Osama Bin Laden NOT Wanted for 9/11, Says FBI (3765 hits)
Category: NewsLabels: ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: -0.51 on 236 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-06-19 13:55:14 EDT
http://www.twf.org/News/Y2006/0608-BinLaden.html
"""When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb, the FBI's Chief of Investigative Publicity, is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."""""
*twiddles thumbs, whistles, and smiles*
Seriously guys, this is BEYOND obvious. If you don't see through it by now, you got probs.
That reminds me, did anyone happen to catch the CNN special on the "mistakes in intel" leading up to Iraq last night? They basically said that Bush and Cheney manufactured the war.
Even CNN is slooooowwwly beginning to come around. If you can't even beat CNN to the truth about something, there's something wrong.
User Reviews
Submitted by Donitsu2002 (user info) at 2006-06-25 04:04:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
This kid is the load his mother wished was a facial.
Submitted by rockdocc (user info) at 2006-06-24 00:06:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
hey boss, if I've known this for quite a while, then where the hell is the rest of america?
ahh well.
we're still going to kill him.
if for no other reason than just out of sheer spite.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-23 22:55:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-06-22 08:22:22 (#)
Ranking: 0
This should be fun for you Americans....
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0621-27.htm
Even more diluted down news...??
-------------------------------------------------------------
Just when I thought the news couldn't get any worse.
Submitted by Beano312003 (user info) at 2006-06-22 08:22:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This should be fun for you Americans....
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0621-27.htm
Even more diluted down news...??
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-06-21 23:36:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
Just think of it this way: if there were no crime to fight, Superman would be out of a job."
i've been saying that for years. but it's stupid to think the constancy of crime is a legitimate act by the powers-that-be. it's an extension of the natural world, it's just the way things are.
Submitted by jgreening (user info) at 2006-06-21 23:01:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Dubteehef?
I thought I rated this...
Glad to have you back, whacko.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-21 16:24:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 01:21:53 (#)
Ranking: 0
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I FUCKING LOVE IT!
BRA-FUCKING-VO!
Hey, email me, I'd like to talk to you. electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will try to drop you a line later...
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-21 09:57:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Dear Lord, he's even resorted to emailing himself back and forth to make it look like it's not him.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-21 01:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-21 00:34:01 (#)
Ranking: 2
You might enjoy this ETS:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606Russert.htm
----------------------
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I FUCKING LOVE IT!
BRA-FUCKING-VO!
Hey, email me, I'd like to talk to you. electrictoothsyndrome.at.gmail.com
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-21 00:34:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You might enjoy this ETS:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/200606Russert.htm
Submitted by erosion_rules (user info) at 2006-06-21 00:23:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I seem to remember someone saying they were never using uber again.
I may agree with you, but you're such a dildo about the things you say that I am morally required to -2 you.
Stop trying to sound like some mysterious resistance group. It's like pirate radio without the piracy or the radio. And more gayness.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:43:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Our 'forefathers' were a bunch of smugglers, pirates and slavers (see Samuel Adams) who chose to foster a rebellion rather than surrender their rum-running profits to the British.
See "To Rule the Waves" by Arthur Herman. It's actually pretty cool.
Anyways, off to bed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:26:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:09:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
The truth is that you and I and wardy and indoninja will never know the truth, so there's nothing to argue about or come to a consensus about. The only thing we can truly know is how many penises have been in Caulaincourts mouth and butt, and that's only if he tells us.
George Bush isn't the enemy here. Want to know why? Because he's an idiot, and he's a puppet. You shouldn't hate him. He's just as stupid as the blindly patriotic sheep he leads.
Want to know who the real enemies are?
Our forefathers are.
The fine gentleman who created our ambiguous government in the first place. They had INCREDIBLE foresight; so much so that it boggles my fucking mind. They built this country and this government to be ridiculously flexible, allowing the things that you're so riled up about to happen.
Everything they put in place, every law, every constitutional right, was SO fucking vague that it was open to interpretation. ON PURPOSE.
Look at any Supreme Court case, for example, especially First Amendment cases, and any precedents their decisions might have put in place. They interpret the law as they see fit. One Supreme Court Justice might see the law as one way, and another will see the total opposite.
It's quite genius, really, that these men, from hundreds of years ago, did not put this government in place to protect our rights, but to make it so malleable as to allow people in power to slowly but surely turn this country into a destructive whirlwind of repression, all the while giving us our illusion of civil rights and freedom and peace, without the citizens barely making a peep, or even noticing until it was too late.
The problem is, Bradley, that you're trying to dismantle a process that is so fucking rooted into the ground, figuratively speaking, that to actually achieve what you're trying to achieve would bring this entire country crashing to its knees. Do you really think that you could even make a dent in that? It's like trying to tackle an oak tree. If, SOMEHOW, you managed to pull it off, it would be like pulling the pin on a grenade.
Boom. All gone.
America is what America is. A modern day Rome. It won't last forever, but it sure as hell will last longer than you or I will.
--------------------
You have no idea how many times I've told people lately that "we're living in Rome" and have them look at me like I had a fruit bat on my head. I tell them "you are living in a time right now that will be talked about for the rest of human history" and again...flying rodents.
America is built behind closed doors. America is not protected by a soldier with a gun, it is protected with a handshake and a wry smile.
Illuminati, my friend.
But you're right, it can't lst forever, know why???
Because our resources won't last forever. When they run out and the protection from fear these people have given us in this 200+ year industrial time bubble has evaporated, seriously, God help us all.
The upside is, after the smoke clears, maybe there will be a chance to start over a different way.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:14:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:09:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
The truth is that you and I and wardy and indoninja will never know the truth, so there's nothing to argue about or come to a consensus about. The only thing we can truly know is how many penises have been in Caulaincourts mouth and butt, and that's only if he tells us.
-----------
Frankly, you'd be better served finding out how many penises have NOT been in his butt. You can count mine among the "yea's". :(
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:12:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:45:08 (#)
Ranking: 0
well yeah method, i also see the war on drugs as being hopeless in terms of never ending. perhaps they should have picked a different name, but we're americans and we like sounding hardcore. to me it doesn't seem like it would be feasible to ever completely destroy all the drug crops all over the world. and even if we did do that, would the conspiracy theory still exist that we simply did that so we could give some huge tax-funded contract to a campaign contributer?
think of it this way: what would the world be like if the u.s. didn't have their war on drugs. or better yet, what would america be like? would you want to live here if you thought that every other house was a meth lab?
the idea that we're allies with columbia simply so that we can manipulate the cocaine market could be somewhat true, although not in the manner in which you guys think. obviously we can't just go into columbia and bomb their fields -- that's what you guys are saying is wrong with the iraq war. however, if we are allies and we coax them properly, we can perhaps control and monitor the situation better. maybe it's not the best solution, but when you're a top military/political advisor the pressure of dealing with millions and sometimes billions of lives (and yes, dollars -- your constituents dollars) decisions become very difficult. i think that the west wing was a great show in that it showed the public (even though it was left-leaning and therefore conservatives often felt it critisized the presidency, whatever it was fiction) just how difficult it actually is to make a fucking decision in washington.
that was really fucking long.
-----------------
You know, the more of your replies I read, the more I think you almost HAVE to either A) work for the government, or B) live a very sheltered suburbian existence. How can you, with all the evidence I've given you to the contrary, continue writing reviews like this wherein your fundamental fallacy is based entirely on the assumption of the government's benevolence?
Why do you think the government has our best interests as a people at heart? What evidence do you have for this 'conspiracy' of goodness?
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:11:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And I'm not quite sure whose argument it helps that they were all drug addicts = (
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 22:09:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The truth is that you and I and wardy and indoninja will never know the truth, so there's nothing to argue about or come to a consensus about. The only thing we can truly know is how many penises have been in Caulaincourts mouth and butt, and that's only if he tells us.
