"...citizens in both towers to face the horrors by themselves when they most needed him because it seemed to distract his attention from listening to the girl telling him about her goat butting was more important than paying attention to airplanes butting the towers..."
Osama bin Laden mentioning a scene from Fahrenheit 9/11

"Assam the American" used a quote from comedian Bill Maher describing those who launch cruise missiles as cowardly compared to suicide bombers.

al Zarquwi use the word quagmire in a speech several weeks ago.

**** *** ****

The above are just three examples of how the words of certain anti-administration advocates have been used to inspire the terrorists.
When it is suggested that some words are providing aid and comfort to the enemy, those suggesting it are accused of trying to limit free speech, or they are said to be calling others unpatriotic. This is not the case.
Take the Moore and Maher examples. Did this country benefit from these words as much as the terrorists did? For us it was a short laugh, but for them it showed division and self-mockery. THAT INSPIRES THEM.
I am not suggesting that free speech be abridged in any way, so don't bother accusing me of that. But we should understand that there are ramifications from what we say. Free speech comes with great responsibility which not everyone in positions of influence is showing.

I believe the only people who dont realize that the fundametalist muslims watch our every actions are the liberals, who choose to not know.

Originally posted by HaVoK
I believe the only people who dont realize that the fundametalist muslims watch our every actions are the liberals, who choose to not know.

Of course...only "liberals" say things they shouldn't...

Originally posted by BrooksBut we should understand that there are ramifications from what we say. Free speech comes with great responsibility which not everyone in positions of influence is showing.

I wonder who said these things...

"There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

"this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."

damn liberals...

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by HaVoK
I believe the only people who dont realize that the fundametalist muslims watch our every actions are the liberals, who choose to not know. I FIND IT FUCKING FUNNY THAT NOTHING SEEMS STRANGE ABOUT BUSH'S ACTIONS THAT DAY......TO REPUBLICANS. ....WHO'S NOT WATCHING NOW? !! AND WHO'S CHOOSING NOT TO KNOW NOW !?

but for them it showed division and self-mockery BROOKS, nothing shows our division more than our presidential candidates insulting each other like kids, not saying ONE word of intelligence and wisdom........AND WE FALL RIGHT INTO IT ! dems and reps have resorted to insults, and if you look on this forum, and you know its true, republicans answer with insults........more than dems. i think im one of the only dems that answer back with insults, and the world is suppose to view us how, based on that !???

arent we all just pieces of shit ? look at what we do, we defend based on partisanism and not truth, because the fact of the matter is, if this were a dem in office right now, ALL OF YOU REPUBLICANS would see the wrong in it then.........AND YOU KNOW ITS TRUE. ! we look like the fools.....ALL OF US.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Of course...only "liberals" say things they shouldn't...



I wonder who said these things...

"There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

"this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile."

damn liberals...

:rolleyes: LOL...yet the only examples being quoted by terrorists are from liberals. Thats because liberals have a natural defeatist attitude that works well for the terrorists supposed cause. You guys are already half beaten before any battle even starts. And they (terrorists) exploit that.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Of course...only "liberals" say things they shouldn't...

I wonder who said these things...

"There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."


The ramification of this statement is that we give the impression we're not going to pull another Mogadishu cut-and-run. I think that's a good impression to float out there. One of the early al Qaeda intercepted messages stated that they didn't expect us to respond the way we did after 9/11. Maybe if they had that expectation, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We'll never know.

YET , THE TERRORIST BOMBED ON THE REPUBLICAN WATCH.....THIS MAKES A LOT OF DAMN SENSE......bush knew, and couldnt....or didnt do shit, but we're the defeatist.........damn !! i cant believe this shit @! they bombed us when the person who gave them the best opportunity to do it, was in office !!!.hhhmmmmm, thats that dumb ass bush........

Originally posted by Brooks
The ramification of this statement is that we give the impression we're not going to pull another Mogadishu cut-and-run. I think that's a good impression to float out there. One of the early al Qaeda intercepted messages stated that they didn't expect us to respond the way we did after 9/11. Maybe if they had that expectation, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We'll never know. NO, BECAUSE THEY SAID TO THEMSELVES, "WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY DOING IN IRAQ.....THESE PEOPLE ARE DUMBER THAN WE THOUGHT" !!

Originally posted by HaVoK
LOL...yet the only examples being quoted by terrorists are from liberals.

Apparently you care what the terrorists think. I don't.

Thats because liberals have a natural defeatist attitude that works well for the terrorists supposed cause. You guys are already half beaten before any battle even starts. And they (terrorists) exploit that.

Right...and conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering, knuckle-dragging, baby-killing neanderthals...:rolleyes:

Your opinions of what liberals think, or want, are simplistic and absurd.

