George Bush is a war criminal

[Carrera]

I lived in Russia for a couple of years and, of course, the standard of living fell well below European levels. In 1992 there was hardly any food to be had on the shop shelves.
One major mistake the USSR made was to throw way too much money at allied countries to help build communism. Even during the war years, Russia was exporting gold supplies much needed in Russia itself. Little wonder the USSR went bankrupt. You notice that living standards in Estonia and Latvia were always better than in Russia - where the burden of Empire was felt more.
My opinion is a similar situation is happening in England as in Russia, but with regard to immigration, asylum and the NHS. The U.K. Government is spending billions of pounds that are seemingly pumped into a black hole and eventually the bubble will pop, in my view.
As for Europe, the Europeans spent very little on arms and preferred to allow Americans and Russians to bear the burden of defence. Europe has the highest living standards in the western world but at a cost of a comparatively insignificant military. It'll take Russia quite some time to catch Europe up although life in Moscow is far better now than it used to be under Yeltsin.

They did more than their bit. 27 million did more than their bit. Should Europe be thankful for the Soviet sacrifice? You bet. The Russian citizen should be angry at their government for throwing their soldiers into a meat grinder.
An interesting side note on the taking of Berlin. The Allies were deciding on who should take Berlin. The Soviets wanted to take it for revenge. Eisenhower considered trying to take it but decided against it in the end. The casualty rate was expected to be over 100,000 and Eisenhower decided it was too high a price to pay for a city that would be in the Soviet zone of occupation.

 

[Wurm]

Carrera, davidmc, limerickman, et al -

It is interesting to talk about this latest foolishness of GWB in Russia, but it is small potatoes compared to what we should really be discussing:

1. the Bush regime's complicity in the 9/11 disaster;

2. the impeachable offense(s) of lying to the American public for the invasion of Iraq;

3. the war crimes that have occured (torture) under this administration.

These issues should be shouted from every rooftop until these thugs are brought to account for their heinous crimes against the American citizenry and the world.

 

[Carrera]

Did you see the thread I raised on chain gangs in Arizona? We were discussing such human rights issues in the course of the said topic.
The decision to invade Iraq is a complicated one. I happen not to agree with such a policy as does Limerickman. I suppose the reasons behind it were linked to the fact the U.S. had been stuck in the desert for many months trying to defend the no fly zone and enforcing sanctions. After 9/11 the neos successfully persuaded Bush that removing Saddam would remove an obstacle to peace and security in the region.

Carrera, davidmc, limerickman, et al -

It is interesting to talk about this latest foolishness of GWB in Russia, but it is small potatoes compared to what we should really be discussing:

1. the Bush regime's complicity in the 9/11 disaster;

2. the impeachable offense(s) of lying to the American public for the invasion of Iraq;

3. the war crimes that have occured (torture) under this administration.

These issues should be shouted from every rooftop until these thugs are brought to account for their heinous crimes against the American citizenry and the world.

 

[Wurm]

Did you see the thread I raised on chain gangs in Arizona? We were discussing such human rights issues in the course of the said topic.
The decision to invade Iraq is a complicated one. I happen not to agree with such a policy as does Limerickman. I suppose the reasons behind it were linked to the fact the U.S. had been stuck in the desert for many months trying to defend the no fly zone and enforcing sanctions. After 9/11 the neos successfully persuaded Bush that removing Saddam would remove an obstacle to peace and security in the region.

No, I did not see that other thread.

There is nothing that complicated about the decision to invade Iraq. That is just an attempt to further cloud and distort the issue, and find yet more loopholes for the Bushites to sneak through.

"Peace and security"? That's flat out ********.

1. SH was quite effectively boxed in with the northern & southern No-Fly Zones.
2. Sanctions were in place; he thus had no real means to attack his neighbors and certainly not the U.S. some 8000 miles away.
3. SH's military was nearly non-existant - if not 95% ineffective as a competent military force - from the '91 Gulf War beating it took.
4. The weapons inspector's hadn't found any WMDs or means to deliver them.

