[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.
LOL, jerff has a huge fan club on T-Nation doesn’t he… Just thought I’d bump this also…
[/quote]
stellar
nice to see you out and about–
you don’t need it, but I’m watching your flanks. You have shown great strength and wisdom, I’m honored to serve with you.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
JTF,
From the top.
“You can add $25 million to that total. Thanks for making me look at that a little closer, I almost missed that.”
So, Bush’s Treasury Department is actually doing the job you accused it of not doing because Bush was trying to protect the Saudis? If you were Bush, why would you allow a $25 million fine against the financiers of your little cabal? Somewhat counterproductive, wouldn’t you agree?
So you are trying to weave a conspiracy theory because Bush was related to someone in the bank? Bush’s admminstration is levying the fine. Rather difficult to claim that Bush is giving the Saudis a pass while simultaneously cracking down on the bank’s activities. [/quote]
I would assume some parts of the government might still work like they’re supposed to. The feds trace the terrorist finance money to the Saudis’ and Riggs Bank right in D.C. for cryin’ out loud - then they really put the screws to em’ by fining them $25 million. I wouldn’t doubt the Saudis’ paid the fine for them - here, use the money I was going to wipe with, keep the change.
[quote]“Is it just me or does anyone else come up with two years between 9/11/2001 and “the end of 2003”?”
The point, which you conveniently ignore, is that the entire point of the article was that the setup was done in 1990 and the setup had not been adequately reformed with regards to the needs of the day. Evidence of inefficiency? Yes. Evidence of incompetence? Possibly. Evidence of a deliberate plan to keep OBL a free man? Nope.
“A little shift in focus would have been nice”
I agree - but see above. The only way you could see that as evidence of a larger, more sinister plan is if you are hallucinating.[/quote]
15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis’.
Do we have bin Laden? NO
Have we even convicted one person yet in connection to 9/11? NO
New Details on F.B.I. Aid for Saudis after 9/11
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/printer_032705Z.shtml
Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml
Document suggests bin Laden escaped at Tora Bora
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/24/pentagon.binladen/index.html
9-11 Commission Funding Woes
TIME
Mar. 26, 2003
The panel has until the end of May 2004 to complete its work, but it will spend the $3 million it was originally allotted by around August 2003 – if it doesn’t get the supplement.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,437267,00.html
Wasn’t that nice of Bush to originally allocate $3 million to investigate 9/11. If you’ll recall, the PODIUM at the RNC cost $2.5 million.
Yeah… I’M hallucinating.
[quote]“…where the hunt for Bin Laden and retribution for 9/11 suddenly switched to Iraq and WMD’s to liberating the Iraqi people.”
Nothing switched. It was never an either-or.[/quote]
We started out looking for bin Laden and ended up getting Saddam - sounds like a switch.
[quote]“When skeptics of the war said we would find NO WEAPONS and then after two years they’ve found NO WEAPONS, you might logically conclude there were NO WEAPONS. But not to the Bushites, just proof they were moved - can’t move something if it wasn’t ever there to begin with”
Here’s the short answer - if Saddam had nothing, why bluff? But he did, and we called - and the rest is history, literally.[/quote]
There’s that weird logic again. We ask Saddam to give up weapons he didn’t have - so when he didn’t give up his non existent weapons we went in.
Inspectors Call U.S. Tips ‘Garbage’
Feb. 20, 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/18/iraq/main537096.shtml
That story is BEFORE the war - if you can read that and still say we had no idea Saddam didn’t have WMD’s your looney tunes - considering we didn’t FIND ANY.
If we would have found WMD’s - there are a lot of us on here who would have acknowledged a job well done. As it stands, everything has been a complete LIE. But I know, it wasn’t all about WMD’s - especially since we didn’t find any.
[quote]“Yeah that was a little over the top – I have a feeling they might actually find a unicorn.”
I’d wager that the chances of finding a unicorn are probably higher than finding a substantial argument in your windy posts. But that is just a hunch. I don’t believe in unicorns, and certainly I don’t believe in sloppy, lazy conspiracies.[/quote]
Your calling what I’m presenting “conspiracies” yet it represents current reality. Your claiming the “facts” are on your side while your gloating over NOTHIN’. We’re really both on the same side, I’m just trying to point out that YOUR reality doesn’t exist.
Partial list of REALITY:
-We got a war that was going to cost around $60mil and be over in six months vs. 2+yrs and $300+ billion
-no bin Laden
-no WMD’s
-no convictions for 9/11
-almost 2000 US dead
-terrorism is at an all time high
I really want to see the victory here - maybe you can send me your glasses.
Partial list of REALITY:
-We got a war that was going to cost around $60mil and be over in six months vs. 2+yrs and $300+ billion
-no bin Laden
-no WMD’s
-no convictions for 9/11
-almost 2000 US dead
-terrorism is at an all time high
I really want to see the victory here - maybe you can send me your glasses.[/quote]
But hey, were kicking ass in Falluja! Aren’t we? JTF, you’re the best.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Yeah that was in another thread, but you’re right on the money, he and JeffR are doing the same thing here too. “Hey, I think I’ll throw out a random factoid, even though it does nothing to prove my argument”.