George Bush isn't the enemy here. Want to know why? Because he's an idiot, and he's a puppet. You shouldn't hate him. He's just as stupid as the blindly patriotic sheep he leads.
Want to know who the real enemies are?
Our forefathers are.
The fine gentleman who created our ambiguous government in the first place. They had INCREDIBLE foresight; so much so that it boggles my fucking mind. They built this country and this government to be ridiculously flexible, allowing the things that you're so riled up about to happen.
Everything they put in place, every law, every constitutional right, was SO fucking vague that it was open to interpretation. ON PURPOSE.
Look at any Supreme Court case, for example, especially First Amendment cases, and any precedents their decisions might have put in place. They interpret the law as they see fit. One Supreme Court Justice might see the law as one way, and another will see the total opposite.
It's quite genius, really, that these men, from hundreds of years ago, did not put this government in place to protect our rights, but to make it so malleable as to allow people in power to slowly but surely turn this country into a destructive whirlwind of repression, all the while giving us our illusion of civil rights and freedom and peace, without the citizens barely making a peep, or even noticing until it was too late.
The problem is, Bradley, that you're trying to dismantle a process that is so fucking rooted into the ground, figuratively speaking, that to actually achieve what you're trying to achieve would bring this entire country crashing to its knees. Do you really think that you could even make a dent in that? It's like trying to tackle an oak tree. If, SOMEHOW, you managed to pull it off, it would be like pulling the pin on a grenade.
Boom. All gone.
America is what America is. A modern day Rome. It won't last forever, but it sure as hell will last longer than you or I will.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:54:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:23:54 (#)
Ranking: -2
not only that, but a nation of drug addicts doesn't make for a very productive one either. it also leads to things like robbery, rape, murder, etc. your idea (and method's) that the government needs a certain degree of crime to sustain itself is completely ascinine. in a capitalist world, the harder people work and the more they work improves the quality of life for all, especially those people at the top of the economic food chain.
----------------
Did you not read my arguments about how keeping entire populations of people addicted to drugs disenfranchises them politically and keeps them out of power?
Did you not read Method's arguments about how they keep power by maintaining the ability to prosecute political dissidents by simply busting them on drug charges, either real or fake?
How many people are in our prison system for marijuana? How many for cocaine? How many for acid or heroin?
*sings System of a Down"
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:49:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:31:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
You both make very valid points, and I respect your opinions. I believe that the government does have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal, and you believe that they are genuinely trying to eradicate drugs off the face of the earth, or at least control the international drug trade, a multi-trillion dollar industry.
Do you believe that the U.S. government is trying to seize control of all drugs? Do you think it's even possible? I just don't see a feasible goal to their endless war on drugs, thus causing me to question their actual motives.
It might be that we could meet somewhere in the middle, and come to some sort of consensus on the matter.
See, that wasn't so difficult, was it Bradley? It's called being civil. You should try it more often.
----------------
Good luck with reasoning with Wardy and Indoninja.
How can you come to a 'concensus' on the truth? What are you really saying here?
"I'll shred the evidence for 'A' if you agree to shred the evidence for 'B'?"
Sounds like a sinister game of political Bingo or something.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:45:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
well yeah method, i also see the war on drugs as being hopeless in terms of never ending. perhaps they should have picked a different name, but we're americans and we like sounding hardcore. to me it doesn't seem like it would be feasible to ever completely destroy all the drug crops all over the world. and even if we did do that, would the conspiracy theory still exist that we simply did that so we could give some huge tax-funded contract to a campaign contributer?
think of it this way: what would the world be like if the u.s. didn't have their war on drugs. or better yet, what would america be like? would you want to live here if you thought that every other house was a meth lab?
the idea that we're allies with columbia simply so that we can manipulate the cocaine market could be somewhat true, although not in the manner in which you guys think. obviously we can't just go into columbia and bomb their fields -- that's what you guys are saying is wrong with the iraq war. however, if we are allies and we coax them properly, we can perhaps control and monitor the situation better. maybe it's not the best solution, but when you're a top military/political advisor the pressure of dealing with millions and sometimes billions of lives (and yes, dollars -- your constituents dollars) decisions become very difficult. i think that the west wing was a great show in that it showed the public (even though it was left-leaning and therefore conservatives often felt it critisized the presidency, whatever it was fiction) just how difficult it actually is to make a fucking decision in washington.
that was really fucking long.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:31:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You both make very valid points, and I respect your opinions. I believe that the government does have a vested interest in keeping drugs illegal, and you believe that they are genuinely trying to eradicate drugs off the face of the earth, or at least control the international drug trade, a multi-trillion dollar industry.
Do you believe that the U.S. government is trying to seize control of all drugs? Do you think it's even possible? I just don't see a feasible goal to their endless war on drugs, thus causing me to question their actual motives.
It might be that we could meet somewhere in the middle, and come to some sort of consensus on the matter.
See, that wasn't so difficult, was it Bradley? It's called being civil. You should try it more often.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:23:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
not only that, but a nation of drug addicts doesn't make for a very productive one either. it also leads to things like robbery, rape, murder, etc. your idea (and method's) that the government needs a certain degree of crime to sustain itself is completely ascinine. in a capitalist world, the harder people work and the more they work improves the quality of life for all, especially those people at the top of the economic food chain.
do you think the ceo of taco bell wants his employees addicted to crack? what about the manager at best buy -- do you think he likes it when his video games salesman comes in baked out of his mind? i mean, do you really think this is good for business?
method, please stop encouraging ets by telling him he's intelligent -- he's far from it. i could go on and on about reasons why he's not, but i can't be bothered with wasting that much time. and your comment about people being unintelligent in the midwest was also a pretty clueless statement as well, but whatever.
what gets me is the fact that you two actually buy into this. that you see some sort of odd possibility that the government and businesses are completely evil and out to fuck us, when in reality we are the ones that make the decisions. as much as ets wants to shift the blame of his shitty life onto the big bad government and big business, he really only has to blame himself. he's the one that didn't take advantage of 'clinton's' great financial aid oppurtunities for college. he's the one that started smoking pot and dropping acid instead of getting a good job and working his way up to being somewhere in management. and he's the one that doesn't vote. oh but don't forget he's all chipper and giddy when his portfolio does well...
face it ets, the government doesn't fuck you. you fucked yourself.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 21:02:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 20:51:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
This argument here is hopeless.
You keep going back to your same conclusions and I don't even see how you're managing to squirm your way back there.
It's been spelled out for you in my review and Method's review. Let's just drop it, how's that. It'll be easier on my blood pressure that way.
-----------------------------
You are 100% right almost every single western country, actually almost every single country in the world is in on a conspiracy to make American companies rich and give the Us an excuse to go to war.
Great theory.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 20:56:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:43:05 (#)
Ranking: 0
This is where the malice comes in...
They could, but they wouldn't get elected by the ultra-conservative-leaning populace. This way, they get to covertly make their money and spend OUR TAX DOLLARS fighting it at the same time. They'll capture just enough to justify their fighting, but they'll let just enough through to make billions a year... And by billions a year, we're talking more than Exxon.
So it's a win/win/win situation: get elected on grounds of 'morality', declare a 'war on drugs' and pump funding into supplying police with drug busting equipment which is manufactured by the same people who contribute to the campaigns, then set up governments abroad to keep feeding the beast while they make money hand over fist from being drug pushers.
It's flawless. The American people don't read, so their plot isn't that widely known. The media won't talk about it because they are also in the pockets of the same manufacturers that contribute to the campaigns and build the Huey helicopters and Bradley tanks, thus it all goes right under the noses of the American public!
Beautiful, huh!
There is another advantage to helping push drugs, though...an even more sinister one...classism, racism, and theivery...dare I say, Nazism?
If you can keep a certain group of people mired in drugs, you can effectively neutralize them politically and thus, control them. Look at what was done to the Black Panthers and Martin Luther King in the 60s. Look into the CIA's involvement in introducing crack cocaine into heavily black populated inner cities. Our government's whole MO has been to keep the blacks poor and subservient and out of the competition for power.
