Musharraf later reversed himself. There is no evidence that bin Laden ever had kidney disease, just rumor and speculation. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/jan/03/20060103-093215-2153r/
Or mindless violence in general. It also speaks to the combination of your handle coupled with the GF mask. How about addressing my other post?
If you give the post you quoted half a glance you'll notice that I addressed the fiction created by the character.
Just buying a dialysis machine isn't enough,you need the supplies,a reasonably sterile enviroment...something hard to come by on the run..
The handle of course is Guy Fawkes Day, but it is also V's Day of Revolution. When coupled with the V avatar, it should be clear which I meant. If you want to interpret it otherwise, whatever. Yes, there were conflicting reports. It all depends on who you want to believe, doesn't it? Even snopes won't say Yay or Nay.
Ah yes: "Instead they identify with him because of a fiction that was built around his name and the events he is famous for. It's a fiction that was created in order to push an agenda that had nothing to do with Guy's agenda. Likewise, the 9/11 movement has attempted to create a narrative surrounding the 9/11 attack, and they have very little understanding of what Al-Qaeda actually stands for and wants to do. Both fictions are idealistic polemics that have little foundation in evidence based reality. Both attempt to vilify "the man" Both completely ignore the fact that the actual perpetrators represent the opposite of everything they seemingly stand for." I think you read too much into it. The V mythology indeed has nothing to do with the old religious conflict (Guy's agenda), and everything to do with fighting tyranny. As it is set in a fictional near future, it is not any more an attempt to villify "the Man" than 1984 was. In fact, more than anything, the story is a counterpoint to 1984. You can cower like Winston Smith, or fight like V. You can be singled out like Smith and come to love Big Brother, or unite the people against tyranny like V. If you prefer the former, then I can see why the V persona upsets you so.
Yeah, you can either believe Musharraf or Musharraf. Do you have any evidence beyond mere speculation?
So "some analysts" believing Osama was trained by the CIA is somehow proof that Osama was a CIA agent? You DO realize there is a huge difference between being trained and being an agent, right? You also realize the opinions of a couple analysts doesn't make it fact, right? I don't deny the US funded and equipped the Mujahideen. The Mujahideen is NOT Al Qaeda. Is there some overlap? Sure. Does that justify the paranoid delusion that Osama was the US's puppet? No. Yeah, no big surprise you missed the whole point. You have yet to point out one thing that Osama gained for being a CIA puppet. The fact he never spent a day in jail is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it. The fact he was dying anyway is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and you know it. EVERYONE is dying in one way or another. That doesn't mean we dedicate decades of our lives to helping out the sworn enemy of the religion you hold so dear, does it. Nope. You're going to have to go a lot further than pretending a person's mortality is a reason why they would betray their religion, their people, and their friends to live in some Middle Eastern (*)(*)(*)(*)hole hiding from the world until it becomes politically convenient for an assassination squad to come and kill you. That doesn't add up in anyone's book, yet that is what you're asking everyone to believe.
But the actual gunpowder plot was an attempt to establish tyranny. That's the whole point. The narrative completely changes the actual story to make it fit some completely different agenda. Don't you see the similarities to what the truthers have done? No two truthers have the same story. Hell, no one truther holds the same story. They change all the time. The only thing that always stays the same is the conclusion, despite the fact that those conclusions are as diverse as the opinions that hold them. The entire thing comes off as a attempt to hijack a historical event by weaving a story that fits their own conclusion. That's the irony, Guy. You're advertising the truther methodology with your avatar. I prefer an accurate evidence based portrayal of history. I'm not a big fan of fairy tails that have been presented as truth. So how about you answer my other question? How is the risk of trying to pull off a conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans to grope old ladies and listen to you have phone sex less of a risk than simply groping old ladies and listening to you have phone sex? Why the convoluted false attack?
Really? That's your interpretation? Not an attempt to end the persecution of Catholics, but to establish tyranny (as if the monarchy was not tyranny). No doubt you consider the American Revolution to be an attempt to establish tyranny, as well? As do I. Of course, a fictional story set in the future isn't history, now is it? Osama assumed the risk, and in exchange became a hero to some, and probably the most famous man in the world. This rock star of the jihadists paved the way for US laws to be changed, so now tyranny is legal. It's a win/win for those within the US government. Now answer me a question. If, as the official story goes, 9/11 was just the greatest clusterf*ck in history, made possible only due to incompetence and bumbling, who was held accountanble? I don't recall anyone being fired or forced to resign over 9/11. Even Katrina caused Michael Brown to lose his job, and that was insignificant next to 9/11.
Guy was not trying to set up a republic, don't be obtuse. Guy was trying to swap one monarch for another and wipe out Parliament in the process. The truther 9/11 narrative is equally fictional, what's your point? This is a red herring. Osama cannot assume the risk of other plotters in a conspiracy. If, for example, Dick Cheney was involved in the planning or execution of an attack against Americans, Osama's existence doesn't eliminate Cheney's risk of exposure. In the same way you assume that Cheney refused the outright risk of retribution for doing the things you say the attack accomplished, like groping old ladies, and listening to you call Mr movie phone, Cheney would have risked a heck of a lot more on the premise that he would never be exposed for murderous treason. You forgot to explain how tyranny is a win for US government officials. Does Dick Cheney want to grope old ladies at the airport, or listen to you vote for your favorite American Idol? I don't see why he would... Beyond that, why would Dick risk being exposed in a plot to attack America in order to pass on the potential for tyranny to whomever the U.S. electorate decides to vote for? That makes ZERO sense. If Dick was after tyranny, wouldn't Dick still be in office? Don't you think it's possible for someone to do exactly as they are told, and still fail to accomplish an intended goal? The process was held accountable. The rules that govern the intelligence community was completely rewritten. Think of it this way, did we hold the architectural firms accountable because the building failed to remain standing? No, they followed every law and code correctly. Instead, we rewrote building codes to take these new events into account. Your opinion is that no one was fired or forced to resign of 9/11? Or am I supposed to argue with you regarding what you recall? That seems a bit hyperbolic, wouldn't you say?