Originally posted by Brooks
The ramification of this statement is that we give the impression we're not going to pull another Mogadishu cut-and-run. I think that's a good impression to float out there.

The best way for Bush to make a statement to the terrorists is through actions, not words. Especially not words that encourage attacks on Americans. The words he uttered were for the benefit of the American people and were nothing more than macho political posturing.

One of the early al Qaeda intercepted messages stated that they didn't expect us to respond the way we did after 9/11. Maybe if they had that expectation, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. We'll never know.

Assuming you are referring to our attack on Afghanistan, I have no problem with that. It was an appropriate response to the attacks on the twin towers. Iraq is another story completely.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Apparently you care what the terrorists think. I don't. I dont really care what they think. Its the actions that result from what they think I care about. And with liberals making their defeatist remarks, it can only encourage them in their efforts.




Originally posted by Vilepagan
Right...and conservatives are a bunch of war-mongering, knuckle-dragging, baby-killing neanderthals...:rolleyes:

Your opinions of what liberals think, or want, are simplistic and absurd. Your opinions about how liberals words and actions affect and encourage terrorists is just downright dumb. Oh yeah, liberals are the only acknowledged baby killers in this country.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Your opinions about how liberals words and actions affect and encourage terrorists is just downright dumb.

It wasn't a liberal who decided to send troops to Iraq and encourage terrorists to attack them.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
It wasn't a liberal who decided to send troops to Iraq and encourage terrorists to attack them. Thats a matter of perspective isnt it? No, a liberal did not send the troops in. But they did pass legislation to allow the president to do so. And ever since he made a decision, the liberals have never ceased attacking the president for the decision he did make. Also, IMO liberals have encouraged these terrorists with their words and actions more than a simple statement like "Bring em on" ever will.

Originally posted by HaVoK
Thats a matter of perspective isnt it? No, a liberal did not send the troops in. But they did pass legislation to allow the president to do so. And ever since he made a decision, the liberals have never ceased attacking the president for the decision he did make. Also, IMO liberals have encouraged these terrorists with their words and actions more than a simple statement like "Bring em on" ever will. so that jackass sends them, and the liberals are at fault......what the (deleted), you guys are unreal....havok, your the one on drugs, its called "bushweed". we encourage the terrorist huh? can you guys blame anything on bush........any-(deleted)-thing ?!!

how is it that everything clinton did bad, IS his fault, but everything bush did , is NOT HIS fault.........you guys are (deleted) undamnreal man, he's the (deleted) president. regardless of what i support, the decision is HIS.....and so should the head on the chopping block....(deleted) hypocrites.....how dare you try and make us think that you would be different if it were a democrat.......un damn real !!!

First off....Korg you need to chill. You say the word "fuck" more than Kerry changes his stances on iraq in a given day.


The notion that Bush actually knew what was going to happen and didnt do anything about it is absurd. Its digging pretty deep, It wasn't anyones fault that 9-11 happened....both sides are equal to blame.

oh..and if bush were a pro-choice democrat...the war in iraq would be going great, slow but steady. Everyone just buys into what the media has been forcing down peoples throats for months. Liberal media will undoubtedly try to smear mud on bush, its a given. It just seems that the negatives of the war are amplified 10 fold while you dont hear a thing about the good stuff going on over there. But then again good stuff isn't good news i guess.

I can understand if you disagree with pres. bush, thats cool. But the pure hatred coming from you dems is what is giving the other side some steam. You guys need to let go of your hate, and just vote for Kerry and quit hating on other people so much. If he wins, he wins. If he loses, you did all you could. Saying the word "fuck" a thousand times isn't going to solve your problems...

Korg, Vile: My original point had nothing to do with Candidates Bush or Kerry. I was just asking a really simple question. If certain citizens make statements that favor the terrorists more than us, wouldn't you rather they not say it? Get past all the partisan election B.S. and it's a simple question.

Originally posted by Brooks
Korg, Vile: My original point had nothing to do with Candidates Bush or Kerry. I was just asking a really simple question. If certain citizens make statements that favor the terrorists more than us, wouldn't you rather they not say it? Get past all the partisan election B.S. and it's a simple question. brooks.....this is where it ended up, we didnt start this......read from the beginning and see, or just want to be against us for the sake of the party......

and i too, asked a simple question.....look at the str8 answers i got, and then spread some of that venom to your comrads

Originally posted by Decka
First off....Korg you need to chill. You say the word "fuck" more than Kerry changes his stances on iraq in a given day.


The notion that Bush actually knew what was going to happen and didnt do anything about it is absurd. Its digging pretty deep, It wasn't anyones fault that 9-11 happened....both sides are equal to blame.

oh..and if bush were a pro-choice democrat...the war in iraq would be going great, slow but steady. Everyone just buys into what the media has been forcing down peoples throats for months. Liberal media will undoubtedly try to smear mud on bush, its a given. It just seems that the negatives of the war are amplified 10 fold while you dont hear a thing about the good stuff going on over there. But then again good stuff isn't good news i guess.