Government drug pushing also offers and excuse for foreign conflict. If we can convince the American people that all their drug problems and, consequentially, crime problems are related to this drug cartel in such and such country, you can justify military action against that country to the American people so they'll shut up and not ask any questions.
It goes on and on the reasons the government would want to do it under the table instead of legitimately. Legit drug trade means oversight, and oversight means prying, prying means non-exclusive control.
If the world is one big geo-political chess match, it makes perfect sense.
-----------------------------------
See my reply to method below. It isn't an evil conspiracy if most people believe it is wrong. That isn't ultra conservative, no weed may be conservative, but does any country even allow cocaine? I mean you keep saying the American people, but how many countries have legalized drugs?
CIA and crack connection is shit, at worst you have tenous links between people who were doing work for the CIA and drug dealers (even NPR concedes that http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/race_relations/july-dec96/cia_11-18.html ). The CIA doesn't always hire angels, and I don't think they would be above something like this, but there would have been better ways to make money.
I am sure you think that there is some bald pasty white guy in a basement in DC trying to keep the black man down, but racism is a poor fallback for a theory that is simply wrong.
Why would the govt want to do it under the table? The Govt likes oversight (at least in your world). They like to have their fingers in every pie, why not do it out in the open? How do they have exclusive control now, is the US the only country with drugs? Do we control other countries drug policies (if so explain countries that de-criminalize it, or the netherlands)?
This theory doesn't work.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 20:51:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
This argument here is hopeless.
You keep going back to your same conclusions and I don't even see how you're managing to squirm your way back there.
It's been spelled out for you in my review and Method's review. Let's just drop it, how's that. It'll be easier on my blood pressure that way.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 20:39:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:39:55 (#)
Ranking: 0
The U.S. makes more money keeping drugs illegal than they could ever make if they legalize it.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/006/editorial.shtml
The New York Times has reported that American companies including General Electric, Microsoft, Apple Computer and General Motors have sold goods to fronts for the "Cali Cartel." The illegal money flowing into Colombia is such that it has turned a $5 billion per year US trade deficit into a $5 billion trade surplus as American products are bought for newly laundered funds. The US government also gets a stream of revenue from whatever illicit funds it can lay claim to, whether seized outright or bargained-for in return for lighter sentences for captured drug kingpins.
In fact, read the whole fucking thing yourselves, you lazy fucks.
------------------------------
So what, big companies had goods bought from laundered money? Now I couldn't find the New York times article that this referenced, so I don't know how they arrived at their number, but use your head here. Wouldn't the drug cartels have more money to spend on consumer goods if they weren't bribing officials and spending money laundering it? If it was all above board they would have more money to spend on shit from Apple.
In 2003 the Federal tax rate per pack was $0.39, that netted the Govt around 7 billion, Taxing will always make more money than fighting, so the monetary argument for the govt is right out the window.
And the bottom line for this argument, at least for me, is the simplest. We don't like drugs. If it went to a national referendum Pot wouldn't even be legalized, much less anything "harder". That is no conspiracy or means to keep people down or keep the govt in our lives. And America isn't alone here, how many western nations have legalized cannibis, much less anything else?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 20:00:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:56:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
That was the only one of the three words i knew = /
---------------
hahahaha...touche!
Well, gentlemen...lady...it's been a pleasure. Time for home.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:56:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That was the only one of the three words i knew = /
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:55:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Besides...I thought you didn't know what 'sanctimonious' meant. ;)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:54:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
It was a joke, Georgie. Don't ruin a perfectly good pair of panties over it.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:53:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:28:27 (#)
Ranking: -2
We don't allow gay marriage, abortion is probably going to be seen by the supreme court again, the list goes on and on America is pretty conservative when it comes to social issues, you don't think that plays into our drug policy?
You don't think they could tax the hell out of drugs like they do for tobacco or alcohol? And don't give me the lame excuse that we don't control the production so we don't want to help foreign countries. We could grow it here, and the same argument applies to oil, but why is it encouraged?
-------------
I answered all these questions below to the best of my ability. All I can say is if you want evidence and specifics there are TONS of websites, both 'legit' and 'crazy conspiracy', you can go to to find out. And like I said before, there are THOUSANDS of books on this subject.
The one I'm reading right now pretty much spells it out for you. It even ties in Big Oil and Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 very coherently.
It's called "Crossing the Rubicon, The Decline of the American Empire at the End of The Age of Oil" By Michael C. Ruppert.
I recommend it so far. Very detailed citations for you throughout. It might come off as 'liberal' to you, but I assure you, it's only because you've been conditioned to associated attacks on industry, government and so forth as being 'liberal'. There are many Republicans who will come out and tell you all this too.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:48:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
thanks Jesus, I mean Bradley
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:45:44 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:44:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:30:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not crying, I swear. I just felt like I made some valid points, and then to be dismissed as "about as bright as a sack of bricks" by someone I like and respect just kind of knocked the wind out of my sail. Whatever, I'm lame
---------------
You're not lame, dude. You just didn't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Just go forth and sin no more, as Jesus would say. :D
---------------
That comment deserved a -2.
Remember how I called you sanctimonious?
Yeah.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:44:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:30:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not crying, I swear. I just felt like I made some valid points, and then to be dismissed as "about as bright as a sack of bricks" by someone I like and respect just kind of knocked the wind out of my sail. Whatever, I'm lame
---------------
You're not lame, dude. You just didn't know. There's nothing wrong with not knowing. Just go forth and sin no more, as Jesus would say. :D
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:43:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:19:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
How would the govt not make money out of heavily taxing drugs?
---------------
This is where the malice comes in...
They could, but they wouldn't get elected by the ultra-conservative-leaning populace. This way, they get to covertly make their money and spend OUR TAX DOLLARS fighting it at the same time. They'll capture just enough to justify their fighting, but they'll let just enough through to make billions a year... And by billions a year, we're talking more than Exxon.
So it's a win/win/win situation: get elected on grounds of 'morality', declare a 'war on drugs' and pump funding into supplying police with drug busting equipment which is manufactured by the same people who contribute to the campaigns, then set up governments abroad to keep feeding the beast while they make money hand over fist from being drug pushers.
It's flawless. The American people don't read, so their plot isn't that widely known. The media won't talk about it because they are also in the pockets of the same manufacturers that contribute to the campaigns and build the Huey helicopters and Bradley tanks, thus it all goes right under the noses of the American public!
Beautiful, huh!
There is another advantage to helping push drugs, though...an even more sinister one...classism, racism, and theivery...dare I say, Nazism?
If you can keep a certain group of people mired in drugs, you can effectively neutralize them politically and thus, control them. Look at what was done to the Black Panthers and Martin Luther King in the 60s. Look into the CIA's involvement in introducing crack cocaine into heavily black populated inner cities. Our government's whole MO has been to keep the blacks poor and subservient and out of the competition for power.
Government drug pushing also offers and excuse for foreign conflict. If we can convince the American people that all their drug problems and, consequentially, crime problems are related to this drug cartel in such and such country, you can justify military action against that country to the American people so they'll shut up and not ask any questions.
It goes on and on the reasons the government would want to do it under the table instead of legitimately. Legit drug trade means oversight, and oversight means prying, prying means non-exclusive control.
If the world is one big geo-political chess match, it makes perfect sense.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:39:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The U.S. makes more money keeping drugs illegal than they could ever make if they legalize it.
The war on drugs is yet another excuse for the government to keep better tabs on us and invade our privacy.
I'm too lazy to type it all, so I'll cite some sources that say what I want to say, at the risk of sounding like an uneducated asshole who gets his sources from the internet <coughbradleycough>:
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/006/editorial.shtml
The New York Times has reported that American companies including General Electric, Microsoft, Apple Computer and General Motors have sold goods to fronts for the "Cali Cartel." The illegal money flowing into Colombia is such that it has turned a $5 billion per year US trade deficit into a $5 billion trade surplus as American products are bought for newly laundered funds. The US government also gets a stream of revenue from whatever illicit funds it can lay claim to, whether seized outright or bargained-for in return for lighter sentences for captured drug kingpins.
