OT: 9/11 not done by terrorists

R

Rich Grise

Guest
It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Remember, Bush is a dangerous liar and mass murderer.

Thanks,
Rich
 
Rich Grise wrote:
It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
Click to expand...
Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.
 
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.
Click to expand...
Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.
 
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.
Click to expand...
It was a military target in the same sense that, say, Dresden or Hiroshima
were military targets.

And, precisely the same way the civilians currently being murdered by the
nazis are "military targets." Although, you can't help but notice the
doublespeak, if you aren't completely programmed - the people who are
defending their homes and families against an illegal, immoral, unilateral
invasion are called "terrorists."

The only Terrorists in the middle east are the invaders.

Thanks,
Rich
 
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:43:38 -0800, Julie wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.

Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.
Click to expand...
Just like Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, huh?

Thanks
Rich
 
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:34:25 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

No, I can. I just don't consider the WTC a military target.
Click to expand...
It's not. It was a *symbolic and economic* target!
Clue for you Jules: these impoverished rag-heads can't muster the
firepower needed to pull off an attack against any genuine, military
targets in the US. Ergo, they're left with suitable civil
alternatives. Not that they're likely to lose much sleep over it,
given the civilian death count in Iraq.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:35:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Just like Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, huh?

I don't consider those military targets either, not that it has anything to do
w/ the topic at hand.
Click to expand...
Huh?
 
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 14:06:12 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

Oh, the 2,900 dead? They're alive and being held captive in the
Towers.

No, they're being held in Boston, because of the torture effect of
that environment ;-)
Click to expand...
Well Seim's comment and the reply have not much to do with the thread.

But, you guys deserve each other.
 
Julie wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the
BCR/Israel cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm



Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_
target.
Click to expand...
No such thing as a _civilian_ target.

http://www.sacredcow.com/allnew/index_content.php?n=news_drugwar_mar04

In a nutshell here is what I have learned & hope to prove. GOD stands
for Gold - Oil - Drugs. If you study world history you can see a
clear trail of Wars following the path of oil & drugs. One of the
huge factors that drive the drug war along with such events as 9-11,
the war in Iraq & Enron, is the fact that we are running out of
hydrocarbon energy. So even though the illegal drug trade only
produces 600 billion dollars a year (as much as the 8th largest
economy) this money is like no other.? Its not taxed, it's not on any
books, this is pure liquid currency that can be used much like
athletes use steroids. One dollar of drug money can jack up stock
values by 30 to 60 times. This is done daily by major corporations;
Enron was nothing more then a money laundering business with over 700
fraudulent outlets in the Cayman Islands alone.
Click to expand...
It's funny when you find the non-media left and right conferring on the
same point. The author omitted to say that Gold use to be necessary to
back currency, but today American military force is what insures our
paper money.

Each piece of paper isn't backed by a bit of gold, but a bit of cold,
hard steel.

Remember when you are using your paper money, using energy or using
drugs, you are patriotically supporting the military-industrial complex
every time you buy, turn on, or turn on ;)

Cheers Rich! (and all my other comrade citizens)

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

POLITICS, n.
A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
The conduct of public affairs for private advantage. - Ambrose Bierce

**********************************
 
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.
Click to expand...
Rich, dude. It's like I tellalotta people, ya gotta be cool, man.
You have to be able to party and still go with the flow, ya know. I
mean, if you just scored and it's some really good shit, don't smoke
it all at once, ya know. Save some for later.
Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
Click to expand...
[You can dress 'em up, but you can't take 'em out.]

Well fuck, dude... all wars are retaliation to something that was in
retalialtion to something. Is this the first claim of this sort that
you've been exposed to in your life, or are you forgetting a lotta
other shit?

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm
Click to expand...
Oh fucking thank you so much. I thought you were cool enough to
trust and now I've impulsively clicked on a tango link and am on the
same list(s) as your own self.

Like I said, you gotta learn to handle the shit in public.
Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.
Click to expand...
Oh hi, Julie. I'll agree. Pretty cool how you kick back and read all
this shit and once in a while sound off with some irrefutable point.

