Good Grief!

Don't even get ME started!

9/1101 was planned out in the Houston Texas energy meeting in 1997 1998 when the Taliban was guests of honour. This whole thing IS an inside job to facilitate (As of then) resource wars. Bank on THAT one.

Larry

G.I.'s Dying to Make Them Rich(er)!!!

Afghanistan is all and only about the Big Oil and Big Drug Mafias quest for more easy $$$M-O-N-E-Y!!!

9/1101 was planned out in the Houston Texas energy meeting in 1997 1998 when the Taliban was guests of honour. This whole thing IS an inside job to facilitate (As of then) resource wars. Bank on THAT one.

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-02 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Been Sampling Daddy's Moonshine Again

#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-02 08:39 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose) Been Sampling Daddy's Moonshine Again

#4 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2009-12-02 08:46 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag: (Choose)
FunnyNewsworthyOffensiveAbusiv
e

Sure, but 9/11 was about the U.S. military presence in the Arabian Penninsula. And, of course, in response to 9/11, we graciously withdrew our forces from Saudi Arabia:

If we could only find that one set of monkey bars that all the terror trainees use, our worries would be over.

From the article:

We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.

What's interesting is that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. It never did. That is a fucking fact. 9/11 was set in motion by our own government (actually, the bankers that control them), so that they would be supported by the public in going to war. As we all know (or, at least, should know), war is the most profitable thing for bankers, because governments take out massive amounts of loans in order to "purchase" the supplies they need.

Guess again, Mr Willis.

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.
By Our Correspondent

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action" against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime.

9/1101 was planned out in the Houston Texas energy meeting in 1997 1998 when the Taliban was guests of honour. This whole thing IS an inside job to facilitate (As of then) resource wars. Bank on THAT one.
Larry
#2 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2009-12-02 08:39 PM

Thanks!

What's interesting is that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. It never did. That is a fucking fact. 9/11 was set in motion by our own government (actually, the bankers that control them), so that they would be supported by the public in going to war. As we all know (or, at least, should know), war is the most profitable thing for bankers, because governments take out massive amounts of loans in order to "purchase" the supplies they need.
Like every major disaster, 9/11 was about money and nothing more (yes, oil too, but that really just equates to money). If you would like to educate yourself on such matters, please watch Zeitgeist for a truly eye-opening experience. Otherwise, every time you post a comment and pretend to know what you're talking about, you just come across as having your head up your ass.
#8 | Posted by DocBoje at 2009-12-02 10:33 PM

Technically I believe that AQ is the designation for a type of false flag operators. But otherwise I believe that you are very correct, particularly where bankers involvements are concerned. They even false-flagged the mortgage meltdown to get even more assets re-distributed profiting only the most wealthy individuals on this planet. All of the eco-bubbles are the global bankers purposefully enacted agenda - even the oligarchy is a tool of global monetary policy.

I only use a local credit union and never a major bank. Morgan Chase owns almost all banks in Oregon. One by one they used their failout "loans" to repossess family homes instead of adjusting the mortgage practices while they bought the banks that the initial mortgages were through - thus, no contract is unowned. This easily provided them enough leverage to initially do what the money was allegedly intended for - to stop the home losses and recoup the debt (on the books), but they refused after the fact. They stole without oversight at the insistence of the Fed. Nobody in our own treasury department other than Fed employees even know which banks got how much bailout money. The Federal Reserve is the real enemy - the bankers "official" interface with our government.

911 was the impetus needed to get the simpletons behind the war criminals, but opium was the spoils of victory.This is undeclared income for the 'Company Men'. Winning the war is not even an acceptable option. The war mongers want it just like it is. Chaos, tribal drug lords and a starving population willing to do anything for a loaf of bread. Poppies are their bread and butter.