In fact, read the whole fucking thing yourselves, you lazy fucks.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:30:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm not crying, I swear. I just felt like I made some valid points, and then to be dismissed as "about as bright as a sack of bricks" by someone I like and respect just kind of knocked the wind out of my sail. Whatever, I'm lame
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:28:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:19:12 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is the only thing that I'll defend our very own raving lunatic Bradley on - The U.S. government makes narcotics illegal for a reason - there's no money in the legalization of drugs, just like there's no money in cures for cancer or other diseases. Narcotics provide a whole shit load of jobs as well as other stuff I can't think of right now.
Just think of it this way: if there were no crime to fight, Superman would be out of a job.
The U.S. thinks that they're crime fighting super-heroes. Except they're not. And they don't look so good in tights.
----------------------------------
How would the govt not make money out of heavily taxing drugs?
-------------------------------------------
We don't allow gay marriage, abortion is probably going to be seen by the supreme court again, the list goes on and on America is pretty conservative when it comes to social issues, you don't think that plays into our drug policy?
You don't think they could tax the hell out of drugs like they do for tobacco or alcohol? And don't give me the lame excuse that we don't control the production so we don't want to help foreign countries. We could grow it here, and the same argument applies to oil, but why is it encouraged?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:19:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
This is the only thing that I'll defend our very own raving lunatic Bradley on - The U.S. government makes narcotics illegal for a reason - there's no money in the legalization of drugs, just like there's no money in cures for cancer or other diseases. Narcotics provide a whole shit load of jobs as well as other stuff I can't think of right now.
Just think of it this way: if there were no crime to fight, Superman would be out of a job.
The U.S. thinks that they're crime fighting super-heroes. Except they're not. And they don't look so good in tights.
----------------------------------
How would the govt not make money out of heavily taxing drugs?
Submitted by Dumb_Name (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:14:30 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree with you ETS regarding the frustration.
I feel hopeless frustration regarding religion as well. Its much worse however.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:10:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
awwwwwwwww theres my favorite filthy female uberpig! I missed you!
How was your trip, skank? Catch any new, undocumented venereal diseases?
Submitted by MistressFist (user info) at 2006-06-20 19:04:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
method you goat fucker leave jeanneee alone before i rip you another asshole with a machete and piss down your beefy neck with a tranny's furry cock.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:56:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
awwwww crap I think I made Jeannee cry again
godammit
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:56:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah, you'd think. The syphilis must have permanently and irreparably thinned my skin.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:48:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I know, why is that?
You'd think being a filthy whore who has taken several road trips to NY just to slob my knob would give you a pretty thick skin about these things, eh?
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:44:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Whatever, it's cool. I'm overly sensitive to what you people think of me.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:40:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm sorry Jeannee, that was uncalled for and I'm sorry.
Well, I'm really not sorry, but I know you're smarter than a sack of bricks.
Take that as you will.
= )
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:30:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:25:36 (#)
Ranking: -1
"That might be well true, but for my part, it's not a conscious thing to get most heated."
Liar
http://www.ubersite.com/m/89391#2029483
"Plus, you're the only thing standing between me and having the top 3 spots on most heated."
Oh and not much effort on the post, justified rating.
---------------
I agree. The rating there is probably justified, but I don't think it negates the importance of the article itself in shooting a solar-sized hole in the Bush Admin's lies.
Honestly, I don't set out for most heated. But of course, I welcome it when and if it arrives, which in the last 6 months has been more times than not.
Thank you Caul and Indo!`
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:25:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
"That might be well true, but for my part, it's not a conscious thing to get most heated."
Liar
http://www.ubersite.com/m/89391#2029483
"Plus, you're the only thing standing between me and having the top 3 spots on most heated."
Oh and not much effort on the post, justified rating.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:11:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:50:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
I don't want everyone to agree with me. That's a misnomer brought about by perceptions of me that are preexisting. I just want people to question and at least ATTEMPT to look beyond what they are told. That's really all I ask.
=====
You know one day this older manager at my firm couldn't log into the server. (Despite the word 'server', this is a funny story.) He called into my office, and I told him my people were already working on it, but be damned wasn't good enough for him. He did all this research on Google, and found all this interesting information on a forum about how login problems were often caused by corruptions in the System32 folder.
So he stormed to my office and handed me a printout of the forum and told me I should probably take care of it right away.
"That's great, Joe." I said, "But you can't log in because the computer won't power up. The motherboard is dead."
The moral of this story is that people think and problem solve a lot more than you, in your condescending way, assume they do. Thanks for all the effort, but I don't need agenda-oriented e-tabloids, or raving lunatics, to tell me that the Bush administration is a morass of corruption. To an extent I agree, but I still think you're doing more harm than good.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:11:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
That sack of bricks comment stings, Method. I don't know why, but it does.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:10:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:01:31 (#)
Ranking: 2
That is not to say there is no place for heated words. Sometimes you have to start out with the insults to get the dialogue rolling. In a place like Uber, where high heat is the only thing that keeps a post in view, it's almost manditory.
Sorry for butting in.
-------------------
That might be well true, but for my part, it's not a conscious thing to get most heated. I just feel compelled to say certain things and challenge the wrong that I see. I don't consider myself patriotic, but I do have a sense of 'community' and I think it's vitally important that people begin to wake up and take a look at what the leaders of their community are doing to them and how they are being subtly controlled by TV.
My problem is, I inherited a temper streak from my dad and I sometimes just overflow with rage. The only things that saves me from exploding is a healthy sense of irony and an ability to laugh and cry at the same time.
Submitted by resignator (user info) at 2006-06-20 18:01:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:30:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeannee is as bright as a sack of bricks. At least I know you're intelligent.
I keep telling you, and so do a plethora of other people, it's not what you're presenting, it's how you present it. You're condescending and precocious and sanctimonious and no one apppreciates that.
I don't know what 2 of those 3 big words mean. Can you guess which 2?
I don't like George Bush and I wouldn't be sad if someone dropped a safe on his head. He insults everyone's intelligence by spouting bold faced lies. Just think of it this way: If people actually believe the shit that he feeds them, then they really can't be too intelligent in the first place and you have almost no hope of convincing them otherwise. Then again, you live in the midwest somewhere, with a collective IQ of a shoelace. This is probably why you're reaching out to people on the internet, because people by you aren't too bright at all.
How many times has Rumsfeld been quoted on the Daily Show as saying "We never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction", directly followed by a clip of him saying "We have undeniable proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is planning on using them"
We know all this already, Bradley. The people who have at least half a brain know this and actively do something about it. They go out and stage protests. They write letters. They try and make a difference. They vote.
The problem is that those people are outnumbered by really, really, really stupid, gullible people who have an unshakable sense of patriotism, no matter WHAT you present to them. "Durrrrrrrr, if you don't support Bush, you're Anti-American."
There's nothing you can do about that. Seriously. It's the sad truth. Come out of your mothers basement for five minutes and you'll see that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My respect for you just went up about ten fold Method.
I do and I am pretty sure ETS believes each individual can make a difference. It is hard not to get emotional about matters like 911. You want to lash out at the complacentcy and ignorance. The first half of your post was right. How you present the story is just as important as the message. You can convince anyone of anything with the right words.
That is not to say there is no place for heated words. Sometimes you have to start out with the insults to get the dialogue rolling. In a place like Uber, where high heat is the only thing that keeps a post in view, it's almost manditory.
Sorry for butting in.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:50:32 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:30:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeannee is as bright as a sack of bricks. At least I know you're intelligent.
I keep telling you, and so do a plethora of other people, it's not what you're presenting, it's how you present it. You're condescending and precocious and sanctimonious and no one apppreciates that.
