| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Expert" |
| Date: |
10 Sep 2006 11:49:46 PM |
| Object: |
'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through in flying
colors. One can only wonder what on God's earth the Liberals
were whining about? ABC must've censored all those parts out
before airing it. I saw nothing that wasn't about status quo.
But how will part 2 of 2 fare? It will be interesting to see.
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRQTl85ljD7YrHM/nEQL4qwCgyAOMtyVeH0Tayh0bWN/FXGkxMScAoLDK
HitymDJbu7tDx6CtLeGP9jVC
=36Jy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 03:41:58 PM |
|
|
Expert <anon@comments.header> wrote :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through in flying
colors. One can only wonder what on God's earth the Liberals
were whining about?
It's like pouring water on the wicked witch of the west to them, to have
the truth come out, that Clinton was too busy under the desk with Monica
to get Osama, even though he had 5 chances. He blew them all. ( no pun
intended about Monica )
ABC must've censored all those parts out
before airing it.
Yes, they buckled and changed things so that no one looked at fault,
from what the news reports have been saying. Wimps. But what do we
expect from lberal biased network TV?
I saw nothing that wasn't about status quo.
But how will part 2 of 2 fare? It will be interesting to see.
Looks like ABC wimped out and decided to appease the Democrat thugs who
were threatening them, instead of standing up for free speech.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 05:30:08 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
Expert <anon@comments.header> wrote :
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through in flying
colors. One can only wonder what on God's earth the Liberals
were whining about?
It's like pouring water on the wicked witch of the west to them, to have
the truth come out, that Clinton was too busy under the desk with Monica
to get Osama, even though he had 5 chances. He blew them all. ( no pun
intended about Monica )
ABC must've censored all those parts out
before airing it.
Yes, they buckled and changed things so that no one looked at fault,
from what the news reports have been saying. Wimps. But what do we
expect from lberal biased network TV?
I saw nothing that wasn't about status quo.
But how will part 2 of 2 fare? It will be interesting to see.
Looks like ABC wimped out and decided to appease the Democrat thugs who
were threatening them, instead of standing up for free speech.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery. If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to make
them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions, what of
their right to join rulers?
"It is better for fools to be ruled than to rule." - Democritus
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 05:42:18 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to make
them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone should
have a right to work without being forced to join unions or pay dues, or
be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a member!
what of
their right to join rulers?
Dictator thugs have no rights.
"It is better for fools to be ruled than to rule." - Democritus
There's your coercive collectivist system. Tyranny.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 06:15:51 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to make
them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone should
have a right to work without being forced to join unions or pay dues, or
be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to allow
them to do so. Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
what of
their right to join rulers?
Dictator thugs have no rights.
"It is better for fools to be ruled than to rule." - Democritus
There's your coercive collectivist system. Tyranny.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 08:11:16 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to
make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join unions or
pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to allow
them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but that
doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism, the antithesis of
individual rights and true freedom.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 01:02:05 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to
make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join unions or
pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to allow
them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but that
doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism
Bollocks. Liberalism contrasts with authoratarianism, not right and
left politics.
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist, to a
libertarian. Libertarian is simply used to describe a liberal right
winger.
, the antithesis of
individual rights and true freedom.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 03:57:20 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to
make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of
value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join unions or
pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a
member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to allow
them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but that
doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism
Bollocks. Liberalism contrasts with authoratarianism, not right and
left politics.
Bollocks. You just don't get into objective definitions.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever
knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party presidential
candidate 1936-1968, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small
doses of Socialism UNTIL they awaken one day to find they HAVE
COMMUNISM." - Nikita Kruschev, 1959
"There is no such thing as a liberal...There hasn't been for a long,
long time. I never use the word and you shouldn't either - nobody
should. 'Liberal' is what socialists call themselves when they don't
want you to understand that they plan to take away your rights, your
property, and eventually your life." -- Alexander Hope
"For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy
are almost if not quite the one and the same. - Woodrow Wilson
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
( Who said it? Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane
Feinstein, Chuck Schumer or Karl Marx? Could have been any of them,
right? )
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the
means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave
men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between
murder and suicide." -- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of
Main Weapons"
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist,
You just proved my point!
to a
libertarian.