The main reason the cons invaded Iraq was OIL - pure and simple. The second biggest reason was having a military foothold smack in the middle of the world's largest oil-producing region [Mid-East]. The power and profit to be had from controlling the world's 2nd largest oil reserves was too much for them to pass up.

It has nothing to do with "peace", "security", "democracy", or "freedom". But those lovely-sounding catch phrases are what Bush & the cons have apparently been successful in getting many dupes to believe.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Carrera, davidmc, limerickman, et al -

It is interesting to talk about this latest foolishness of GWB in Russia, but it is small potatoes compared to what we should really be discussing:

1. the Bush regime's complicity in the 9/11 disaster;

2. the impeachable offense(s) of lying to the American public for the invasion of Iraq;

3. the war crimes that have occured (torture) under this administration.

These issues should be shouted from every rooftop until these thugs are brought to account for their heinous crimes against the American citizenry and the world.

Here are some links that back up Wurms assertions:

http://www.antiwar.com/
http://www.internationalanswer.org/
http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/
http://www.moveon.org/front/
http://www.georgesoros.com/

Come drink the kool aid.

 

[Carrera]

John Simpson figured the Iraq war was about a number of things, personal grudge, imperialism, religion, oil, 9/11, all mixed in. Firstly, I think the 9/11 attack was linked to Saddam but in a different way. Put it this way, had it not been for the fact that thousands of Iraquis suffered years of sanctions due to U.S. policy, I think that maybe 9/11 might not have happened. It was the drawn out, dragging out of sanctions that caused Bin Laden to turn against the U.S.A., when it had once been a former ally against the Russians. Arab extremists became angry that sanctions were hitting Iraqi people and this gave extremists a cause.
If, let's suppose, Bush Senior had invaded Baghdad during the first Iraq war, I also doubt 9/11 would have taken place. It would have been done and dusted, no major ill-feeling in the Arab world and relief Saddam had gone.
After 9/11 I think the Americans wanted out of Iraq altogether as maybe they figured they had been attacked due to anger over the ongoing sanctions. So, they opted for removing Saddam but by then it was kind of late. Plus, they couldn't get U.N. approval for the war.
Myself I think that Saddam could have been displaced after the first Iraq war and that such an event wouldn't have provoked the onset of terrorism. Much of my opposition has to do with the timing and, above all, the unecessary suffering of Iraqi civilians through sanctions, and later due to the subsequent war.
I think there were people who were simply out for the oil but there were others motivated by a different rationale. I guess Simpson was right when he pointed to a mixture of causes.

No, I did not see that other thread.

There is nothing that complicated about the decision to invade Iraq. That is just an attempt to further cloud and distort the issue, and find yet more loopholes for the Bushites to sneak through.

"Peace and security"? That's flat out ********.

1. SH was quite effectively boxed in with the northern & southern No-Fly Zones.
2. Sanctions were in place; he thus had no real means to attack his neighbors and certainly not the U.S. some 8000 miles away.
3. SH's military was nearly non-existant - if not 95% ineffective as a competent military force - from the '91 Gulf War beating it took.
4. The weapons inspector's hadn't found any WMDs or means to deliver them.

The main reason the cons invaded Iraq was OIL - pure and simple. The second biggest reason was having a military foothold smack in the middle of the world's largest oil-producing region [Mid-East]. The power and profit to be had from controlling the world's 2nd largest oil reserves was too much for them to pass up.

It has nothing to do with "peace", "security", "democracy", or "freedom". But those lovely-sounding catch phrases are what Bush & the cons have apparently been successful in getting many dupes to believe.

 

[davidmc]

Carrera, davidmc, limerickman, et al -

It is interesting to talk about this latest foolishness of GWB in Russia, but it is small potatoes compared to what we should really be discussing:

1. the Bush regime's complicity in the 9/11 disaster;

2. the impeachable offense(s) of lying to the American public for the invasion of Iraq;

3. the war crimes that have occured (torture) under this administration.

These issues should be shouted from every rooftop until these thugs are brought to account for their heinous crimes against the American citizenry and the world.

I might add:
4. 1610 American & 88 U.K. war dead - http://icasualties.org/oif/
If I were a beleiver, which I am not (see my sig.), I would say Bush is not just criminally wreckless/incompetent/greedy/ect...but evil .