I don't know what 2 of those 3 big words mean. Can you guess which 2?
I don't like George Bush and I wouldn't be sad if someone dropped a safe on his head. He insults everyone's intelligence by spouting bold faced lies. Just think of it this way: If people actually believe the shit that he feeds them, then they really can't be too intelligent in the first place and you have almost no hope of convincing them otherwise. Then again, you live in the midwest somewhere, with a collective IQ of a shoelace. This is probably why you're reaching out to people on the internet, because people by you aren't too bright at all.
How many times has Rumsfeld been quoted on the Daily Show as saying "We never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction", directly followed by a clip of him saying "We have undeniable proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is planning on using them"
We know all this already, Bradley. The people who have at least half a brain know this and actively do something about it. They go out and stage protests. They write letters. They try and make a difference. They vote.
The problem is that those people are outnumbered by really, really, really stupid, gullible people who have an unshakable sense of patriotism, no matter WHAT you present to them. "Durrrrrrrr, if you don't support Bush, you're Anti-American."
There's nothing you can do about that. Seriously. It's the sad truth. Come out of your mothers basement for five minutes and you'll see that.
---------------------------
You are my new hero dude. Seriously. Thank you.
You're absolutely right about all of this except the basement part. :P
(I do have my own place, people. And yes, I pay the rent and somehow manage to fill my gas tank and feed myself too. I even have health insurance! WOO!)
Thanks again. That review meant a lot to me. I'm just trying to do what I can where I can. I live in Cowpatch, Indiana and try to set people straight on their assumptions on a daily basis, but it becomes enfuriating sometimes and my patience wears well thin.
Could I just move? Sure I could. But what would be the point? I'd be like Stan's parents in the Hybrid episode.
I don't want everyone to agree with me. That's a misnomer brought about by perceptions of me that are preexisting. I just want people to question and at least ATTEMPT to look beyond what they are told. That's really all I ask.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:49:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well if ETS and Method agree on something, then it must be true.
ETS, I choose not to believe a lot of the off-the-wall things that you believe, because I don't wish to be mired in the hell of fear, frustration, and isolation that your daily life seems to be. And if that makes me "less than human" or a "mewling moron" in your eyes, I guess I can live with that.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:38:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
And just for the record, Bradley, I agree with everything you say, it just doesn't sound all that appetizing coming from a raving lunatic. This -2 is just to piss you off and laugh at you as you retaliate on my posts.
----
See, Bradley? People don't really disagree with your intentions and ideals -- just your personality, style, and practically everything else.
Oh, and before you go off on some caps lock shpiel about how we're all brontosaurs, there are already people out there with buttloads of degrees, talent, money, and credibility trying to save the world. Since you're too crazy to be anything but a burden, why not just relax, sit in your parent's basement, and write some nice emo poetry about baby birds or Everquest or whatnot.
WOO! I'm home and now it's time for SUPPER! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:37:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:31:12 (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeannee, honey, sweetie, darling, you sound like a total retard, quit while you're ahead
-----------------
Here's the thing, you know, I KNOW Jeannee is more intelligent than that. She has good grammar. ;)
Everyone wants to get on me about being a college drop out, but in a way, I think that might be my advantage. There is too much 'learning' going on these days and not enough SEEING.
"Beware when the Great God lets loose a thinker on the planet; then all things are at risk." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:34:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:24:17 (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure Method, and don't forget about how the CIA, ExxonMobil and Philip Morris are all "in on it" too. :P
Drugs like marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin are illegal in this country because (a), the federal government and their bosom buddies the pharmaceutical industry want people buying and using legal drugs, and (b) the government doesn't get a cut of the money that Fred the Dealer makes selling eighth-ounce baggies of buds and powder, nor do they get a cut of the money that a faceless bunch of Peruvians make by turning piles of coca leaves into piles of cocaine, and so on and so forth.
And then there's the whole "drugs are dangerous, addictive, and they ruin lives" thing, but I reckon the jury's still out on that one.
--------------------
There's more to it than that.
Ask yourself how the drugs get into the country in the first place. Ask yourself what we were really doing in Nicuragua in the 1980's. Ask yourself why Colombia is considered a South American ally even though they are the world's #1 cocaine prodecer and fail miserably at eradicating or even cutting down the drug's output. Tell me about Oliver North and Manuel Noreaga.
I'm giving you ample clues here to go investigate on your own. Use google and trust your instincts. Buy a book or two on the subject. There are literally thousands available. Then when you're done with South America, turn your attention to the other side of the world and Afghanistan and really look into the CIA's dealings there and their subversive meddling in governments in the region, and look at that side by side with the opium output from these countries.
Then think about the world banking system and interest rates and how companies might try to bypass high interest rates by seeking out banks that launder drug money and lend it out for well below the Federal Interest Rate.
Seek and ye shall find.
If I began getting into details and laying out all the evidence, I would end up going on for days and I'd end up with a book the thickness of a good-sized fist. And no one would read it anyway.
It's much more powerful if you find it on your own.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:31:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeannee, honey, sweetie, darling, you sound like a total retard, quit while you're ahead
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:30:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Jeannee is as bright as a sack of bricks. At least I know you're intelligent.
I keep telling you, and so do a plethora of other people, it's not what you're presenting, it's how you present it. You're condescending and precocious and sanctimonious and no one apppreciates that.
I don't know what 2 of those 3 big words mean. Can you guess which 2?
I don't like George Bush and I wouldn't be sad if someone dropped a safe on his head. He insults everyone's intelligence by spouting bold faced lies. Just think of it this way: If people actually believe the shit that he feeds them, then they really can't be too intelligent in the first place and you have almost no hope of convincing them otherwise. Then again, you live in the midwest somewhere, with a collective IQ of a shoelace. This is probably why you're reaching out to people on the internet, because people by you aren't too bright at all.
How many times has Rumsfeld been quoted on the Daily Show as saying "We never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction", directly followed by a clip of him saying "We have undeniable proof that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and is planning on using them"
We know all this already, Bradley. The people who have at least half a brain know this and actively do something about it. They go out and stage protests. They write letters. They try and make a difference. They vote.
The problem is that those people are outnumbered by really, really, really stupid, gullible people who have an unshakable sense of patriotism, no matter WHAT you present to them. "Durrrrrrrr, if you don't support Bush, you're Anti-American."
There's nothing you can do about that. Seriously. It's the sad truth. Come out of your mothers basement for five minutes and you'll see that.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:24:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure Method, and don't forget about how the CIA, ExxonMobil and Philip Morris are all "in on it" too. :P
Drugs like marijuana, cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin are illegal in this country because (a), the federal government and their bosom buddies the pharmaceutical industry want people buying and using legal drugs, and (b) the government doesn't get a cut of the money that Fred the Dealer makes selling eighth-ounce baggies of buds and powder, nor do they get a cut of the money that a faceless bunch of Peruvians make by turning piles of coca leaves into piles of cocaine, and so on and so forth.
And then there's the whole "drugs are dangerous, addictive, and they ruin lives" thing, but I reckon the jury's still out on that one.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:20:48 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 (#)
Ranking: -2
"Did you know that Afghanistan makes 90%...that's right...90% of the opiates in the entire world? Did you know that in 2000 before the invasion, the Taliban had cut its production down through eradication of poppies to just 170 tons of product? Did you know that the year AFTER the U.S. invasion, the opium production was not only back up, but was grazing all time high levels at 3600 tons?"
>> Again, this proves... what exactly? You expect us to believe that the US government is somehow encouraging the production of a narcotic that they spend millions upon millions of dollars every year trying to eradicate the importation and distribution of?
-----------
This is the only thing that I'll defend our very own raving lunatic Bradley on - The U.S. government makes narcotics illegal for a reason - there's no money in the legalization of drugs, just like there's no money in cures for cancer or other diseases. Narcotics provide a whole shit load of jobs as well as other stuff I can't think of right now.