Hogwash!
Libertarian is simply used to describe a liberal right
winger.
Bull crap.
"Who is a libertarian?
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under
any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another human being,
or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently
with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not.
Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians,
regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith
If you don't understand things, don't just spout crap.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 04:10:07 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away to
make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of
value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join unions or
pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or staying a
member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to allow
them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but that
doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism
Bollocks. Liberalism contrasts with authoratarianism, not right and
left politics.
Bollocks. You just don't get into objective definitions.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist
program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever
knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist Party presidential
candidate 1936-1968, co-founder of the American Civil Liberties Union
"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small
doses of Socialism UNTIL they awaken one day to find they HAVE
COMMUNISM." - Nikita Kruschev, 1959
"There is no such thing as a liberal...There hasn't been for a long,
long time. I never use the word and you shouldn't either - nobody
should. 'Liberal' is what socialists call themselves when they don't
want you to understand that they plan to take away your rights, your
property, and eventually your life." -- Alexander Hope
"For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and democracy
are almost if not quite the one and the same. - Woodrow Wilson
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
( Who said it? Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Diane
Feinstein, Chuck Schumer or Karl Marx? Could have been any of them,
right? )
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the
means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave
men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between
murder and suicide." -- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of
Main Weapons"
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist,
You just proved my point!
to a
libertarian.
Hogwash!
Libertarian is simply used to describe a liberal right
winger.
Bull crap.
"Who is a libertarian?
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under
any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another human being,
or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently
with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not.
Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians,
regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith
If you don't understand things, don't just spout crap.
Libertarianism is uncontrolled anarchy, or, more usually, degenerates
into sheer plutocracy.
Social Democracy, on the other hand, gives people representation,
through the ballot box. Libertarianism leads to the rule of the rich,
and the corporations.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 05:04:21 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away
to make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of
value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join
unions or pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or
staying a
member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to
allow them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but
that doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism
Bollocks. Liberalism contrasts with authoratarianism, not right
and left politics.
Bollocks. You just don't get into objective definitions.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation
without ever knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist
Party presidential candidate 1936-1968, co-founder of the American
Civil Liberties Union
"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them
small doses of Socialism UNTIL they awaken one day to find they HAVE
COMMUNISM." - Nikita Kruschev, 1959
"There is no such thing as a liberal...There hasn't been for a long,
long time. I never use the word and you shouldn't either - nobody
should. 'Liberal' is what socialists call themselves when they don't
want you to understand that they plan to take away your rights, your
property, and eventually your life." -- Alexander Hope
"For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and
democracy are almost if not quite the one and the same. - Woodrow
Wilson
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." ( Who said it? Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton,
Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer or Karl Marx? Could have been any of
them, right? )
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in
the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to
enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the
difference between murder and suicide." -- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign
Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist,
You just proved my point!
to a
libertarian.
Hogwash!
Libertarian is simply used to describe a liberal right
winger.
Bull crap.
"Who is a libertarian?
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another
human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who
act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil
Smith
If you don't understand things, don't just spout crap.
Libertarianism is uncontrolled anarchy, or, more usually, degenerates
into sheer plutocracy.
Not true or necessarily, no.
Social Democracy, on the other hand, gives people representation,
through the ballot box.
Partial slavery.
Libertarianism leads to the rule of the rich,
and the corporations.
Bull crap.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 05:09:51 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
One man's liberty is another man's slavery.
Moral relativism?
If I want the liberty to
buy real cheap clothes, some other poor sod is slaving away
to make them, denied the liberty that decent wages bring.
It's their choice, as long as they're not forced to work.
An employee-employer relationship is a VOLUNTARY exchange of
value.