I can understand if you disagree with pres. bush, thats cool. But the pure hatred coming from you dems is what is giving the other side some steam. You guys need to let go of your hate, and just vote for Kerry and quit hating on other people so much. If he wins, he wins. If he loses, you did all you could. Saying the word "fuck" a thousand times isn't going to solve your problems... and decka....first off, last i looked, you were not my parent, is it only convenient to hear insulting talk when you do it ? shut up

Originally posted by korg
brooks.....this is where it ended up, we didnt start this......read from the beginning and see, or just want to be against us for the sake of the party......

I'm sorry, but I didn't get any of that. Don't re-translate it for me, just tell me if you disagree that some of these things shouldn't be said.

This isn't about President Bush. Bill Maher's statement didn't hurt him. It did, however, inspire "Assam the American".

Originally posted by Brooks
I'm sorry, but I didn't get any of that. Don't re-translate it for me, just tell me if you disagree that some of these things shouldn't be said.

This isn't about President Bush. Bill Maher's statement didn't hurt him. It did, however, inspire "Assam the American". i agree with what your saying, but i just dont think that this is worse than what our candidates are saying in front of the world. and what i resent is that your only talking about what dems are doing wrong, when its republicans that are inciting their(muslims) anger........so, who's more wrong.........thats my problem with this

"and what i resent is that your only talking about what dems are doing wrong"

Well, yeah, isn't that what we do here?

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

I put out a simple premise. If influential people are making statements that inspire terrorists more than those statements help us, wouldn't you prefer they not say these things. It took 16 left wing posts before one of you agreed.

Originally posted by Decka
The notion that Bush actually knew what was going to happen and didnt do anything about it is absurd.

No, the willfully blind people of the Conservative faction keep SAYING it is "absurd", yet you here have offered little or NO refutation for the voluminous evidence to that effect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/Bush/


To: U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Government Officials, U.S. Citizens, U.S. Media

George W. Bush Charged with High Treason for Complicity in the Attack of 911

We, the people, demand that there be an immediate, independent, and thorough investigation into the following matters; and that the appropriate judicial actions be taken according to the U.S. Constitution.


Item #1 Intentional Delay of Counter Measures

Evidence shows that President George W. Bush was well apprised of the events of September 11, 2001 as they unfolded, and probably before; and that he intentionally neglected to respond with effective counter measures in a timely manner. That he has been using the attack as an excuse to curtail freedoms is an established and well-recognized fact. That he himself was complicit in the attack is an act of grave conspiracy.

As we might expect of a President of the highly technologically advanced United States, evidence supports that President Bush was in fact briefed about the events of that morning in a timely manner as they unfolded. For example, an ABC news reporter asked him at approximately 8:45 A.M. if he knew what was happening in New York, and the President confirmed that he did.

Timeline documentation proves that he saw the second plane hit the second tower just before entering the classroom at Booker Elementary School at approximately 9:02 A.M. Then, at 9:05 A.M. he was told explicitly by his Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, that: "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack."

Notwithstanding these absolutely clear visual and verbal communications announcing a most profoundly serious situation, instead of responding with focused attention on the matter at hand, the Commander in Chief of the country willfully chose to continue with the trivial event for at least seven more minutes, reading with a few children a book about a girl and her goat, while his fellow citizens were under attack and dying, and the country's military headquarters complex was in range of a third hijacked plane.

President Bush then lingered in the classroom with reporters following the completed photo-op event before his next briefing and subsequent address to the nation at 9:30 A.M.- a previously scheduled press conference. Not until after 9:41 A.M. did he issue permission shoot down any remaining hijacked undeterred planes. This order was issued after the attack on the Pentagon.

When he later responded to a reporter's question about that morning, he worded his response as though he saw the first plane crash just before he entered the classroom, implying that he did not yet know the gravity of the situation. That was an intentional misrepresentation. Footage of the first plan hitting the first tower had not yet surfaced. The timing is such that it would have been the second plane that he saw, while the first tower was ablaze and billowing smoke. Anyone with even a small degree of intelligence would know at that point that something gravely serious was afoot.

That he continued with his trivial photo-op under such horrendous circumstances is not mere negligence because it was not done in ignorance.

The President is the only one who holds the authority to authorize the shooting down of civilian air craft. Had he done so in a timely manner, he could have possibly averted the second plane that hit the second tower of the World Trade Center. He most certainly could have averted the third attack that hit the Pentagon more than thirty minutes later. He did not do so, but instead intentionally delayed the possibility of such a response, and thus facilitated the unfolding tragic events on the morning of September 11, 2001.

Given the information that he had at his disposal that morning, and his purposeful neglect in acting upon that information, he committed high treason, according to the Constitution of the United States which he is sworn to uphold and defend.