Just think of it this way: if there were no crime to fight, Superman would be out of a job.
The U.S. thinks that they're crime fighting super-heroes. Except they're not. And they don't look so good in tights.
And just for the record, Bradley, I agree with everything you say, it just doesn't sound all that appetizing coming from a raving lunatic. This -2 is just to piss you off and laugh at you as you retaliate on my posts.
-------------------------
Thank you for at least that much. I wouldn't 'rave' about it so much if I didn't think I was living in the Twilight Zone where no one could see the reality that obviously right in front of them.
Seriously, man, I know you and Jeannee get along and all, but shit, read her reviews on this post, particularly the one I went off about. I just can't compute haw someone could possibly be that blind, and although you might see it, and I might see it, and we might think it's obvious, many not only do not see it, but will try every way in their power not to have to see it.
Then there are those of us that do see these things but brush them off and turn on the TV without so much as a second thought. Is this really what the world has come to? Are we all reduced to being motionless and numb? Are we so content in our comfortable little bubble that we can't stand up and in our various ways challenge the system that creates all these lies?
Put it this way... Have you ever seen the movie version of 1984? You know the part where Winston has been captured and is being tortured on the table and is repeatedly asked what's 2+2?
That's what I feel like sometimes. I feel like I'm being tortured knowing the answer is 4 as a matter of course, but everyone around me insists it's 5.
Does it drive me mad...you're damn right it does. It's like being in a fucking nightmare.
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-06-20 17:09:50 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
"Did you know that Afghanistan makes 90%...that's right...90% of the opiates in the entire world? Did you know that in 2000 before the invasion, the Taliban had cut its production down through eradication of poppies to just 170 tons of product? Did you know that the year AFTER the U.S. invasion, the opium production was not only back up, but was grazing all time high levels at 3600 tons?"
>> Again, this proves... what exactly? You expect us to believe that the US government is somehow encouraging the production of a narcotic that they spend millions upon millions of dollars every year trying to eradicate the importation and distribution of?
-----------
This is the only thing that I'll defend our very own raving lunatic Bradley on - The U.S. government makes narcotics illegal for a reason - there's no money in the legalization of drugs, just like there's no money in cures for cancer or other diseases. Narcotics provide a whole shit load of jobs as well as other stuff I can't think of right now.
Just think of it this way: if there were no crime to fight, Superman would be out of a job.
The U.S. thinks that they're crime fighting super-heroes. Except they're not. And they don't look so good in tights.
And just for the record, Bradley, I agree with everything you say, it just doesn't sound all that appetizing coming from a raving lunatic. This -2 is just to piss you off and laugh at you as you retaliate on my posts.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:49:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:23:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:12:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
The war in Afghanistan was not 100% predicated on finding Osama bin Laden, and you know it. It was also about ousting the Taliban, a regime that not only violated every human-rights principal known to the civilized world, but also harbored al Quaeda training facilities.
-----------------------
"*sigh*
Jeannee, for the last fucking time, we FUNDED and TRAINED and MANNED the fucking Taliban AND Al Qaeda.
Do you not know these things? Do you live in a fucking shell? Honestly? Open your fucking eyes."
>> As I said, I am aware of friendly relations between the US and the Taliban during the time when the expansion of the Soviet Union was perceived to be the biggest global threat. However, I think you should re-evaluate your statement that the US "TRAINED and MANNED... Al Qaeda". The US government may have funded the Taliban's anti-Soviet efforts, even going so far as to supply them with weapons... but training and manning al Qaeda? What?
"Afghanistan was about a pipeline and restoring the heroin trade. Because corporations in America and Europe pad their bottom lines and hide their dealings with free and clear money from the drug trade every fucking day and the CIA is in on it."
>> All right, I'll admit it. You lost me there. Do you really think that big corporations need to pad their bottom lines with drug-trade money? Corporate bottom lines are already insanely outsized because of the money they save by withholding worker benefits, outsourcing labor to third world countries, and getting big fat tax breaks.
"Did you know that Afghanistan makes 90%...that's right...90% of the opiates in the entire world? Did you know that in 2000 before the invasion, the Taliban had cut its production down through eradication of poppies to just 170 tons of product? Did you know that the year AFTER the U.S. invasion, the opium production was not only back up, but was grazing all time high levels at 3600 tons?"
>> Again, this proves... what exactly? You expect us to believe that the US government is somehow encouraging the production of a narcotic that they spend millions upon millions of dollars every year trying to eradicate the importation and distribution of?
"Think about it. Stop living in a bubble and THINK, for Christ's sake. You were given a mind, now USE IT!
This is the last response I'm leaving on this post. I'm fucking mad as hell now and need to calm down."
>> Figures.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:46:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
i love how consistent ets is with leaving every single time his theory completely self destructs right in front of anyone. now he'll go craft another one of his little conspirarcy masterpieces, hoping everyone completely forgets his noted fallacies on this one. i'm not sure if it's incompetence or laziness, but i suspect he doesn't give a shit because he's high.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:41:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:11:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:09:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
There is ignorance and there is selective hearing, Bradley. After your reponse to Jeanee, I'm thinking you lean towards the latter. The most amazing thing is that most people would agree with much of what you're saying if you'd just take some direction and tone the emotion down a bit.
----------------------
Agreeing to go to WAR over false pretences should include FAR MORE TO SENSIBLE PEOPLE than whether or not some jackass on the fucking internet is angry about it or not!!!!
CAN YOU NOT FUCKING MAKE YOUR OWN OPINIONS!?!?!?!
ARE YOU ALL LISTENING TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!?!?!?
JEsus fucking H Christ! Fuck you, you fucking dinosaurs. You're all less than human. You're a bunch of fucking mewling morons who wouldn't see truth if it came up and pissed in your fucking faces.
FUCK. YOU.
-------
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! That was so mind-blowingly, nonsensically, incoherently hilarious it was WORTH cockblocking your 'arguments' for three hours. I mean honestly, what is your secret? How do you write these responses without cracking up? We're all "less then human", eh? Well Bradley, have fun with your elitist, quasi-Aryan beliefs, and be sure to send a camwhore from the clock tower!!!
Anyways, my wife is here to pick me up. Seriously. I'll be back in the morning.
I am a little upset that you didn't threaten so slap me...
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:32:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.ubersite.com/m/89389#2029680 -- wait... so now these wars are about drugs? what happened to oil? and wait, the cia is in on it too? fuck, if the cia is in on it i bet the fbi is pissed they weren't called and asked to be part of the party. maybe that's why their website says osama didn't do the 9/11 attacks, they're pissed.
the increase in the production of opiates in the country couldn't have had anything to do with a lack of a secure, centralized government for 2.5 years, could it? no, your solution sounds much more plausible: it was the cia and big business because they wanted to supply the u.s. with drugs. HAVE YOU COMPLETELY LOST YOUR FUCKING MIND?!?! how would a nation that is doped up on opium and heroin possibly be a good situation for big business and cia?!?!?! that is probably your dumbest theory yet... nope, yeah... yeah, this just in, it is officially your worst one.
nice work.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:28:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:09:07 (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, that made me so fucking mad I could have slapped you if you were here.
No shit... this is just symptomatic of the larger problem with this country.
Seriously people....READ WHAT JEANNEEE JUST SAID! DO YOU AGREE WITH HER? If so, you're part of the problem in my book and you need to not, as Bob Dylan put it, "stand in the doorway or block up the hall" because this shit is OUTRAGEOUS.
And if you can't see that, you are no more than a castrated, dispassionate, mindless cow.
=======
I can see it now.
One of these days, this misanthropic, manic-depressive, rebel-without-a-clue freight train you're on is going to drop you off in a bell tower with a high-powered rifle, and that's okay. Because as that lone sniper bullet slithers past your floating rib, diving down into your stomach, people across the globe will DVR the moment, replaying it in slow motion as the press cameras close in, as your ribs expand and tighten over lungs baptised in bile, and push the paramedics away weakly, whimpering some half-intelligible emo nonsense about the evils of big government.