If I want to eploy people without letting them join unions,
I'm fine with voluntary unions, just not forced ones. Everyone
should have a right to work without being forced to join
unions or pay dues, or be otherwise coerced into joining or
staying a
member!
Yes, but the boss would argue it infringes upon his rights to
allow them to do so.
Only if they insist on meeting on company property.
Two freedoms can be mutually exclusive.
Not really. One persons freedom ends at the edge of anothers but
that doesn't make them mutually exclusive.
How can you attack liberalism and claim to support liberty?
Because liberalism is synonymous with socialism
Bollocks. Liberalism contrasts with authoratarianism, not right
and left politics.
Bollocks. You just don't get into objective definitions.
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under
the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the
socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation
without ever knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, Socialist
Party presidential candidate 1936-1968, co-founder of the American
Civil Liberties Union
"We can't expect the American people to jump from Capitalism to
Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them
small doses of Socialism UNTIL they awaken one day to find they HAVE
COMMUNISM." - Nikita Kruschev, 1959
"There is no such thing as a liberal...There hasn't been for a long,
long time. I never use the word and you shouldn't either - nobody
should. 'Liberal' is what socialists call themselves when they don't
want you to understand that they plan to take away your rights, your
property, and eventually your life." -- Alexander Hope
"For it is very clear that in fundamental theory socialism and
democracy are almost if not quite the one and the same. - Woodrow
Wilson
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his
needs." ( Who said it? Ted Kennedy, Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton,
Diane Feinstein, Chuck Schumer or Karl Marx? Could have been any of
them, right? )
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in
the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to
enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the
difference between murder and suicide." -- Ayn Rand, from "Foreign
Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist,
You just proved my point!
to a
libertarian.
Hogwash!
Libertarian is simply used to describe a liberal right
winger.
Bull crap.
"Who is a libertarian?
A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right,
under any circumstances, to ***initiate*** force against another
human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who
act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they
realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are
not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil
Smith
If you don't understand things, don't just spout crap.
Libertarianism is uncontrolled anarchy, or, more usually, degenerates
into sheer plutocracy.
Not true or necessarily, no.
Social Democracy, on the other hand, gives people representation,
through the ballot box.
Partial slavery.
Better than sweatshop misery.
Libertarianism leads to the rule of the rich,
and the corporations.
Bull crap.
Without restrictions, the rich impose their will on the poor, thus
limiting the liberty of the poor.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 05:13:43 PM |
|
|
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
Libertarianism is uncontrolled anarchy, or, more usually,
degenerates
into sheer plutocracy.
Not true or necessarily, no.
Social Democracy, on the other hand, gives people representation,
through the ballot box.
Partial slavery.
Better than sweatshop misery.
At least in a sweatshop no one is forcing you to work for them, you can
leave. With government tax slavery you have no choice, you're enslaved
at gunpoint.
Libertarianism leads to the rule of the rich,
and the corporations.
Bull crap.
Without restrictions, the rich impose their will on the poor, thus
limiting the liberty of the poor.
Not possible without government doing it.
That's the absurd thing with you socialists, you say things are slavery
that aren't, and turn a blind eye to the very real slavery that you
perpetuate.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lucifer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:23:42 AM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
"Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com> wrote :
Libertarianism is uncontrolled anarchy, or, more usually,
degenerates
into sheer plutocracy.
Not true or necessarily, no.
Social Democracy, on the other hand, gives people representation,
through the ballot box.
Partial slavery.
Better than sweatshop misery.
At least in a sweatshop no one is forcing you to work for them, you can
leave.
And do what, pray?
The corporations will have taken my families land, so I will starve if
I don't work for them.
My children won't get to school (because it's "tax slavery" to fund
eductaion yaknow) and then they don't have a chance, whereas the fat
cat's kids, they get an education, and they inherit tonnes of wealth,
so the next generation it happens again, only worse.
