No, not necessarily. We all use it, man. It's pretty commonplace. Remember, you said: I of course took this to mean that you meant that you don't double-speak 'period'. I believe that would be a lie. If you have children, I believe that you would speak diplomatically to them, at certain times and ages, for certain things and events, correct. Well, in doing so, you're double-speaking. http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples/examples-of-doublespeak.html I defer to this though, to end this ridiculous charade: Because I'm not going through your posting history to make a point that doesn't need to be made when you shouldn't have made an absolute declaration such as you did. You're human just like the rest of us, Hannibal, you double-speak.
The whole thing stems from 'Fraud's accusation of me 'double-speaking' about WTC7 in this particular thread. You chimed in as supporting his accusation. We'll narrow it down to that, then: Cite your support of RWF's accusation that I double-spoke about WTC7 or retract it. Take a stand.
As far as I can tell, no one is angry here. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...alls-new-investigation-16.html#post1062261816 Address this link, if you please. Oh ... and I'm proud that my (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es call me 'Boss'.
You're still ducking this post. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/...alls-new-investigation-15.html#post1062259492
You said: And you were given links to video that prove your statement wrong. Rather than be an adult and admit your error, you move the goalposts. And still you duck owning up.
Okay. And declassified/FOIA/Wikileaks documentation -- credible primary sources that can be accessed online. Things like that. Media is fine with me. I don't care what conspiracy theorists say about the mainstream media. The media reports just fine about the ugliness going on in the world. Though, you have to adjust for things like nationalist bias, of course. There are things that the media won't touch on though, but that has been commonplace since the dawn of print media. At any rate, I am just thankful that I am able to access information. Yes, you may have read it, but you haven't debunked it. I haven't seen anything online debunking "A Clean Break". You just hand-wave it away. You've given several excuses, maybe valid to you, but not valid in the real-world. Right, purely my opinion. Go to this site, please: http://www.irmep.org/ Do some looking around for "A Clean Break" and then tell me that you're still not convinced (though, how could you not be given THE WORLD EVENTS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED SINCE 9/11 THAT PRECISELY PARALLEL "A CLEAN BREAK"). I'm not talking about on the planes, man. People got cut up by boxcutters. I know what that looks like already. I can only imagine the depths of anarchy on those planes. Needless to say, what I was most referring to is what is being withheld from us. Government records. Information. Top secret, classified for a long time information. You act as if though that once al-Qaeda operatives were inside America, there was no stopping them from launching their attacks. Or at the very least, defending obvious sites that were previously targeted (or were to be commonly known to be targeted). States have thwarted terrorism before using their various resources, like Russia back in the early 1900s. The fact of the matter is simple, the United States government firmly failed in their effort to safeguard its citizens and interests against the threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda on 9/11. And I would like to see the source on that it was going to be on nuclear sites, initially. To say that there was nothing specific about the threat, well, that is erroneous. The World Trade Center was specifically mentioned in August 1998, three full years beforehand. In the 08/06/2001 Presidential Daily Brief, it is said that bin Laden wished to strike Washington after the August 98 US Afghanistan bombings. Also erroneous, is that the government was unaware of the means. They were well aware that planes were bin Ladens desired method of inflicting terrorism upon America. Our own government hypothesized about and then published a report about al-Qaeda crashing bomb ridden planes into the Pentagon, CIA Headquarters, and the White House in 1999. Not to mention, that there was going to be hijacking going on. Now, as to my Grand Strategy: I would have aggressively pursued Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network alongside Israel, Britain, and probably Australia, especially, if things had gotten that far, by the time the American embassies in Africa were bombed. Osama bin Laden would not have been drawing air by 2001 if I had been in power, given the dastardly things he had done to our country, as well the national security threat he posed to our country. Given his two fatwas, and his budding with known bad guys (Taliban), the rankness of his own personal clique, his financing of terrorism, and his direction of terrorist attacks. Now, if things had progressed to the USS Cole incident, and he still was not dead, and his network ashes, then I would have made the necessary moves to establish those policies at that time. But if we did make it into 2001 and the Middle Eastern terrorist still wasnt dead, I suppose I would start preparing the homeland for an unpreventable attack from the un-killable Osama bin Laden and his un-findable al-Qaeda outfit located within the United States. As Commander-in-Chief, I would direct my Secretary of Defense to have the most robust national defense policy constitutionally and economically viable given that the threat was that severe and our checkbook was still in the green. I would have directed my Central Intelligence Agency