And you'll finally get those five minutes of attention you've been whoring yourself out for so long.
Other than that have a great evening. Icarus1987 out.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:28:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Afghan jihad
Al-Qaeda evolved from the Maktab al-Khadamat (Office of Services, MAK) — a Mujahidin organization fighting to establish an Islamic state during the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden was a founding member of the MAK, along with Palestinian militant Abdullah Yusuf Azzam. The role of the MAK was to channel funds from a variety of sources (including donations from across the Middle East) into training Mujahidin from around the world in guerrilla combat, and to transport the combatants to Afghanistan. The MAK was mostly funded by donations from wealthy Muslim individuals but was also allegedly aided by the governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and directly by the United States, which channeled most of its support and military hardware via the Pakistani intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate. During the latter half of the 1980s, the MAK was a relatively minor grouping in Afghanistan with no direct combatants; rather it limited its activities to fundraising, logistics, housing, education, refugee care, recruitment and the financing of other mujahideen.
After a protracted and costly war lasting nine years, the Soviet Union finally withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989. Mohammed Najibullah's socialist Afghan government was rapidly overthrown by elements of the Mujahidin. With Mujahidin leaders unable to agree on a structure for governance, chaos ensued with ever-changing control of ill-defined territories falling under constantly reorganising alliances and schisms between regional warlords.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:26:06 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:23:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:12:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
The war in Afghanistan was not 100% predicated on finding Osama bin Laden, and you know it. It was also about ousting the Taliban, a regime that not only violated every human-rights principal known to the civilized world, but also harbored al Quaeda training facilities.
-----------------------
*sigh*
Jeannee, for the last fucking time, we FUNDED and TRAINED and MANNED the fucking Taliban AND Al Qaeda.
Do you not know these things? Do you live in a fucking shell?
-----------------------------------
And what was going on in Afghanistan when they trained those people (I don't think they trained Al-Queda, could be wrong I forget here their roots are).
Talk about living in a shell.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:23:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:11:47 (#)
Ranking: 0
Agreeing to go to WAR over false pretences should include FAR MORE TO SENSIBLE PEOPLE than whether or not some jackass on the fucking internet is angry about it or not!!!!
CAN YOU NOT FUCKING MAKE YOUR OWN OPINIONS!?!?!?!
ARE YOU ALL LISTENING TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!?!?!?
JEsus fucking H Christ! Fuck you, you fucking dinosaurs. You're all less than human. You're a bunch of fucking mewling morons who wouldn't see truth if it came up and pissed in your fucking faces.
FUCK. YOU.
--------------------
Thats it get mad little man, and do what you always do about it nothing. Not a goddamn thing. You are worse than what you accuse people of being. What is worse a cow, or a loud cow? Just because you moo louder doesan't make you any better.
And please before you say it go ahead and shove your $150 up your ass. That is less than a drop in the bucket, I would bet it is less than you spend on weed.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:23:18 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:12:09 (#)
Ranking: 0
The war in Afghanistan was not 100% predicated on finding Osama bin Laden, and you know it. It was also about ousting the Taliban, a regime that not only violated every human-rights principal known to the civilized world, but also harbored al Quaeda training facilities.
-----------------------
*sigh*
Jeannee, for the last fucking time, we FUNDED and TRAINED and MANNED the fucking Taliban AND Al Qaeda.
Do you not know these things? Do you live in a fucking shell? Honestly? Open your fucking eyes.
Afghanistan was about a pipeline and restoring the heroin trade. Because corporations in America and Europe pad their bottom lines and hide their dealings with free and clear money from the drug trade every fucking day and the CIA is in on it.
Did you know that Afghanistan makes 90%...that's right...90% of the opiates in the entire world? Did you know that in 2000 before the invasion, the Taliban had cut its production down through eradication of poppies to just 170 tons of product? Did you know that the year AFTER the U.S. invasion, the opium production was not only back up, but was grazing all time high levels at 3600 tons?
Think about it. Stop living in a bubble and THINK, for Christ's sake. You were given a mind, now USE IT!
This is the last response I'm leaving on this post. I'm fucking mad as hell now and need to calm down.
I just can't believe the level of isolation in some people, I really can't. It's fucking scary! No wonder the world hates America.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:22:23 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
god i love owning ets in an argument...
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:22:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And by the way... if your real objective is to get people to "wake up" and see things the way you see them, then if I were you, I would cool it with the "you're all less than human"s and "you're a bunch of mewling retards"es. If we're all so stupid and worthless, then what do you care if we all remain ignorant and get vaporized by our big evil government?
Go back to playing your guitar and singing, dude. I don't see much of a future for you as an agent for positive change.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:21:19 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:57:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
We started a WAR in Afghanistan COMPLETELY UNDER THE PRETEXT of finding Osama Bin Laden. Now, if we don't even have enough evidence to bring before a grand jury, then how the HELL can we go to war over it!?!?
You don't see that as a major fucking problem?
This kind of blatant ignorance of recent history is more than just annoying...it's fucking frightening.
------------------------
well actually we started the war in afghanistan because of the taliban's ties with terrorist groups, in particular al qaeda. osama bin laden, the known leader of al qaeda, who at the time was already wanted on multiple counts of terrorism against the united states, had also claimed responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, praising his brave soldiers of jihad, cursing the infidels, etc. etc.
at this point, 3,000 of our citizens were dead and some 300 million were pretty pissed off. this country has an obligation to protect its citizens, from threats foreign and domestic, and so we took the next step and declared a war on terror. those countries that complied (and/or helped) with our desire to disband terrorist networks around the world were left alone. unfortunately, the taliban government in afghanistan wasn't hearing any of this between their friday night stonings (not the kind you're thinking of, smokey).
so in short, we didn't just go to afghanistan and start bombing shit *just* because osama bin laden was there. it was a tad bit deeper than that, as these things tend to be. "This kind of blatant ignorance of recent history is more than just annoying...it's fucking frightening."
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:12:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The war in Afghanistan was not 100% predicated on finding Osama bin Laden, and you know it. It was also about ousting the Taliban, a regime that not only violated every human-rights principal known to the civilized world, but also harbored al Quaeda training facilities.
(And yes, I am aware that in the decades before 9/11, the US government maintained civil and even friendly relations with the Taliban, turning a blind eye to the human-rights violations, when we saw them as our allies against the dreaded Commies. But that is no longer the case.)
Now as far as your self-satisfied assertion that I'm "frighteningly ignorant": What's more damnable - not knowing something, or knowing it but ignoring it just for the sake of shoring up your insane argument?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:11:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:09:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
There is ignorance and there is selective hearing, Bradley. After your reponse to Jeanee, I'm thinking you lean towards the latter. The most amazing thing is that most people would agree with much of what you're saying if you'd just take some direction and tone the emotion down a bit.
----------------------
Agreeing to go to WAR over false pretences should include FAR MORE TO SENSIBLE PEOPLE than whether or not some jackass on the fucking internet is angry about it or not!!!!
CAN YOU NOT FUCKING MAKE YOUR OWN OPINIONS!?!?!?!
ARE YOU ALL LISTENING TO WHAT'S GOING ON HERE!?!?!?
JEsus fucking H Christ! Fuck you, you fucking dinosaurs. You're all less than human. You're a bunch of fucking mewling morons who wouldn't see truth if it came up and pissed in your fucking faces.
FUCK. YOU.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:11:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:42:29 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by karates_badboy (user info) at 2006-06-20 13:53:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 because im sick and tired of people having the balls to actually believe that this whole war is george bush's fault. This shit wouldve happened either way, get over it, its happening, it happened,and theres nothing anyone can fucking do about it.
-----------------
And it's just that sort of scared little PUSSY attitude that gets the United States in the same fucking situation OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
You're right though...just forget everything, blame NO ONE, even those who clearly lied, and all will be well. It'll work itself out, won't it!