It's been tried before. It's called feudalism, and it's the most
illeberal, anti liberty, idea there ever has been.
With government tax slavery you have no choice, you're enslaved
at gunpoint.
No, I can quite work, I can get benefits. If I am so disgustingly
selfish enough to refuse to contribute to society, then I can *****
to another country.
Libertarianism leads to the rule of the rich,
and the corporations.
Bull crap.
Without restrictions, the rich impose their will on the poor, thus
limiting the liberty of the poor.
Not possible without government doing it.
That's the absurd thing with you socialists, you say things are slavery
that aren't, and turn a blind eye to the very real slavery that you
perpetuate.
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Len Tropy" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 04:35:49 PM |
|
|
On 12 Sep 2006 11:02:05 -0700, "Lucifer" <wyrdology@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Liberal can mean anything from me, a liberal socialist, to a
libertarian
Nope commie, libertarians are NOT liberals, you dolt.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Aidan" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
11 Sep 2006 01:01:05 AM |
|
|
Expert wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Great?
Kind of ridiculous I thought... I was expecting a documentary, instead I was
presented with a this 'crock-of-*****-umentary'.
Why did they make out in the ads that it was going to be some kind of fact
based appraisal of the events leading up to 9/11, when the program turned
out to be a not-all-that-good hollywood thriller type affair?
IMO, it really detracted from the serious nature of the events by trying to
dramatize, for instance, chase scenes ('bad guy get away' music and
all...). Worst of all, there was no clear distinction between what was
fact, what was opinion, and what was film-making bluster...
Pure horse *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 04:05:39 PM |
|
|
Expert wrote:
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through
in flying colors. One can only wonder what on
God's earth the Liberals were whining about?
Less than five months before 9/11 the Bush
administration had this to say about Clinton:
| A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
Yup. George "Traitor" Bush thought Bill Clinton was
"Focused" on Bin Laden, and that it was a "Mistake"
to be "Focused" on Bin Laden the way Clinton was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "I Ms Individual Rights" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 05:03:27 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote :
Expert wrote:
Great? Maybe not, but the gist of it came through
in flying colors. One can only wonder what on
God's earth the Liberals were whining about?
Less than five months before 9/11 the Bush
administration had this to say about Clinton:
| A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
Yup. George "Traitor" Bush thought Bill Clinton was
"Focused" on Bin Laden, and that it was a "Mistake"
to be "Focused" on Bin Laden the way Clinton was.
Is it really necessary to work against this country with that kind of
lying, smearing and bashing from the left all the time?
--
Up with liberty!
Down with liberalism, socialism and communism!
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS,
YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR RULERS!
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 06:41:13 PM |
|
|
I Ms Individual Rights wrote:
Less than five months before 9/11 the Bush
administration had this to say about Clinton:
| A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
Yup. George "Traitor" Bush thought Bill Clinton was
"Focused" on Bin Laden, and that it was a "Mistake"
to be "Focused" on Bin Laden the way Clinton was.
Is it really necessary to work against this country
Bush thought so. Not five months before 9/11 (check the
dates yourself).
with that kind of lying, smearing and bashing
It's not a lie. It's a genuine statement from an official
in the State Department whose job it is to pursue
Bush's policies.
The State Department doesn't make the policy -- Bush
does that -- they only carry it out for him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 08:51:15 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
Bush thought so. Not five months before 9/11 (check the
dates yourself).
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several
opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates,
including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the
Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries,
including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy"
Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar
Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan
lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed
intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's
Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted
commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers
was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now,
as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism
policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a
Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key
intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi
Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his
activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he
might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin
Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better
in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri,
considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks;
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain
electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal
secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S.
for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya;
and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out
the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers,
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as
did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's
bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February
1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious
ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April
1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and
view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence
chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in
Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger
and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data
available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did
they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never
had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical
Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the
deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House
another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be
involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official
from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I
am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me
he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism
officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the
first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him
to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to
personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials
sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics
within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly
organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their
potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most
serious foreign policy failures in American history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ident" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 03:59:45 AM |
|
|
In article <luJNg.265033$os2.158980@fe06.news.easynews.com>
transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote:
Flush!