Part of the reason an awareness of this crass duplicity has been suppressed is that the President convincingly conveyed to a panicked and trusting public the image that he was distracted with a previously scheduled engagement and that the gravity of the situation did not hit him until it was too late to take such necessarily gruesome measures.

Thus, his treason also carries a tremendous breach of public trust; which will reverberate far into the future.


Item #2 Insider Convergence

We, the undersigned, also request thorough investigation into who President Bush met with and what the nature of their conversation was at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, Nebraska later in the day on September 11, 2001.

Documented evidence shows that Warren Buffet, the second richest man in the world, a civilian, was at the base earlier in the day for a supposed charity event that was scheduled prior to Sept. 11. It is probable that he and many of his invited guests were still there when President Bush arrived later in the day.

Anne Tatlock, CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International, was invited to that event and was en route to the base at the time the first attack took place on the first tower of the World Trade Center. She arrived at the base in time to see the second plane hit the second tower precisely where her office complex is located in that tower.

Why was President Bush flown to this base? Why was Warren Buffet there prior to the attack? Why was the very person who manages the office that took a direct hit from the second plane also there -- having been en route at the time the attacks commenced? Why was she escorted from her plane by military personnel to a room with a television where she then viewed the second plane smash into her office?


Other Items and Other Complicit Individuals

Many other aspects of the events of September 11 as they pertain to President Bush also deserve similar investigation; and these too should receive the proper punishment under the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, President Bush did not act alone. The many others, elected and civilian, who are also complicit to this tragedy must also be held appropriately accountable and punished commensurate with their crime.


Conclusion

These various matters each demand thorough investigation, and the results of those investigations should carry with them the appropriate punishments, especially to the extent that charges of treason and conspiracy are proven.

Let the U.S. House of Representatives indict, the Senate impeach, with the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court presiding, per the U.S. Constitution. If they fail in this adjudication, then let the recalls begin and clean house top to bottom.

We present the following clear points as substance for the charge of high treason.

A. President Bush knew the gravity of the attack taking place.

B. President Bush did not cancel his planned mundane activity at a time when doing so was clearly indicated.

C. By purposely engaging in a trivial activity when he should have been issuing the necessary command to thwart additional attacks, he enabled those attacks to take place.

D. He knew that delaying the necessary command would enable the attacks to succeed.

E. The attacks were a profound assault on the country, rising to the level of a de facto act of war, whether or not Congress would later officially declare war in response.

F. President Bush thus facilitated the enemy in a war-level attack on the United States.

G. President Bush has been citing the war on terrorism as an excuse to remove fundamental freedoms once protected by the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights, moving the country closer to a tyrannical police state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please sign the petition to charge GWBush with High Treason for Complicity in the Attack of 911, at

http://www.petitiononline.com/bush911/petition.html

Originally posted by Brooks

I put out a simple premise. If influential people are making statements that inspire terrorists more than those statements help us, wouldn't you prefer they not say these things. It took 16 left wing posts before one of you agreed.

Asolutely UNbelievable.

The Reichwingers in this country care NOTHING about the fact that Reagan/Bush aided, trained and supported [IOW, they CREATED] Osama bin Laden in the first place, yet NOW you wring your hands in mock horror that some celebrity might utter a word that "inspires" terrorists against us.

How laughably dishonest and disingenuous can these Rightwingers BE?!?!?!?!?

Is there NO limit to their hypocrisy?!?!?!

Originally posted by Freethinker
No, the willfully blind people of the Conservative faction keep SAYING it is "absurd", yet you here have offered little or NO refutation for the voluminous evidence to that effect.



Call it a hunch, but I don't think you'll be able to find very many liberals to swallow this drivel either.

Call it a hunch, but I don't think you'll be able to find very many liberals to swallow this drivel either.
Agreed: a little too much "free" and not enough "think" there for me...
The above are just three examples of how the words of certain anti-administration advocates have been used to inspire the terrorists.
No single party's backers have a monopoly on stupid comments. Terrorists are just as likely to pick up on a Limbaugh whopper. General Boykins, a member of the administration, has received massive amounts of coverage in the Arabic press for his incendiary remarks (http://www.msnbc.com/news/980764.asp) such as these: "“Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his (Allah). I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol.” What's worse, he wasn't fired. This has had much more impact, and caused much more controversy, than anything Bill Maher has ever said.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Agreed: a little too much "free" and not enough "think" there for me...

?

I'm not sure what Prae was specifically talking about back there....

Which comment are you refering to, fluffernutter?

Just curious.

Freethink: Bush was probably vaguely warned, but I don't believe he was complicit in the way that site describes.

Originally posted by fluffernutter
Agreed: a little too much "free" and not enough "think" there for me...


That's excellent