 

[davidmc]

I suppose the reasons behind it were linked to the fact the U.S. had been stuck in the desert for many months trying to defend the no fly zone and enforcing sanctions. After 9/11 the neos successfully persuaded Bush that removing Saddam would remove an obstacle to peace and security in the region.

How many month's is 14 years . Oh, and you think SH was a stabilizing factor in the region . Come on now. Invade now, invade later, whats the difference except for the pricetag The UN was puposefully dragging its hindquarter's (dereliction of duty)

 

[limerickman]

John Simpson figured the Iraq war was about a number of things, personal grudge, imperialism, religion, oil, 9/11, all mixed in. Firstly, I think the 9/11 attack was linked to Saddam but in a different way. Put it this way, had it not been for the fact that thousands of Iraquis suffered years of sanctions due to U.S. policy, I think that maybe 9/11 might not have happened. It was the drawn out, dragging out of sanctions that caused Bin Laden to turn against the U.S.A., .

You're on dangerous ground here Carerra.
All of the US Senate investigations reported that there was NO link between SH and 9/11.
That is pretty definitive.

The US Senate findings and the 9/11 Commission report corralate what the CIA and MI6 also said in respect of WMD and SH alleged support of BinLaden.

BinLaden in his public utterances always refers to the US presence in the land of holy sites (Saudi Arabia) as being the big crime against Muslim people.
Binladen, who views himself as a religious ideological person, would never have aligned himself with a secular leader like SH.
Indeed SH would have gone to great lengths to try to resist the Muslim ideology of someone like BinLaden.
SH's political view was Ba'Athist. Ba'athism is a secular Arab concept and would not espouse Shia or Sunni Islamic notions.
In fact, Ba'athism would view Shia/Sunni ideology as a threat.

 

[darkboong]

There are fundamentalist, wack-jobs in many countries .

Of course, but the *real* problem with Israel is that it is fundamentally Racist in conception and execution.

How many thousands of years & trillions of American tax-dollars will it take for your plan, of peaceful coexistence between the two parties, to work it self out.

Hold on a moment here. Israel has been built on 50+ years of American tax-dollars, and it appears that the funding keeps going on up too. Supporting ethnic cleansing technique has not been cheap. I believe that Peace would be cheaper over than Ethnic cleansing over the long haul, War is the most expensive business known to man.

 

[Carrera]

The idea I'm putting across is that when Saddam initially invaded Kuwait he was indeed a threat to the region. The U.S. could have entered Baghdad, together with the allies with the full endorsement of international law, and even the Moslem world wouldn't have been so stirred up. You either take action against a country when the chips are really down or otherwise you adhere to international norms.
Now, what happened after the first Gulf War was that sanctions were imposed on Iraq and this led to the suffering of Iraqi civilians over many years. Children suffered from malnutrition and the most basic medication was denied hospitals - which disgusted some of the weapons inspectors at the time (and outraged Arabs). Possibly thousand of Iraqis suffered from sanctions.
My belief is that 9/11 was certainly connected to the situation of sanctions in Iraq. I agree with Limerickman that there were other factors but I'm not sure whether you can simply dismiss Iraq/9/11 on the grounds Saddam and Bin Laden hated one another. Iraqis are still Arabs and Bin Laden would have seen the Iraqis as victims of Saddam, as a U.S. imposed dictator, and also victims of the sanctions imposed on the country as a whole.
One of the first demands made by Al Quaida post 9/11 was to pull bases away from Iraq (and out of Arab lands as a whole).
So, this is what I'm stating: I believe that had the U.S. either attacked Baghdad at the end of the first Gulf War or, alternatively, not imposed such prolonged sanctions, 9/11 probably wouldn't have happened.
Maybe Lim misunderstood me on a few points, though. I'm not saying Iraq played any part in 9/11. I'm saying that ongoing sanctions in Iraq angered Bin Laden and co and motivated the declaration of war on the West. Not only Iraq but Chechnya and Palestine as well.
I think that after 9/11 the Bush Administration fully understood that the combination of Iraq and the Palestinian people caused extremist Islamic groups to hate America and declare war. Note that Bin Laden stated his gripe had been that the plight of many Moslems involved suffering, poverty and death, while westerners were well fed and lived in luxury.
So, I figure Bush had 2 options after 9/11:
(1) Pull out of Iraq and lift sanctions, period, but then risk a situation whereby Huseein could attack the Kurds or try to regain WMD.
(2) Overthrow Saddam, impose a more friendly leadership within the country and then retreat. Also there was this idea of making Iraq into a democracy so that democracy would spread to Iran as a knock-on effect.
The situation after 9/11 was complicated to solve but personally I think attacking Baghdad was the wrong path to take and it had all been left too late. But the problem the U.S. had was how to lift sanctions while simulataneously not allowing Saddam to rearm himself.
I think it would be kind of silly to assume the only reason the U.S. moved into Iraq was simply to exploit the oil. I figure this only happened as a consequence of greed after the invasion and that only some individuals were motivated by pure oil. So, I agree with John Simpson who has been visiting Iraq for years and even interviewed Bin Laden at one point. Simpson believes there were many reasons behind the Bush invasion.
Please don't quote me as saying I supported the war as I didn't. I'm just pointing out the entire situation is fairly complex.