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 11:19:25 AM |
|
|
Ident wrote:
In article <luJNg.265033$os2.158980@fe06.news.easynews.com>
transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote:
Flush!
Drop dead you *****!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 10:44:26 PM |
|
|
transporter wrote:
President Clinton
...was "Focused" on Bin Laden, according to the
Bush administration. At least that's what they were
proudly stating not five months before 9/11:
| A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S.
| government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly
| on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts
| of the elephant and not the whole beast."
| http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/04/30/terrorism.state.dept/
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
12 Sep 2006 10:55:33 PM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
President Clinton
...was "Focused" on Bin Laden,
maybe his *****....
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin
Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better
in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri,
considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks;
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain
electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal
secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S.
for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya;
and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out
the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers,
Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as
did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's
bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February
1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious
ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April
1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and
view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence
chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in
Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger
and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data
available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did
they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never
had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical
Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the
deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House
another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be
involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official
from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I
am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me
he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism
officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the
first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him
to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to
personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials
sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics
within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly
organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their
potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most
serious foreign policy failures in American history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:28:01 AM |
|
|
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states, and
Clinton refused so long as they harbored Bin Laden and
some others.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman
Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner
of the Sept. 11 attacks;
Pure *****. It was a year later (1999) when Zawahiri
would be sentenced to death (in absentia) for his role
in -- not Al Qaida (now get this) -- Islamic Jihad.
The claimed "Merger" between Al Qaida and Zawahiri's
group hadn't taken place yet.
Fact is, most of your information is wrong. You're working
on this fantasy where "Al Qaida" is some corporate like
entity, and people take orders from Bin Laden. Bin Laden
in real life is the George Bush of the middle east -- a
less than bright under-achiever who used family, money
and connections to buy himself a name. Even then he
never would have succeeded if the Saudi government hadn't
formerly requested that the U.S. government (under Reagan)
help him. Zawahiri, on the other hand, was on the scene
and causing trouble long before Bin Laden ever decided that
he was going to be the next spiritual leader of Islam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 11:23:11 AM |
|
|
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, hoping to have terrorism
sanctions lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of bin Laden and
"detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by
Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas,” Ijaz
writes in today’s edition of the liberal Los Angeles Times.
These networks included the two hijackers who piloted jetliners into the
World Trade Center.
But Clinton and National Security Adviser Samuel "Sandy” Berger failed
to act.
”I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities,” Ijaz
writes.
”The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers
was deafening."
Thank Clinton for 'Hydra-like Monster'
”As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now,
as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism
policies fueled the rise of bin Laden from an ordinary man to a
Hydra-like monster,” says Ijaz, chairman of a New York investment
company and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Ijaz’s revelations are but the latest to implicate the Clinton
administration in the spread of terrorism. Former CIA and State
Department official Larry Johnson today also noted the failure of
Clinton to do more than talk.
Among the many others who have pointed out Clinton’s negligence: former
Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, former Clinton adviser *****
Morris, the late author Barbara Olson, Russian President Vladimir Putin,
Iraqi expert Laurie Mylroie, the CIA and some of the victims of Sept. 11.
And the list grows: members of Congress, pundit Charles R. Smith, former
Department of Energy official Notra Trulock, former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich, government counterterrorism experts, the law firm Judicial
Watch, New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Bret Schundler, the liberal
Boston Globe – and even Clinton himself.
The Buck Stops Nowhere
Ijaz's account in the Times reads like a spy novel. Sudan’s Bashir,
fearing the rise of bin Laden, sent intelligence officials to the U.S.
in February 1996. They offered to arrest bin Laden and extradite him to
Saudi Arabia or to keep close watch over him. The Saudis "didn't want
their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.”