Director to have more analysis from the Intelligence Community about all things bin Laden, al-Qaeda, sleeper cells, the threats, etc. I would have written an Executive Order issuing that the IC communicates in a robust, transparent, open-sourced way. I would have tasked my Immigration Officials with perusing every Middle Eastern entry into the United States within a designated timeframe agreed upon by the IC, which would then be sent to the FBI for follow-ups. There would have certainly been Cabinet level meetings about bin Laden and al-Qaeda in 2001 if he/they werent dead/destroyed. I would have given the FAA the most gravest of starkest warnings you could imagine signed by me. I would have the FBI and local law enforcement infiltrate US Muslim populations, in an attempt to gather intelligence on the hijackers. I would task the CIA with deploying agents into the field to infiltrate al-Qaeda (and the Taliban for that matter) in Afghanistan (an Arab defined by bin Laden). I would urge the Israelis, but more specifically, their Mossad, to find a way to get better surveillance on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Moreover, naturally, I would be gung-ho, alongside our willing allies (who will kill people when they are threatened), in eliminating Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda with offensive capabilities after several (unprovoked) terrorist attacks. I would be taking the War to him/them the way that the United States can. If I was a Democrat, I could have scored major points for deposing the Taliban without 9/11 happening. There was a humanitarian crisis of an epic magnitude in Afghanistan. Civil War started in the seventies. Tons of people got tore up or died from the Soviet War, and then the Taliban come in were just ruthless. Then, in comes bin Laden, and al-Qaeda. He issues his fatwas, the embassies, threats, Afghanistan bombings, threats, USS Cole, threats. But in this timeline, there is an ideology shift here, followed by the massive wave of threats. Then, 9/11. Make as many assumptions as you wish, but the truth of the matter is that when ranked historically, the George W. Bush Administration does not do so well. And my personal opinion of them is not so high either, obviously. I would defend them the best I could given that something like that were to ever happen, but some of them have done some pretty awful things, made some awful decisions, etc. Perhaps notoriously heinous was too harsh of verbiage, I dont know. But theyre certainly disappointing in a quantifying magnitude, all things considered, from Iraq to 9/11 to No Child Left Behind. Post sources that I agree with and well be fine, you demand the same of me. Why pitch a front with me about something that youd do yourself? Kind of hypocritical of you, isnt it? Tell me though, how many National Security Council meetings did the Bush Administration have about Iraq prior to 9/11? Okay, how about Osama bin Laden/al-Qaeda? Okay. Like an uncaused cause? If thats what you think, okay, man. Its your worldview.
As per your request, I am responding to your lengthy post. Ok, Jango. I'm glad you'd do all that. However, hindsight is 20/20. Now leave me alone about this post, I'm done with it.
Jango, I agree with a lot of your sentiments about the Bush Admin. If you take the things Sibel Edwards and Richard Clarke have said at face value one can reasonably conclude that the Bush Admin was grossly incompetent if not negligent in their handling of the threat posed by foreign extremist groups. I understand how the LIHOP hypothesis may seem plausible in the context of the Bush Admins bungling and 'A Clean Break' but neither the actions of the Bush Admin or NeoCon machinations amount to anything more than very flimsy circumstantial evidence of a govt conspiracy to perpetrate the 9 11 attacks. Whats more, those same things could just as easily br used as circumstantial evidence to support widely divergent hypothesis. In my mind, there is a significant body of evidence that Bush et al manipulated the fallout of 9 11 to pursue foreign and domestiv policies that were at best only vaguely tangential to the al Qaeda threat ie Iraqi Freedom but that in no way means that the govt was a party to 9 11. I do not hold the younger bush in high esteem as I think he made some greivous errors but i believe unequivocally that he would not knowingly allow or perpetrate a tragedy like 9 11 on this country.
That's a lame-ass response. You specifically asked me: "I would really like to know how YOU would have handled it." Then you come at me with the "hindsight is 20/20" line. What malarkey.
You know cooky, I would love to "believe unequivocally that he would not knowingly allow or perpetrate a tragedy like 9 11 on this country." I would love it. But the 9/11 Commission Report did not or has not reconciled everything that the main stream media has reported. In fact, it alerted more questions and doubt. It reconciled little. I understand that al-Qaeda did it, but what I don't understand is how it happened in the first place. Incompetency was obvious, and though you may be hesitant to say 'negligent', negligence is right there, out in the open, plain to see. If you can take President Clinton at face value, he warned the incoming President Bush about the dangers of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. But to Bush, it was not bin Laden and al-Qaeda that his administration was to worry about, it was Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Nevertheless, the full blunt of the blame should not lie solely with the Bush administration. I firmly believe that bin Laden and his terror network should have been dealt with prior to Bush even taking office. So maybe they didn't necessarily "let it happen on purpose," but their negligence and incompetency 'let it happen' regardless.