[/quote]
Show me a “random factoid” that I have thrown out.
Once again - you guys are standing on the same side of the street as JTF and you’re accusing me of throwing out “random factoids”?
Is that too random? Do I need to connect the dots? Do you need help seeing the relavance in my JTF reference?
PM me if you need help understanding - as your attacks are clogging up the thread.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Partial list of REALITY:
-We got a war that was going to cost around $60mil and be over in six months vs. 2+yrs and $300+ billion
-no bin Laden
-no WMD’s
-no convictions for 9/11
-almost 2000 US dead
-terrorism is at an all time high
I really want to see the victory here - maybe you can send me your glasses.
But hey, were kicking ass in Falluja! Aren’t we? JTF, you’re the best.
[/quote]
I have made that point several times and never once had anyone let me know how the US alone is now so much better due to the war in Iraq. It truly is a simple question and I don’t see evidence of it here.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Look, Thunder admits that the most people thought there was a direct connection between Hussein and 9/11:
Thunder wrote:
I fully believe that the American public was in a vengeful mood - and the polls show that the public thought Saddam was directly involved. But, unlike Pro X, I don’t think those attitudes were ‘leveraged’ in bad faith by Bush.
But apparently he doesn’t think the administration had any part in leveraging and fueling that misconception. There’s nothing we can do to persuade him otherwise, so we should just drop it.
How an intelligent person (which thunder is, from his writing, seemingly intelligent) can come to this conclusion is simply beyond my belief. The fact that people have willfully erased such significant events in history from their minds is Orwellian, to say the least.[/quote]
No, it is downright scary. I was watching the news everyday like everyone else in the country and I don’t understand how anyone can pretend like that. Does political stance just overcome any sense of reality and make you blind to certain actions of those you support?
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.
LOL, jerff has a huge fan club on T-Nation doesn’t he… Just thought I’d bump this also…
[/quote]
I truly believe JeffR thinks he is witty. I am under the impression that he thinks we are pointing out his responses simply to make a personal attack. That is not why. It is that his responses truly make me wonder if he is able to function in society without the help of a personal social worker. I mean, if you need help, J, I have some numbers you can call.
D’oh, FOUR MORE YEARS!!! (BOLD FACED, UNDERLINED WITH EXTRA EXCLAMATION POINTS)
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
But hey, were kicking ass in Falluja! Aren’t we? JTF, you’re the best.
[/quote]
HA - Right on bro! I think they’ve already renamed Fallujah to a more American sounding, “Fallat” - same city, only shorter.
If only the liberal media wouldn’t hide the “good news” from us we could see the progress.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
Yeah that was in another thread, but you’re right on the money, he and JeffR are doing the same thing here too. “Hey, I think I’ll throw out a random factoid, even though it does nothing to prove my argument”.
Show me a “random factoid” that I have thrown out.
[/quote]
In your defense rain, your right, I’ve never seen you throw out a factoid.
[quote]Once again - you guys are standing on the same side of the street as JTF and you’re accusing me of throwing out “random factoids”?
Is that too random? Do I need to connect the dots? Do you need help seeing the relavance in my JTF reference?
PM me if you need help understanding - as your attacks are clogging up the thread.[/quote]
Is it my avi? Do you want me to change my avi - do the eyes creep you out too much?
Actually, I envy you a little rain, you wouldn’t like it on this side of the street - all the lights are on.
Hey, at least I’m not a blind follower compared to the description he gives everyone else (left and right both).
The things I mention may appear tangential to you nitwit, simply because your circle of knowledge is so small it is in effect a point – so anything said can only intersect minimally (known as a tangent).
For more Jerffy!!!
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Elkhntr1 wrote:
Just like you did with ProfX you PM someone under the guise of let’s be friends and understand each other then like a fucking fifth grader you go spouting off to the forum “So and so said this to me,”. Fucking shameless IMO!
Yes, it is.
Did you guys get together to plan this lie out, or are you just jumping on Elks back cause it’s another chance to jump on me, O Professor Cyr?
Jeez, you’re insecure get over it already and quit clogging up the thread with twenty posts to comfort yourself! Go flirt with the girls for awhile and you should feel better.[/quote]
Little bit. It’s a function of having assholes lie about me.
[quote]Elkhntr1 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
"If that’s what vroom was saying, I’d have to agree.
[b]Good post vroom!"
Hey Stellar!!!
Did you check out some of my religious beliefs?
You must of or you wouldn’t have followed me here.
Admit it, you were intrigued by Big Kane!!!
Malla!!! Malla!!!
JeffR
Jeez, you’re a douche bag jeffy! Go play cops and robbers with your imaginary friends for awhile.[/quote]
Hey Elky, why does everything come down to a personal attack with you?
Pro X and Moriarty,
“But apparently he doesn’t think the administration had any part in leveraging and fueling that misconception. There’s nothing we can do to persuade him otherwise, so we should just drop it.”