How many month's is 14 years . Oh, and you think SH was a stabilizing factor in the region . Come on now. Invade now, invade later, whats the difference except for the pricetag The UN was puposefully dragging its hindquarter's (dereliction of duty)

 

[wilmar13]

Please don't quote me as saying I supported the war as I didn't. I'm just pointing out the entire situation is fairly complex.

This is one of the most objective and balanced posts I have read on this thread yet.

 

[Carrera]

Hmmm, not so often I get good feedback so, cheers.
Maybe I picked up ideas from Simpson's chats on the BBC since Simpson knows Iraq very well and has done quite a few programs on Iraq.
But it is interesting to ask the question, what would we have done ourselves in Bush's situation after 9/11? Myself I wouldn't have attacked Iraq and overthrown Saddam but, I confess, the Administration had one hell of a complex problem to solve.

This is one of the most objective and balanced posts I have read on this thread yet.

 

[darkboong]

I think that after 9/11 the Bush Administration fully understood that the combination of Iraq and the Palestinian people caused extremist Islamic groups to hate America and declare war. Note that Bin Laden stated his gripe had been that the plight of many Moslems involved suffering, poverty and death, while westerners were well fed and lived in luxury.

Several things bother me with that (Whitehouse endorsed) hypothesis.
1) It ignores the key demand made by Bin Laden over the last few years : Namely that the West keeps it's nose out of Arab affairs and takes it's bloody boot of their necks (AFAICT this is a very widespread sentiment and goes *way* back before WW2).
2) It ignores another major gripe of the folks stirring up trouble in the Arab states, namely corruption of the government (be it Secular or Religious).
3) The plight of the Palestinians is most likely to be a secondary issue to most of the folks with a problem in that region (outside of Israel). The Palestinian refugees are generally made to feel very unwelcome in the majority of the countries down there.
4) It ignores the cultural Imperialism of the West, which is a *major* gripe around the world.

So, I figure Bush had 2 options after 9/11:
(1) Pull out of Iraq and lift sanctions, period, but then risk a situation whereby Huseein could attack the Kurds or try to regain WMD.

Naw, sanctions could have continued, but loosened somewhat and inspections increased.

(2) Overthrow Saddam, impose a more friendly leadership within the country and then retreat. Also there was this idea of making Iraq into a democracy so that democracy would spread to Iran as a knock-on effect.

I suspect that people who *honestly* subscribe to that idea have a God complex.

But the problem the U.S. had was how to lift sanctions while simulataneously not allowing Saddam to rearm himself.

That was a pretty easy one to solve IMO and it was in small ways, but the big cheeses refused to listen or change despite the various charitable organisations showing them how this stuff could work. The US is currently prosecuting a Charity for shipping old Medical Journals to Iraq during the sanctions... Go figure.

I think it would be kind of silly to assume the only reason the U.S. moved into Iraq was simply to exploit the oil.