You said how you would react. What else do you want? You get the luxury of saying this almost twelve years after the fact, knowing what the consequences are. Of course your plan seems laid out and on point. I'm sure all those involved are kicking themselves too. No matter what you think, no one wanted three thousand people dead, the towers collapsed, and first responders caught in the middle. That's just plain illogical. I've spoken with people that worked in the flight towers covering air space on that day. I've heard their disappointment at how that day unfolded and how America got caught with its pants down. Thank you for explaining how it would work of you led the nation. Great work.
I don't know, I don't think the "plan" I laid out was anything that couldn't have been done by our leaders. By most appearances, starting from when bin Laden first become an issue, then a threat, and then finally a priority, there was a lot of minion work being done, but not a lot of lever pulling by the highest levels of office. I often hear that the CIA and FBI doesn't need Presidential approval to do their jobs, but I want to remind people that from everything that's been reported, the CIA and FBI were constantly waiting for orders and approvals from up-above to do their jobs.
not here at this site anymore thats where.hee hee.I knew it was just a matter of time before that happened to him.There is this other site that happened to him as well for making death threats to another poster.It was funny when it happened at that place because that place pretty much lets just about anything go there.Thats about the only thing there they dont allow so its almost impossible to be banned at THAT site but somehow he managed that feat I see .lol so I knew it was just a matter of time here.hee hee.cant believe you and others actually wasted your time on him when he was here.
anyways,great post.as always,he gets his arse handed to him on a platter.some people just never get tired of coming back for punishment I see.hee hee.
Jango,when you say Al-queda did it,you are in fact admitting the CIA did it because the CIA "FUNDED" al-queda.hee hee.thats why the official conspiracy theorists defned the fairy tales of 9/11 that the fires caused the collapse of the towers to no end and ignore expert testimony of demolition experts and architects and engineers and firemener experienced in the sounds of explosives to no end because al-queda could not alone have planted those bombs and got past security.not without the blessing of people on the inside. Oh and Clinton is as much involved in 9/11 up to his ears as Bush is.Three different countries offered Bin laden to him and volunteered to turn him over but Clinton told them to back off and not go after him.a general even came on the late news one night and talked about it saying Clinton told them to back off.it was all over the news back then.They needed Bin Laden for a patsy the same way they needed oswald as a patsy for the jfk assassination. thats why clinton let bin laden go and did not go after him.You must not be aware that Clinton has had along standing friendship with the Bushs that go back to at least the early 80's when he was governor of arkansas and that Clinton like Bush sr,also had connections to the CIA? - - - Updated - - - nothing new there.hee hee.
with the sheople in our facist country of the states,it just seems to be forever.Here is why you cant get a proper investigation into this case. Our government is taking a crap on the widows of the 9/11 familys that try to get a real linvestigation done into this case.The fact that Bushs cousin was the judge in this case and ignored the familys requesst for a new judge in it speaks VOLUMES about the corruption going on in our government.for anybody here to say otherwise is a sick joke. http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/tag/george-bush/feed/
whats so amazing about that ignorant post from those brainwashed Bush dupes is the majority of congress is corrupt. bought off and paid for by the zionists so we cant expect to have a reali investigation into this.also its a well known fact that not too long ago,our corrupt court system spit in the familys face when they objected to Bushs cousin being the judge in the lawsuit they filed against the government. In the ultimate insult to April Gallop in her 9/11 lawsuit against the government,the establishment has made sure her lawsuit gets sabatoged from the get go.The government has insulted Gallop by denying her appeal that Bush's cousin Judge John Walker be dismissed from the panel. The fact that Bush's cousin is the judge of this case should raise red flags to even the most die hard 9/11 official conspiracy theory apologists that defend the official version of the governments here that this is a fair trial. Matter of fact not only have they thrown out her appeal to have Judge Walker removed,the message is clear you cant even file a lawsuit against the government without being punished.as you can see from the link below,her attorney representing her has been fined $15,000 for no good reason. Oh and Judge Walker really IS Bush's cousin for the OCTA'S that want to say he isnt.All you got to do is look at a photo of him and just like Bush jr is a spitting image of his dad,so is Judge John Walker a spitting image of Bush. Enjoy.tons of information with very good links
Not a bit of it is based on the opinions of sane and trained people with skills relevant to the investigation of the incident, or at least that part to which they testify.
