings, although I suppose I won't be able to post them here since the forum will be gone.

Perhaps SL Homepage, then.