Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , HeyBub wrote:
CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in
the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty much what they want
until they attract attention. Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it
is a whole other story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not. Maybe
it was just a coincidence that the neo-cons got just what they were
prayin' for. Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16,
no tomahawk missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft
carriers. Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave
etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on Terror"
to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh? Who did Osama work for before he went free
lance, hmmm.

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came
up, according to the NSA.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Osama was managed before. He may still be being managed.
--

Billy

Bush, Cheney & Pelosi, Behind Bars
http://rachelcorriefoundation.org/site/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movemen...George_W._Bush

Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his
clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms
of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been
another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Fact is, Osama ain't theSoviet Union. He don't got no F-16, no tomahawk
missiles, no M1 Abrams tanks, and no freakin aircraft carriers.

And it aint that easy to find someone who chooses to hide out in some cave etc.

Al Quaida is a gang man, a gang. If Bush didn't need a "War on
Terror" to keep the bucks flowin', Osama & CO. would be old news.

Bullshit. He'd be disposed of if they could find him,
just like the others have been killed when they can be.

Never heard of Echelon, huh?

Its completely useless if he has enough of a clue to not use any electronic communication.

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

It wasn't until after the USS Cole was attacked that Osama's name came up, according to the NSA.

Irrelevant to what he got up to in afghanistan when the russians were attempting to occupy it.

Without Osama, the last seven years wouldn't have been possible.

Certainly without 9/11 Iraq wouldnt have been possible and maybe even afghanistan too.

Osama was managed before.

Nope.

He may still be being managed.

Nope.

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

snip

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.


He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

snip

Who trained him?




--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Billy wrote

Who did Osama work for before he went free lance, hmmm.

He didnt 'work for' anyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bin_laden

Who trained him?

No one 'trained him'

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:

B
bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole and
those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece of WTC I,
he would be able to actually pull off something like this. Boggles the
mind that anyone would think that.



Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers went down
but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?


Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.


Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the planning took
place before Bush, et al, took office.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote

bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Boggles the mind that anyone would think that.

Once the "heat" starts lookin' at you, it is a whole other
story. Maybe Osama had help with 9/11. maybe not.

Its unlikely that whoever organised it expected the
towers to implode as spectacularly as they did.

True. Although he had killed a few people before the towers
went down but nothing to get all that excited about, huh?

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

They did go after those who could be proven to have been involved in WTC I.

Maybe it was just a coincidence that the
neo-cons got just what they were prayin' for.

Yep, thats what happened.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

In article ,
"Rod Speed" wrote:


Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.
Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression or any
ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.


Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden
involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on
the line.
Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it
all off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund
raiser and one of the planners.



There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.
Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.
ook place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what was done with the
justification of 9/11 after that.
Stopped 9/11 part two.

Kurt Ullman wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Kurt Ullman wrote

Yeah who'd a thunk that merely because he was busy with the Cole
and those bombings of the Africam embassies and also had a piece
of WTC I, he would be able to actually pull off something like this.

Yep, the simultaneous hijacking of 5 aircraft in the US and doing that with
them was quite a step up from anything he had previously been involved in.

Yep. I mean there isn't anything that shows a progression

There was no progression in that direction.

or any ability to pull off more than one thing at a time.

Different matter entirely.

Thats the main thing that makes it unlikely that it was JUST bin Laden involved in 9/11
apart from the fools that actually put their pathetic excuses for 'lives' on the line.

Of course, no one other than the reductionist media, and others who have
trouble following more than one thread at a time think the OBL pulled it all
off by himself. Most evidence suggests he was an important fund raiser

No great funds were required.

and one of the planners.

I doubt he was even that. Just the most visible raghead involved.

There were attempts to do something about the embassing bombings
particularly, but it wasnt that easy to pin those on bin Laden particularly.

Yeah they bombed a Sudanese aspirin factory based on evidence supplied
by the same dude that came up with of the intelligence on Iraq.

They did a hell of a lot more than just that.

Of course most of the prelude and almost all of the
planning took place before Bush, et al, took office.

Yep, nothing to do with Bush at all except what
was done with the justification of 9/11 after that.

Stopped 9/11 part two.

I doubt there ever any 9/11 part two. Even someone as stupid as bin laden
would have realised that the US would get its act into gear if 9/11 succeeded.

Rod Speed wrote:

Billy wrote

Rod Speed wrote
snip

You know, the thing is that a criminal can do pretty
much what they want until they attract attention.


bin Laden had got plenty of attention before 9/11.

No one did anything much about him because no one
expected him to be able to organise something like 9/11.


snip

Actually, Clinton was trying to get something done about him, but
the political pressure from the Republican Congress against his efforts
was intense. Then, when Bush took over, he and his people deliberately
took the heat off, not wanting to seem in any way like Clinton.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Rod Speed wrote:

Don Klipstein wrote:

In article , HeyBub wrote:

CJT wrote:

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have
wrought enough destruction it'll take two terms of a Democrat just
to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but
has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!


He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11


No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the
terrorist sought -- the destruction of America -- no need for the
terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

CJT wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Don Klipstein wrote
HeyBub wrote
CJT wrote

... and a very good thing that will be, too. Bush and his clan have wrought enough destruction it'll take two
terms of a Democrat just to get things back close to normal.

If you're not with us, you're on the side of the terrorists.

I hope this is irony or some other class of humor!

Bush II got re-elected by being against the "terrorists" but has gone through over 7 years, and over 6 of those
after "9/11",
without capturing Osama bin Laden either dead or alive!

He has however ensured that there hasnt been another terrorist obscenity in the US since 9/11

No, there hasn't been one because Bush has been accomplishing all the terrorist sought -- the destruction of
America --

Clearly wouldnt know what the real destruction of america was if it bit it on its lard arse.

no need for the terrorists to attack to reach their goal.

How odd that they bothered with 9/11 then.

One hell of a footshot for them, thats what got them done over very
comprehensively indeed in Afghanistan and saw bin laden having to spend
his entire pathetic excuse for a 'life' down some rat hole, just like Saddam.

Its just a bit harder to find bin Laden's rat hole given that its likely in the wilds of Pakistan.