This new push by Obama is paybacks for political support from the defense industry. A military industrial complex in the midst of a recession is the only cards any president can play who needs to create jobs out of thin air. Just think how much health care 3 trillion dollars would have bought the country had Bush been a humanitarian instead if a hired thug. Some things never change. Unfortunately, even Obama has to play ball if he expects to keep his throne and ward off the jackals.

Oliver Willis: One of the more troubling reactions from the left that I saw during President Obama's speech about our Afghanistan policy was this utter and absolute nonsense that Obama was somehow invoking the spirit of George W. Bush by discussing our Afghan strategy and 9/11.

Fascinating, Mr Willis.

Can you cite an example?

No? Well, that was a waste of time then wasn't it?

Afghanistan is about 9/11 unlike Iraq?

True up to a point.

Afghanistan is mostly about opium, a Unocal natural gas pipeline and other powers not controlling the natural resources.

9/11 was about Bin Laden.

The Taliban government harbored BL but offered to give him up after 9/11 provided the US gave them so me proof of his guilt. America refused the conditional deal and thus BL to fled into Pakistan and America began it's seemingly endless occupation.

Afghanistan and 9/11 are as linked for all time as closely as Tokyo is connected to December 7, 1941.

Coupla problems with Willis's analogy there.

/Other than the obvious "shoulda sed 'Japan' not 'Tokyo'" thing.

First, Japan's "pre-emptive strike" on America (you see how silly that sounds?) was a decision of the Japanese government not a group of radical morons being harbored by the Japanese government.

Second, the Japanese government had not come into being through years of getting massive infusions of cash, training and logistical support by the US the way the Taliban had been set up, supplied and supported by the US during the Soviet invasion and subsequent occupation of that country.

Other than that it was perfect!

^_^

Be Well.

Afghanistan should have been about 9/11. We had every right to defend ourselves by taking out people who had repeatedly attacked us and that is all that this war should have been about. Once it was warped into this nation building bullshit, it stopped being about 9/11. I'm amazed that Obama has chosen to continue making the same mistakes as Bush, ignoring thousands of years of history in attempting to turn Afghanistan into a unified nation.

One item in particular I would like to see investigated are explosions on the ground floors of WTC 1,2 & 7. Eyewitnesses, etc.

Why does the government need to hide the fact that there were explosions? This is what transpired in the 1993 bombing. Is it out of the realm of reality that the buildings did contain explosives. Just focus on proving this before even contemplating who planted them.

It amazes me that just as we finally get the Pakis to go after terrorists on their side of the border, some want to remove our troops from the Afghan side so they'll have a comfy place to roost and base another 911 style attack.

Also amazing that some suspect the Pres, the Secs of State and Defence, and the Chief of the Joint Staffs to have some other agenda than the security of the US. If they were Neocon ideologues, I could understand, but they are not.

What it appears to me to be is that some shit for brains GNOPers want to whine about an exit date, when that is what we needed in Iraq all along to get the gov there off it's ass and moving towards reconciliation.

And it also appears that some of my anti-war lib friends are more interested in protecting the purity of their ideals than facing the practicality of serious and present US security concerns were we to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al Qaeda with a Christmas bow on it.

And now, laughably enough, we have the half-witted conspiracy theorists regurgitating their mindless theories as a deflection from the necessity to keep the real perps from regaining their base in Afghanistan.

I mean, KSM et al spent hours on al Jazeera TV detailing their roles, which we'll see in their upcoming trial.

Susan Rice went up against Rachel Maddow last night and squashed squashed the pants-pissing view that they'll just go away if we leave them alone.

(Susan Rice went up against Rachel Maddow - the Management is NOT responsible for any unintended mental images)

That's 2 squashings, apparently. I should go back to coffee, I guess.

I am not saying Bush planted the explosives. I am an American. I love my country. I am a free man. I can ask thought provoking questions without being a communist.

Answer my question directly-

Were there explosives at the base of the twins? All I want to know.

Afghanistan is all and only about the Big Oil

#3 | Posted by AntiCadillac

Ya.... The country is loaded with oil wells.