I see after getting your arse handed to you on a platter by me after I took you to school on JFK proving how you have to resort to lies and propaganda when you are cornered, how you evades facts as well making things up to try and save face knowing your defeated,that you came here to post your propaganda and lies as well on 9/11 so since nobody was listening to your lies and propaganda over there.how pathetic. wont work on people like me and Scott for instance,we know your kind and what your true objective here is. oh and I'll take your bait one more time and give you the attention you seek.here debunk this short five minute video.you cant.you official conspiracy theroy apologists run off with your tails between your legs EVERYTIME when challenged to do so instead of being mature to admit you cant counter them so i know you wont be the first to admit that you cant counter them.You know as well as i do you wont watch it. you guys NEVER do. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/244858-9-11-explained-5-minutes.html
He wont watch any of that.He has no interest in the truth whatsoever on anything like the kennedy assassination, 9/11,or oklahoma city or any kind of government corruption.He only SELECTIVELY chooses what you post.He ignores half of the oter things you post and wont address them when he gets cornered all the time as you'll find out. amazing how they keep sending these guys here to try and persude us isnt it? hee hee.
The sad thing is the video has been destroyed so many times it's not even funny. I haven't taken time to tear it apart because it's just not worth it. I am also mildly amused at watching 9/11 claim victory and run away, it keeps him distracted. Reading through his butchering of the English language, and obnoxious punctuation is excruciating. 9/11waij, it's the same recycled crap. There's nothing new in your video, and I think it's pathetic that someone feels they can sum up 9/11 in 5 minutes. It was a completely mind blowing event, that was extremely intricate and complicated to understand. That's how truthers work though, they eliminate all the facts, then instill a bunch of conjecture, incredulity, and random bull(*)(*)(*)(*) in exchange. After that they say, "You're too stupid to understand it." They proceed to pick up their ball, declare themselves the victor, and walk off like Cartman from South Park. It's standard, and 9/11waij is a textbook example. He's already done it in this very thread, and he'll go along doing that in all the others. That's the reason he only shows up once every 2 weeks, and links to the same recycled crap. Redundancy is fun kids!
I, for one, am dying to learn why the government has such a murderous desire to learn whether Guy Fawkes clones hang up on their girlfriends first, or if their girlfriends hang up first. I can barely wait to hear why anyone would risk getting caught plotting to kill thousands of Americans, but wouldn't risk just listening to phone calls without a pretext. Frankly, I'm not sure I'm ready to hear the multitude of benefits realized by groping people at the airport.
Talk about red herrings. You just keep repeating the same crap about gropings and listening to phone calls, as if those are the only things 9/11 has been used for. Forget about the Patriot Act, the wars, the overall shift in the public psyche, the creation of Homeland Security, justifying torture, the fact that Bush had zero political capital pre-9/11, - Oh no, it's just about listening to me and my girlfriend on the phone. Come on, are we having a serious conversation or what?
Well, at least you're honest. Thanks. Now I know to ignore your posts, since you're just bull(*)(*)(*)(*)ting.
There you go again avoiding the question. What a letdown. I thought for sure you had a good reason why anyone would think that a massive government conspiracy to kill thousands of Americans would be less risky than simply doing the things you think were justified by the massive government conspiracy. By the way, you're the one who brought those issues up. If they sound stupid to you it's because they are stupid, not because I keep repeating them. It's your position that the government wanted to know what Miss Cleo had to say during your last session but didn't dare listen until they killed a few thousands Americans first. It sounds stupid because it is stupid. It's your position that [someone] in the government killed thousands of Americans in order to achieve the tyrannical power to fondle flying grannies, and then they gave up that power when it was their turn to leave office. It's sounds stupid because it is stupid. Tell me, was this person in the government sharpening the point of their mustachio, or dry washing their hands with an evil grin while they hatched such a hare brained plot? Were they perhaps wearing a cape?
as always,everytime just like all official conspiracy theory apologists,everytime you get cornered with these facts and evidence you know you cant refute, you like to claim they have ben debunked when they are not.oh and yeah your pathetic ramblings just like all the other OCTA'S posts have all been destroyed throughout this whole thread.no need to brag about that.as always you lose.you CLAIM they have been destroyed but you wont repost ONE SINGLE ITEM that you CL;AIM has destroyed it,typical.thats how you guys ALWAYS operate,cowardly run off from that challenge when you cant refute it with pathetic one liners like this one.great job. again its funny how you couldnt get anybody to listen to your pathetic lies and propaganda on JFK so you came here to try and get the attention you seek.here you will.there are lots of truthers here that ignorantly take the bait of all these paid shills in this forum replying to them and wasting their time. last chance,address them posting something that you CLAIM destroys it,or just like with JFK,you prove again,you dont have any credibility.you wont.we both know that.
lies as always.onluy delusional people would believe the official version,you OCTA'S ignore the laws of physics scientists have gone by for thousands of years.hahahahahahahahaa and and you octas have the hysterical logic that scientists,demolition experts,expert pilots,achitects and engineers are delusional but our congress and corporate controlled media is looking out for us and NEVER lies.you should start a comedy club.hahahahahahaa
these paid shills shoot themselves in the foot everytime saying AQ did it because they just prove the CIA was behind it all cause the CIA funded AQ.hee hee.