”In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked bin
Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better
in Sudan than elsewhere.”
That’s when bin Laden went to Afghanistan, along with "Ayman Zawahiri,
considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks;
Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain
electronic equipment for al-Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal
secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S.
for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya;
and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out
the embassy attacks.”
If these names sound familiar, just check the FBI's list of most-wanted
terrorists.
The Clinton administration repeatedly rejected crucial information that
Sudan had gathered on these terrorists, Ijaz says.
In July 2000, just three months before the deadly attack on the
destroyer USS Cole in Yemen, Ijaz "brought the White House another
plausible offer to deal with bin Laden, by then known to be involved in
the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of
the United States' closest Arab allies - an ally whose name I am not
free to divulge - approached me with the proposal after telling me he
was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism
officials.”
This offer would have brought bin Laden to that Arab country and
eventually to the U.S. All the proposal required of Clinton was that he
make a state visit to request extradition.
"But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught
up in internal politics within the ruling family - Clintonian diplomacy
at its best.”
'Purposeful Obfuscation'
Appearing on Fox News Channel’s "The O’Reilly Factor” on Wednesday
night, Ijaz said, "Everything we needed to know about the terrorist
networks” was in Sudan.
Newsman Bill O’Reilly asked how Clinton and Berger reacted to the deals
Ijaz brokered to bring bin Laden and company to justice. "Zero. They
didn’t respond at all.”
The Clintonoids won’t get away with denials, he said. "I’ve got the
documentation,” including a memorandum to Berger.
"This was purposeful obfuscation,” he asserted.
O’Reilly wondered why the White House didn’t want information about the
terrorists. Ijaz said that was for the American people to judge, but
when pressed he suggested that Clinton might intentionally have allowed
the apparently weak bin Laden to rise so he could later make a show of
crushing him.
Concludes Ijaz in the Times: "Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity
to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's
assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents
one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.”
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 11:27:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority to broker any exchange and to say that
Clinton passed up any real offers to do so is a lie and nothing more.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 12:37:21 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 12:50:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim first, bucky?
But my proof is in the September 11 Commission's final report, which
found no reliable evidence to support the claims he makes. Neither has
anybody else found any.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:10:06 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim
Done.
Now why didn't the commission interview Ijaz or any Sudanese?
Well?
Answer the question *****!
.
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 06:28:54 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:10:06 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <hd0Og.217922$TD2.172869@fe08.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim
Done.
Nope. You've now shown that you have no evidence for your claim.
Now, unless you can come up with something that contradicts the
findings of the commission (actually, first come up with some proof to
start with) I'm done with you. Run off, bucky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "transporter" |
|
| Title: Re: 'The Path To 9/11' Part 1 of 2 - Overall Quite Good |
13 Sep 2006 07:04:53 PM |
|
|
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 23:10:06 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <hd0Og.217922$TD2.172869@fe08.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:37:21 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <klXNg.553581$zw6.480370@fe02.news.easynews.com>:
IAAH wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:23:11 GMT, transporter <trans@porter.org> wrote
in message <PfWNg.273106$os2.12706@fe06.news.easynews.com>:
JTEM wrote:
transporter wrote:
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure
and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that
he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Sudan wanted off the list of terrorist supporting states,
STFU you lying *****!
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml
Bill Clinton ignored repeated opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden
and his terrorist allies and is responsible for the spread of terrorism,
one of the ex-president’s own top aides charges.
Mansoor Ijaz, who negotiated with Sudan on behalf of Clinton from 1996
to 1998, paints a portrait of a White House plagued by incompetence,
focused on appearances rather than action, and heedless of profound
threats to national security.
Ijaz also claims Clinton passed on an opportunity to have Osama bin
Laden arrested.
Mansoor Ijaz had no authority
P_R_O_V_E_ IT!
How about you prove your claim
Done.
Nope.
Yup, DONE.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