I do not know Arabic. Therefore, talking to KSM would do us no good.

I speak English, and so does Barry Jennings. RIP buddy.

What's interesting is that Al Qaeda doesn't exist. It never did. That is a fucking fact.-Docboje

That's odd. I wonder who has been making all of those videos and putting them on the net. You know, the ones where people are getting their heads chopped off and the assailants are surrounded by AK-47's. I also wonder why Bin Laden himself has referred to them by name? Why countless authorities on security measures say there is a group that calls itself Al Qaeda. There must be one hell of a conspiracy, involving hundreds if not thousands of people that shows Al Qaeda exists.

Add yet another crackpot to the DR conspiracy circle of friends.

#21

Yes, there were. They were put there by these infamous terrorists.

Why does the government need to hide the fact that there were explosions? This is what transpired in the 1993 bombing. Is it out of the realm of reality that the buildings did contain explosives. Just focus on proving this before even contemplating who planted them.

www.youtube.com

#14 | Posted by AuntieSocial

Yes, it is out of the realm of possibility that those building were brought down by explosives. They were both heavily damaged by the two towers collapsing on portions of them. Building 7 had a fire burning for several hours unchecked which weakened it further causing its collapse. Every expert on architecture and explosives say that the buildings were compromised by damage caused by the two main towers falling on them, and that no explosives were used.

Let me ask you just one question. If explosives were used, why hasn't one single shred of evidence been found that is comprised of explosive material? Out of all of the debris that has been sifted through not one bit of explosives remnants has ever been recovered. Can you explain how that could be if explosives were used on either of the buildings?

"Were there explosives at the base of the twins? All I want to know."

There weren't. Now you know.

Were there explosives at the base of the twins? All I want to know.

#18 | Posted by AuntieSocial

I'll say it again. Why hasn't anyone found a single shred of evidence of explosives at the site? If explosives were used there would most definitely be plenty of left over material from them and it would have been found. Nothing has been found that would back up your theory that explosives were used at any of the buildings. Yet conspiracy theorists continue to claim that explosives were used. If they are making the claim that they were used the onus is on them to provide the evidence that shows that they were used. No evidence has been provided.

No evidence has been provided.

This is a conspiracy theory. No evidence required. Just a little faith.

william rodriguez was in B2. why would he lie? what does he have to gain by lying?

niels harrit. there ya go.

It constantly amazes me how naive the average American is.

"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach."

...Adolf Hitler.

Soooo, the reason we should not be going after al Qaeda in Afgh-Pakistan is that KSM et al were lying about their involvement in 911 as they detailed their actions on TV for 2 days?

Let me tell you something about grand conspiracy theories..... those usually charged with them are too incompetent to ever have accomplished them to begin with..... which means what about the mentality those that fall for this nonsense?

same as it ever was. this is right up there with arguing about Christianity.

Barry Jennings said the lobby was blown out of WTC 7 before it's collapse.

WHY WOULD THE TERRAISTS WANT TO PUT EXPLOSIVES IN WTC 7?

whatever the truth is- I bet we are all off just a little. wouldn't be grand to know for sure 100% regardless of your point of view. I am interested in the physics of it more so than siding with one theory or another. after watching Zeitgeist again I do think that Georgie was incompetent at best and complicit in some fashion at worst. His family was in bed with the Bin Laden's for Christ's Sake! 9/11 Commission deems the money trail, those that paid for 9/11, insignificant? that upsets me.

Just too many coincidences to be able to swallow this on the surface.

Auntie - "Earwitness" testimony is not evidence of explosives.

Terrified people in a situation they've never been in before hearing "explosions" is not reliable evidence that actual explosives were used. When a building that size is starting to come down, there will be all kinds of sounds, most of which sound like explosions. None of the people in question have been in that situation before or heard those sounds before so of course they are going to describe a loud booming sound as an "explosion" Same thing goes for the lobby being "blown out". An elevator falling down a shaft could "blow out" the lobby.