Let’s clear this up. The Bush administration believed Saddam had terror ties. So did the UNSC. The US was never going to foreclose the possibility that Saddam had links with al-Qaeda.
Now, the issue is whether Bush ‘misused’ that sentiment inthe public. I think not. I believe that the evidence supported links to terror (Resolution 1441 specifically mentions concerns over terror links) and Bush’s primary argument was that Saddam had WMDs that could be brokered with terror elements.
The difference is: you think Bush intentionally fueled that belief in terror links dishonestly in order to get what he wanted. I disagree, because long before the war started, Bush and the UNSC made it clear that Saddam was involved in terror and should have to answer for it. Bush did not foreclose on the possibility, and so he would have no reason to deny that it happened.
But in the interest of fairness, I’d be willing to consider any quotes, etc. that you have that show that Bush fueled that ‘misconception’.
Thunder -
Are you asking the Prof to find and use quotable proof?
Good luck with that.
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Hey Elky, why does everything come down to a personal attack with you?
[/quote]
Joe, there’s people I strongly disagree with in our little political threads here, but I have strong degree of respect for many of them.
I would rather carry on a nice relationship with people, but in your case you play a lot of games and are pretty childish. You seek a lot of attention and if you perceive your feelings to be hurt you whine to the point of nausea.
I never discussed any thing with ProfX. I gathered what I said from reading your posts about him.
There is a life outside of the internet. You should go explore it. (Brace yourself for twenty one line posts from jw now).
[quote]Christophe wrote:
“Everyone’s worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there’s a really easy way : STOP PARTICIPATING IN IT.”
[/quote]
Amongst all our glorious battling we come across this weird little guy? Kinda out of place don’t ya think?
V
Yeah fellas, this is good news indeed. I guarantee that there will be more caught in the future, but mark my words: Not if, but when we catch Bin Laden, that will not be the end-all event for terrorism. All it will mean to us is that a major player in terrorism has been brought down. This might have an impact on the terrorists’ morale, but it will not stop them. Guys like me are gonna be in business for a while. RLTW
rangertab75
[quote]TriGWU wrote:
I actually voted for W. My old man fought in Vietnam. Call me lame… but I have every bit of respect for the VietVets. I had to vote against.[/quote]
I am honestly sorry if this post offends you, but can you explain why? I actually have no idea why all the vets are so pissed at kerry. If you want to PM me, that’d be great too. Or if this is too sensitive a topic, that’s fine. I’m jsut really curious.
Most of the arguments here are weak. The reason for that is because I believe that the democrats are wishy washy and I dont understand their arguments. First they say they wouldnt go to war after 9/11 ie. deal with the problems. So what you guys are saying is that we should have sat on our hands and done nothing? Because that is what Kerry would have done. Tell me the last time you saw a political leader in the trenches??? Wake up.
Than you guys would have said ohhhh, we would have dealt with the problem. okay how would you deal with the problem other than by war? And obviously it shows well that Bush was re-elected. oh now here is another thing the demo’s will say, “it was fixed or sometin dumb like that.”
Prof. X, I respect you, but how can you say we are killing tons of ppl? didnt 9/11 kill alot of ppl? so we should have just sat on our hands instead to deal with the problem? You dont like Bush? Good for you, go and cry about it. I dont know how Kerry would have been, but I think W. has done fine and that most people take the news as reality. The news is biased so maybe you guys shouldnt make comments based on what you see on the news or tabloids. You gotta be dumb to believe everything the news tells you.
Its like asking me how good my favorite hockey team is. Something needed to be done and it was.And maybe, just maybe you shouldnt believe everything fahrenheit 9/11 tells you. And Bush about video games and an ipod? who the fuck cares? he is fuckin human isnt he? who are you to tell anyone anything? I dont care about how he likes video games thats his life not yours and has nothing to do with politics, and thats what the democrats gota do attack the person because they have nothing else to attack…sad…
Sometimes I think the democrats dont know whether theyre coming or going… thats all i have to say.
[quote]mike08042 wrote:
Prof. X, I respect you, but how can you say we are killing tons of ppl? didnt 9/11 kill alot of ppl? so we should have just sat on our hands instead to deal with the problem?[/quote]
I have never said anything like that. Your problem is, you see only “rush into war” or “sit and do nothing”. Notice I used the word “rush”. Our intel was faulty. We had just been hit by the worst tragedy in history and most of our actions seemed based on emotion (as far as the public’s understanding of why we were immediately going to war).
I think that Saddam needed to be eventually taken care of. I do not think that needed to happen before a solid plan of attack and “post-war resolution” had been designed. We have lost many lives in this, many by our own hands (read the latest news on the death of Tillman…it was us after all). I think the American people were presented a “spin” on the facts in order to gain support of the masses.
Why you want me to ignore that opinion is beyond me. You mentioned that 9/11 killed a lot of people…but wait, I thought that us going into Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11? Gee, it looks like you were fooled as well. Go figure.