Figure -- the "opinion" is that Iraq's not directly involved with
9/11 and there's no WMD, but Iran, Pakistan, and Isreal have WMD.
Does it not make sense then to smack some pissant dictator and
secure a place in the middle east so we can perhaps more effectively
smack other pissants?

Like you said, they smacked civilian targets. We first went after
them - the Taliban/Al Quaida assholes in Afghanistan - for whatever
that was worth. Iraq's just convienient, I suppose.

We used to collect intel and send SEALs in to smack tangos, but
they've all had to sit on their hands for a while and shit went to
hell, so 9/11 happened and all this overt shit just works out for
the pols.

I wonder what bs we'll be hearing 10 yrs from now.
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
Julie wrote:

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.


Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.
Click to expand...
Stop being dumb- the WTC was part of the finance epicenter of the US and
therefore was at the core of facilitating the very basis for what is
perceived to be the essential impetus for America's aggression in the
world. It was well-known to everyone that the WTC was prime target
number one. A story in April 2004 was that NORAD sent a representative
in front of the 9/11 Commission to describe certain drills they
practiced in intercepting explosive laden aircraft heading for the WTC.
 
Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:43:38 -0800, Julie wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.

Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.

Just like Dresden and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, huh?
Click to expand...
I don't consider those military targets either, not that it has anything to do
w/ the topic at hand.
 
Paul Burridge wrote:
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:43:38 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.

Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.

Nonsense. These towers were hit for several 'good' reasons:

Firstly, they were so big as to be unmissable even by an amateur
flying a plane,
Secondly, they were very close to the ocean, making their defence much
harder from attack by sea,
Thirdly, they symbolised America's massive corporate and trade power
around the world and were located in one of the world's largest
cities,
Fourthly, there were a large number of organisations within them that
typify the kind of set-up which Muslims detest as being intrinsically
evil,
Fifthly, the staff of very many of those organisations were Jews (you
*do* know Muslims hate Jews and vice-versa, I assume?) who were key
employees/ers of said organisations and whose loss would hit the
Financial Industry particularly hard. To the Islamicists, these people
were economic collaborators with the 'Great Satan' and perfectly valid
targets in their "struggle against the oppressor."

Your problem seems to be that you can't see how things appear to
certain types of people beyond your own shores.
Click to expand...
No, I can. I just don't consider the WTC a military target.

end.
 
On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:34:25 -0800, Julie wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Tue, 02 Nov 2004 06:43:38 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Paul Burridge wrote:

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 20:56:21 -0800, Julie <julie@nospam.com> wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:

It turns out that the 9/11 attacks weren't terrorism at all. They
were retaliation in kind for the unprovoked attack by the BCR/Israel
cabal.

Ergo, it was a military action, behind enemy lines.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/79C6AF22-98FB-4A1C-B21F-2BC36E87F61F.htm

Except the WTC was *not* a military target, it was a _civilian_ target.

Actually, it was a symbolic and economic target.

Again, wrong.

Attacking the WTC when vacant, I'd could agree that it could be considered a
symbolic/economic target. Full of 50,000 civilians, it then quite clearly
became a civilian target.

Nonsense. These towers were hit for several 'good' reasons:

Firstly, they were so big as to be unmissable even by an amateur
flying a plane,
Secondly, they were very close to the ocean, making their defence much
harder from attack by sea,
Thirdly, they symbolised America's massive corporate and trade power
around the world and were located in one of the world's largest
cities,
Fourthly, there were a large number of organisations within them that
typify the kind of set-up which Muslims detest as being intrinsically
evil,
Fifthly, the staff of very many of those organisations were Jews (you
*do* know Muslims hate Jews and vice-versa, I assume?) who were key
employees/ers of said organisations and whose loss would hit the
Financial Industry particularly hard. To the Islamicists, these people
were economic collaborators with the 'Great Satan' and perfectly valid
targets in their "struggle against the oppressor."

Your problem seems to be that you can't see how things appear to
certain types of people beyond your own shores.

No, I can. I just don't consider the WTC a military target.

Well, I'd imagine that the Fallujah victims don't consider their houses
Click to expand...
and churches to be military targets either, but that doesn't seem to
stop the Cheney murder machine.

Thanks
Rich
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top