Explosives are chemical compounds whose use we have the technology to detect. Real evidence of explosives was not found because there weren't any explosives used. That is why you have to rely on recollections of people who were doing their best to put a bizarre and terrifying experience into words that others can relate to..... Forgive everyone else for being unimpressed with the exploitation for these people on the part of the conspiracy douches.

#11
Poppies are their bread and butter.

as they should be. legalize all drugs for all uses and follow any illegit and/or diverted money or unpaid/evaded taxes.

sending American troops (fuck the DEA) to burn out the fields and die is clearly "evil" in any and every way.

#15...

well said, Cork.

It amazes me that just as we finally get the Pakis to go after terrorists on their side of the border, some want to remove our troops from the Afghan side so they'll have a comfy place to roost and base another 911 style attack. -- #15 | Posted by Corky

Did someone not tell you that the planes that crashed into the towers left from U.S. airports? Or that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from a "friendly" country where we had a strong military presence?

There is absolutely no reason to believe that a military occupation overseas can prevent terrorist attacks on our soil.

You seem to be ignoring two strong arguments against the surge:

(1) U.S. military occupations aid terrorist recruiting, and

(2) Fighting terrorism is a POLICING job, not a military job.

You also seem to be ignoring strategy. Taliban extremists are a thorn in Karzai's side, too, but as long as he believes the U.S. will do the job his military/police should be doing, he has no incentive to take them on himself. If you want the U.S. to be there forever, remove all pressure on Obama to withdraw. Right now, the only incentive Karzai has to develop a military/ police force that can keep the Taliban under control is the belief that Obama's hand will be forced by electoral considerations -- i.e., by the threat that the anti-war lib idealists you're denigrating won't vote for him if he doesn't get our troops out of there by the 2012 election.

And it also appears that some of my anti-war lib friends are more interested in protecting the purity of their ideals than facing the practicality of serious and present US security concerns were we to hand Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al Qaeda with a Christmas bow on it.

Interesting and true of some, but others see Afghanistan as an unwinnable situation that already brought down Russia and is threatening to do the same. When victory cannot be defined, the war should not be engaged IMHO.

Interesting and true of some, but others see Afghanistan as an unwinnable situation that already brought down Russia and is threatening to do the same. When victory cannot be defined, the war should not be engaged IMHO.

Posted by kanrei at 2009-12-03 03:05 PM | Reply

A FUCKING MEN

#18..
I am an American. I love my country. I am a free man. I can ask thought provoking questions without being a communist.

what?! one CAN be a Communist and love America, love freedom, and BE an American... and also ask thought provoking or any questions one wants.

or, one does not have to be anarcho-capitalist to love America.

Nice to agree with you again Larry. We have been on opposing sides for quite sometime. I have noticed we are on the same side again quite often.

well said, Cork.

#35 | Posted by ichiro

Ah, finally. Someone with good taste!

(No, not tastes good, Larry)

-but others see Afghanistan as an unwinnable situation that already brought down Russia and is threatening to do the same. When victory cannot be defined, the war should not be engaged IMHO

Which is why the Pres spoke in terms other than "victory", terms having to do with quantfiable results and an end game to get out.

And about those Russians.... people can't have it both ways.... either Afghanisan is a country capable of having a military that can run the Russians out, or one that can't hold up to the Taliban even after our training..... you can't have it both ways.

#42 | Posted by Stephens1982 at 2009-12-03 08:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Wouldn't surprise me if this spammer had a particular grudge against Drudge. Any recently kicked-out people come to mind?

#43

It has to be someone with dial up. I've been told that even if Rcade bans an IP, with dial up one can just get a different one.

That would explain why they keep coming back.

But I was hoping Rcade would have a way around that though.

I was thinking about that this morning when the site was being spammed.

They can't be a very successful company if they can't afford high speed!