The USD is built on the Petro-Dollar cycle. Shortly before the invasion Iraq said that it was going to price it's oil in Euros... During the '99 Euro Conversion I worked at a Bank, I was chatting with an old hand there about how exciting that the Euro might actually provide a viable alternative to the USD. I was told at the time that it would never amount ot much until Oil was priced in Euro. Subsequent to the Iraq invasion Oil pricing has largely followed the Euro rather than the Dollar, and the American economy is screwed right now, go figure the rest...

Please don't quote me as saying I supported the war as I didn't. I'm just pointing out the entire situation is fairly complex.

The situation is only complicated at the macro level because the West (particularly the US) refuses to be honest about it, so the West has spun a huge web of lies and self-deceit instead. It is quite simple : If you kick someone they are likely to kick you back, particularly when they feel that their survival is threatened.

 

[Wurm]

I think it would be kind of silly to assume the only reason the U.S. moved into Iraq was simply to exploit the oil. I figure this only happened as a consequence of greed after the invasion and that only some individuals were motivated by pure oil. So, I agree with John Simpson who has been visiting Iraq for years and even interviewed Bin Laden at one point. Simpson believes there were many reasons behind the Bush invasion.

Carrera -

You (and Simpson) may consider it "silly" to think GWB's major motivation for invading Iraq was oil, but that's the unvarnished truth. There may have been ancilliary motivations that 'went along for the ride', but they are ALL subordinate to one thing: O-I-L.

If you believe differently, let me try to disabuse you of your naivete':

You, and perhaps Simpson, need to understand the consequences of the coming catastrophe that is known in industry circles as "Peak Oil"; the best predictions have said that this will occur sometime between now and and about 2010. Some say it has already begun. It will be one of the greatest emergencies of human history, and will change forever humanity's way of life as we now know it.

This is not some fallacious, doomsday, whacko pipe dream - it is simple fact based on known oil reserves and world consumption, and the fact that everything in the industrialized world is based on the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. Since oil and natural gas are not renewable commodities, once the'ye gone - that's it - there won't be any more. There are also no current or future technologies known that will compensate anywhere near the levels of what is needed to replace oil/NG energy use. Moreover, the world's oil industry is not finding new reserves to replace the fields that are already at peak, or in decline. One frightening example is Saudi Arabia's biggest field, Ghawar. It has reached it's peak output, and will now only continue to decline in output until it goes dry. It has been said that if Ghawar has peaked, the world has peaked.

Do you remember a year or so ago, when the Saudi's promised to increase production? Well, their total production never increased, because it cannot. The recent meeting between GWB and the Saudi prince in Crawford netted another promise from the Saudi's to increase production. But no matter what lip service they spew for public consumption, the fact remains that they cannot increase their oil production - because the oil that they once had just isn't in the ground.

So guess what? Don't live by the notion that solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. is going to bail the world out of this one, because even those technologies can't be produced and operated without oil. Also, tech's like hydrogen are net energy loser's, because it takes more energy to get energy from it than what it produces. Uranium and plutonium are also publicly unpopular, potentially highly dangerous, has disposal problems, and is also a finite commodity.

Cheney has been well aware of this since at least 1999, when he gave a speech on it to a consortium in London. Since then, the speech has been removed from the website where it was posted, but fortunately other's had already made copies.

As I've pointed out to other's here, some of you need to do further study into this if you are truly to understand 21st century geopolitics as they are now unfolding. Yes, it is fairly complicated, but very unlike the reasons/motivations you state for the neo-con's invasion of Iraq.



As an aside: if you think that even in the case of Afghanistan the Bush regime was so nobly looking to rout OBL and Al Qaeda after they got the blame for 9/11, you're mistaken there also. Much generally unknown information exists on this topic as well, for example:

~ Al Qaeda was basically set up by the CIA years ago, when the Taliban wouldn't allow the construction of the proposed Unocal pipeline through A'stan, (BTW - Hamid Kharzi is a former Socal/Unocal hump, "coincidentally" appointed to the A'stan presidency by the Bush regime). In reference to that pipeline, the Taliban was told by the U.S. a couple of years before 9/11 that: "You can have a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs." If you now look at a map of the major U.S. military bases in A'stan, and overlay it with a map of the pipeline route, you'll see that those bases follow the pipeline all along its route through the country to P'stan. Coincidence?