Keep dreamin' you fucking moron. Tell you what, go buy some beer and plop down in front of American Idol some more
---------------------
this coming from the pot-smoking, acid-dropping, college drop-out that has never voted... if i say 'pot and kettle' are you just going to get the munchies for some kettle corn?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:09:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:57:35 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:49:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess I AM really that dense, because I don't understand the significance of your point. Just because there isn't enough viable evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11 to indict him under US rules of jurisprudence, that means... what? That George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the Italian guy engineered the whole thing, from the planes hitting the towers to the bombing of Zarqawi's bunker, just for kicks?
The US government has stated countless times that bin Laden is suspected to be behind the 9/11 attacks. There are many facts that point to him being involved. No one has denied that. But there just isn't enough of the right kind of evidence that the federal prosecutors would need in order to get an indictment. Period.
-----------------------
We started a WAR in Afghanistan COMPLETELY UNDER THE PRETEXT of finding Osama Bin Laden. Now, if we don't even have enough evidence to bring before a grand jury, then how the HELL can we go to war over it!?!?
You don't see that as a major fucking problem?
This kind of blatant ignorance of recent history is more than just annoying...it's fucking frightening.
------------------
By the way, that made me so fucking mad I could have slapped you if you were here.
No shit... this is just symptomatic of the larger problem with this country.
Seriously people....READ WHAT JEANNEEE JUST SAID! DO YOU AGREE WITH HER? If so, you're part of the problem in my book and you need to not, as Bob Dylan put it, "stand in the doorway or block up the hall" because this shit is OUTRAGEOUS.
And if you can't see that, you are no more than a castrated, dispassionate, mindless cow.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 16:09:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
There is ignorance and there is selective hearing, Bradley. After your reponse to Jeanee, I'm thinking you lean towards the latter. The most amazing thing is that most people would agree with much of what you're saying if you'd just take some direction and tone the emotion down a bit.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:57:35 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:49:40 (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess I AM really that dense, because I don't understand the significance of your point. Just because there isn't enough viable evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11 to indict him under US rules of jurisprudence, that means... what? That George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the Italian guy engineered the whole thing, from the planes hitting the towers to the bombing of Zarqawi's bunker, just for kicks?
The US government has stated countless times that bin Laden is suspected to be behind the 9/11 attacks. There are many facts that point to him being involved. No one has denied that. But there just isn't enough of the right kind of evidence that the federal prosecutors would need in order to get an indictment. Period.
-----------------------
We started a WAR in Afghanistan COMPLETELY UNDER THE PRETEXT of finding Osama Bin Laden. Now, if we don't even have enough evidence to bring before a grand jury, then how the HELL can we go to war over it!?!?
You don't see that as a major fucking problem?
This kind of blatant ignorance of recent history is more than just annoying...it's fucking frightening.
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:49:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess I AM really that dense, because I don't understand the significance of your point. Just because there isn't enough viable evidence linking bin Laden to 9/11 to indict him under US rules of jurisprudence, that means... what? That George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and the Italian guy engineered the whole thing, from the planes hitting the towers to the bombing of Zarqawi's bunker, just for kicks?
The US government has stated countless times that bin Laden is suspected to be behind the 9/11 attacks. There are many facts that point to him being involved. No one has denied that. But there just isn't enough of the right kind of evidence that the federal prosecutors would need in order to get an indictment. Period.
Now, I'm not saying that I agree with any of the Bush administration's policies concerning the Middle East and the so called War on Terrorism. I don't. I think many egregious mistakes have been made. But I don't understand why you think the government is deliberately making bad decisions to screw us all over. What would their motive be for doing that? That's not a rhetorical question, I really want to know precisely what you think.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:42:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by karates_badboy (user info) at 2006-06-20 13:53:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 because im sick and tired of people having the balls to actually believe that this whole war is george bush's fault. This shit wouldve happened either way, get over it, its happening, it happened,and theres nothing anyone can fucking do about it.
-----------------
And it's just that sort of scared little PUSSY attitude that gets the United States in the same fucking situation OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
You're right though...just forget everything, blame NO ONE, even those who clearly lied, and all will be well. It'll work itself out, won't it!
Keep dreamin' you fucking moron. Tell you what, go buy some beer and plop down in front of American Idol some more.
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:32:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bradley, if you're going to be a joke, could you at least try to be a funny one?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 15:13:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 14:03:42 (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't feel like reading all the reviews, so I don't know if someone has already said this (they probably have): The reason that Bin Laden is not on the Most Wanted list for the 9/11 attacks is because FBI policy states that Most Wanted fugitives have to have been formally charged by a prosecutor or indicted by a US grand jury for the crime they are wanted for.
Bin Laden has been charged with the murder of US nationals, and is facing numerous other charges, for his involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and he IS on the Most Wanted list because of these charges. However, he has not been charged or indicted for any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, because there is not enough evidence for him to be indicted under the US's rules of jurisprudence (unlike Moussaoui, against whom prosecutors had enough evidence for an indictment).
------------------
That's the whole point.
Thank you for reiterating it for me.
Geeze, are you people REALLY THIS DENSE?!?! OR did your mommies and daddies just shelter you too fucking much. Some of you remind me of this chick I work with... Until we told her, she thought 'beef' was made of pigs. Seriously...get your heads out of your asses.
Submitted by BobLobla (user info) at 2006-06-20 14:53:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
D-PRIME MADNESS ROUND 1 --> http://www.ubersite.com/m/89428
Submitted by Jeanneee (user info) at 2006-06-20 14:03:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
I don't feel like reading all the reviews, so I don't know if someone has already said this (they probably have): The reason that Bin Laden is not on the Most Wanted list for the 9/11 attacks is because FBI policy states that Most Wanted fugitives have to have been formally charged by a prosecutor or indicted by a US grand jury for the crime they are wanted for.
Bin Laden has been charged with the murder of US nationals, and is facing numerous other charges, for his involvement in the 1998 embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and he IS on the Most Wanted list because of these charges. However, he has not been charged or indicted for any involvement in the 9/11 attacks, because there is not enough evidence for him to be indicted under the US's rules of jurisprudence (unlike Moussaoui, against whom prosecutors had enough evidence for an indictment).
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 14:01:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
ets -- but why would they? why would they investigate bush and cheney (who it would be next to impossible to show they had motive or the means), when they had a confession from a known terrorist leader with a prior history of attacks on the u.s.?
and i really shouldn't have let the evidence word slip, because there is absolutely no evidence linking bush or cheney to the attacks -- none. if there was even a tiny bit of solid evidence the media would be all over it and an investigation would be started. but there isn't. not one tiny shred of legitamite proof that there was this mass conspiracy from the bush administration's end. no financial records. no leaks. nothing.
oh wait, but there are financial records of the 9/11 hijackers that show money being funneled to them through terrorist networks. oh, and there are the flight lessons they took where they 'only wanted to learn how to fly a plane once in mid-air'... but you're right, we probably should investigate those bush croney's, they've always been up to no good. they act like it's their job to start a holy war ever five years... oh wait...
Submitted by icarus1987 (user info) at 2006-06-20 13:54:20 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-06-20 13:36:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-06-20 13:04:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
and you think it'd be easier to pin it on Bush and Cheney? i mean, if you think there's circumstantial or weak evidence linking bin laden to the attacks (besides the video and tapes of him claiming responsibility), how can you possibly think the fbi could find anything stronger for bush and cheney?
-----------------
There's TONS of evidence linking them. That's what I've been trying to show you all. But most of it is circumstantial. Enough to raise serious question and demand more investigation, but not enough to convict. Put it this way, if the FBI wanted to get a warrant to search their offices to investigate 9/11, all politics aside, they could do it on the strength of the circumstantial evidence pointing their way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not even circumstantial -- it's speculation; a chain of "pr