~ GWB's ties to the House of Saud and the Bin Laden's is a matter of documented certainty. OBL will not be "caught" by the Bush regime, because they need him as a villain so they can "fight terra", just as much as he needs them to foment hatred of the U.S. in the Muslim world.

~ The U.S. gov't has never proven, or even produced a credible case yet, that Al Qaeda or Bin laden were the actual culprits behind 9/11. They've only said, "It's Al Qaeda! It's OBL!", but with no evidence to back it up. Please don't cite the bogus Congressional 9/11 Commission Report, because I can prove that it is also not worth the paper it was printed on.

~ The 9/11 hijackers were given flight instruction at U.S. flight schools, known and condoned by U.S. intelligence agencies, in Jeb Bush's state of Florida.

Don't believe it? Poke around on this website, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ and pick up Ruppert's book, "Crossing The Rubicon". He is one of the very few that has done credible, exhaustive, documented research and analysis on the truth behind the geopolitics of the Bush regime and how they're tied to 9/11, A'stan/Iraq, the oil business, and other relevant matters.

For a fairly quick synopsis of the "intelligence failures", etc.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5920.htm

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Carrera -

You (and Simpson) may consider it "silly" to think GWB's major motivation for invading Iraq was oil, but that's the unvarnished truth. There may have been ancilliary motivations that 'went along for the ride', but they are ALL subordinate to one thing: O-I-L.

If you believe differently, let me try to disabuse you of your naivete':

You, and perhaps Simpson, need to understand the consequences of the coming catastrophe that is known in industry circles as "Peak Oil"; the best predictions have said that this will occur sometime between now and and about 2010. Some say it has already begun. It will be one of the greatest emergencies of human history, and will change forever humanity's way of life as we now know it.

This is not some fallacious, doomsday, whacko pipe dream - it is simple fact based on known oil reserves and world consumption, and the fact that everything in the industrialized world is based on the exploitation and use of fossil fuels. Since oil and natural gas are not renewable commodities, once the'ye gone - that's it - there won't be any more. There are also no current or future technologies known that will compensate anywhere near the levels of what is needed to replace oil/NG energy use. Moreover, the world's oil industry is not finding new reserves to replace the fields that are already at peak, or in decline. One frightening example is Saudi Arabia's biggest field, Ghawar. It has reached it's peak output, and will now only decline until it finally runs dry. It has been said that if Ghawar has peaked, the world has peaked.

Do you remember a year or so ago, when the Saudi's promised to increase production? Well, their total production never increased, because it cannot. The recent meeting between GWB and the Saudi prince in Crawford netted another promise from the Saudi's to increase production. But no matter what lip service they spew for public consumption, the fact remains that they cannot increase their oil production - because the oil that they once had just isn't in the ground.

So guess what? Don't live by the notion that solar, wind, biofuels, hydrogen, nuclear, etc. is going to bail the world out of this one, because even those technologies can't be produced and operated without oil. Also, tech's like hydrogen are net energy loser's, because it takes more energy to get energy from it than what it produces. Uranium and plutonium are also publicly unpopular, potentially highly dangerous, has disposal problems, and is also a finite commodity.

Cheney has been well aware of this since at least 1999, when he gave a speech on it to a consortium in London. Since then, the speech has been removed from the website where it was posted, but fortunately other's had already made copies.

As I've pointed out to other's here, some of you need to do further study into this if you are truly to understand 21st century geopolitics as they are now unfolding. Yes, it is fairly complicated, but very unlike the reasons/motivations you state for the neo-con's invasion of Iraq.



As an aside: if you think that even in the case of Afghanistan the Bush regime was so nobly looking to rout OBL and Al Qaeda after they got the blame for 9/11, you're mistaken there also. Much generally unknown information exists on this topic as well, for example:

~ Al Qaeda was basically set up by the CIA years ago, when the Taliban wouldn't allow the construction of the proposed Unocal pipeline through A'stan, (BTW - Hamid Kharzi is a former Socal/Unocal hump, "coincidentally" appointed to the A'stan presidency by the Bush regime). In reference to that pipeline, the Taliban was told by the U.S. a couple of years before 9/11 that: "You can have a carpet of gold, or a carpet of bombs." If you now look at a map of the major U.S. military bases in A'stan, and overlay it with a map of the pipeline route, you'll see that those bases follow the pipeline all along its route through the country to P'stan. Coincidence?

~ GWB's ties to the House of Saud and the Bin Laden's is a matter of documented certainty. OBL will not be "caught" by the Bush regime, because they need him as a villain so they can "fight terra", just as much as he needs them to foment hatred of the U.S. in the Muslim world.

~ The U.S. gov't has never proven, or even produced a credible case yet, that Al Qaeda or Bin laden were the actual culprits behind 9/11. They've only said, "It's Al Qaeda! It's OBL!", but with no evidence to back it up. Please don't cite the bogus Congressional 9/11 Commission Report, because I can prove that it is also not worth the paper it was printed on.

~ The 9/11 hijackers were given flight instruction at U.S. flight schools, known and condoned by U.S. intelligence agencies, in Jeb Bush's state of Florida.

Don't believe it? Poke around on this website, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/ and pick up Ruppert's book, "Crossing The Rubicon". He is one of the very few that has done credible, exhaustive, documented research and analysis on the truth behind the geopolitics of the Bush regime and how they're tied to 9/11, A'stan/Iraq, the oil business, and other relevant matters.

For a fairly quick synopsis of the "intelligence failures", etc.: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5920.htm

Got anymore good conspiracy ****? I'm still laughing from this crapola.
When did the Taliban begin?

 

[zapper]

Got anymore good conspiracy ****? I'm still laughing from this crapola.
When did the Taliban begin?

Heres one for you...enjoy:

"Well, my friends, it appears that it is I who will have the last last laugh, for a recent article by MoveOn.org completely confirms my hypothesis. A non-partisan organization committed to throwing ****** Bush and all Reichpublicans out of office, MoveOn.org has concluded that the Shrub is to blame for the recent spate of killer hurricanes. His stubborn refusal to ratify Kyoto and sign our economy over to the U.N. has caused global warming, which in turn causes extreme weather conditions that take hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Millions, if you count the obligatory people who mistake downed powerlines for spark-shooting snakes and stomp on them"

 

[Colorado Ryder]

Heres one for you...enjoy:

"Well, my friends, it appears that it is I who will have the last last laugh, for a recent article by MoveOn.org completely confirms my hypothesis. A non-partisan organization committed to throwing ****** Bush and all Reichpublicans out of office, MoveOn.org has concluded that the Shrub is to blame for the recent spate of killer hurricanes. His stubborn refusal to ratify Kyoto and sign our economy over to the U.N. has caused global warming, which in turn causes extreme weather conditions that take hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Millions, if you count the obligatory people who mistake downed powerlines for spark-shooting snakes and stomp on them"

You've got it all wrong. It's the chemtrails that are causing the weather problems. They are trying to brainwash us all. So far they have only gotten 51% of us.

 

[Wurm]

Got anymore good conspiracy ****? I'm still laughing from this crapola.
When did the Taliban begin?

I think before you run your mouth and wind up sticking a foot in it, you should look at the available evidence as I have pointed out. Once you've done that, then come back here and make your argument. Otherwise, you're just talking out of yerass.

As I've said elsewhere, you can call me a "conspiracy" theorist, as long as you call yourself a "coincidence" theorist.

I can guarantee you that were it not for a Repub majority in the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, GWB/Phallus Cheney would be facing treason charges, among many other felonies and international war crimes.

 

[Colorado Ryder]

In think before you run your mouth and wind up sticking a foot in it, you should look at the available evidence as I have pointed out. Once you've done that, then come back here and make your argument.

As I've said elsewhere, you can call me a "conspiracy" theorist, as long as you call yourself a "coincidence" theorist.

I can guarantee you that were it not for a Repub majority in the U.S. Congress and Supreme Court, GWB/Phallus Cheney would be facing treason charges, among many other felonies and international war crimes.

You call me whatever the hell you want to. You're a walking talking freakshow.
So when did the taliban start?