>>>> The events of that day were a heinous crime against our nation
>>>> and our citizens,
>> "Patrick Keenan" <test@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> Yes they were, and most of those who perpetrated it died in the event.
> "-" <jazzerciser@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Which explains why the USA took retaliation upon those who
>> were in no way related to its perpetration? ( = warcrimes, btw )
"Patrick Keenan" <test@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> If you're referring to Afghanistan, there was in fact a solid
connection,
> since the ultimate leader of the plot was resident there and protected
> by what was then the official Government of Afghanistan.
Which explains why the Taliban offered to put him up for trial
in
their own country (Afghanistan) with a video-link to the Western
World.
And why "itchy trigger-finger" United States -refused- their
offer...
> It's very likely that that that Government knew what he was doing, and
> it's clear that they knew what he had done and where he was, and
> refused to surrender him. It's not difficult to see these as acts of
war,
> and it's not remotely surprising that retaliation occurred there.
> The US has gone to war for less.
The United States had no mutual "extradition treaty" with the
sovereign state of Afghanistan. Moreover, Afghanistan wished to
bargain for something in return, and yet the United States did not
wish to comply, instead opting for an expensive and heinous war.
> As to Iraq - well, I do not believe there is any valid connection
> with 9/11. Some people in authority asserted there was.
Didn't realize having a "connection with 9/11" was a valid thing to
do.
Don't you suppose the perpetrators involved have "no connection"?
>>>> ... and the sense of justice that exists in each one of us
demands
>>>> to know what really happened and how all the perpetrators will be
>>>> caught and punished.
>>> How, exactly, does the speaker propose that we catch and punish the
dead?
>> She thinks that you might be involved. Turn yourself in.
> A comment that in no way answers the question.
> How, exactly, does the speaker propose that we catch and punish the
dead?
If the perpetrators are dead then you have five minutes to
justify
the retaliation. Go.
>>> The first way to understand this failure is that these people just
aren't
>>> smart enough to realize that that is a far more effective way to
proceed;
>>> certainly, their course of action to date has been notable for its
lack
>>> of results.
>>>
>>> The second way to understand it is that they DO realize that this
avenue
>>> is open to them, but that it would cause them to be wholly discredited
>>> when the nsurer's investigations, though not bound by the same
>>> restrictions courts are, do not reach the conclusions the "9/11
truthers"
>>> say they wantand are unable to recover the funds or prevent future
payouts.
>> As an insurance company would you be willing to go up against
>> the style of organization, and its ferocity, which brought down WTCs?
> Yes. If you weren't aware of this, insurers are large public companies
> with a lot of shareholders. They are interested in MONEY, are not
> easily intimidated, and there are tens of billions of dollars at stake
here,
> dollars that belong to the thousands and thousands and thousands of
> shareholders. The "conspiracy" carries a requirement that each and
> every one of those shareholders has been intimidated by these
> pur****ted conspiracists, and each and every one of them has agreed
> to go along with the cover-up, and has remained silent.
So how many millions and tens of billions of dollars at stake do
you
control in your insurance company? Are you a major shareholder in
any insurance companies?
> Here's the thing. There are thousands and thousands and thousands of
> people, and that number probably includes YOU if you have a pension,
> whose finances have been personally harmed by these events and the
> need for insurers to pay out settlements.
Bah. Americans are sheeple who believe everything from TV.
> It's well beyond reasonable for the insurers to seek redress from people
> who were responsible, if they can be found and sued. It's well beyond
> reasonable for at least SOME of the thousands and thousands and
> thousands of shareholders to show up at the AGMs and demand it.
Who is supposed to get sued ?
> It's clear to me that this is because the several investigations,
including
> those already conducted by the insurers, have produced no evidence
> that the "9/11 truther" claims have any validity, and specifically no
> evidence of "controlled demolition".
Larry Silverstein said they were going to "pull" the building.
Everybody evacuated because they were going to bring it down.
> There isn't any evidence that explosives were brought into those
buildings
> by any means other than aircraft, and that explosive was basically jet
fuel.
Can you focus on WTC 7, just for a moment, please?
> In fact, the "9/11 truth" proponents run away from the suggestion that
> they attend the AGMs to require these cost recovery attempts, despite
> the fact that it can't possibly be less effective than their current
tactics.
>
> The risk for the "9/11 truth" proponents is that it can definitively
> show that their claims are fantasies, and specifically the "controlled
> demolition" claim, which would be *easy* to prove.
Obviously you'd rather pay out the insurance claim than find
who the REAL perpetrators were and sue their *****. Kinda says
who you might be in bed with, eh?
>>> This approach is not without risk, since it can lead to discrediting
the
>>> "9/11 truth" concept. Perhaps they don't want to take that risk.
>>>
>>> Finally, this Senator says that some military officers lied to
Congress
>>> about their "failure to protect America". Yet she takes great care
>>> to not identify them by name. Is this because she is afraid of
>>> personal prosecution?
>> Perhaps she is afraid of personal assassination.
> Or perhaps she lacks the backbone to clearly state who it is she
> claims lied and what their lie was. It's easy to make sensational
> statements in a venue that ****elds one from liability.
DC allows for personal possession of handguns, btw.
> If she wants to claim that serving military officers lied to Congress,
> she should say so.
>
> If she believes her claims are true, and has the facts to prove it,
> she has no fear of prosecution.
There are reasons that military officers might lie. After all,
Rangers are supposed to lie to everybody except another Ranger.
>>> I'd have to say that this Senator appears to be a few seats
>>> shy of a quorum.
>> I'd have to say that she is there, and we know why you're not.
> Yes, and the simple reason is that I'm neither a citizen of the USA
> or of the state of Arizona, and hence not eligible.
One should imply the other, don't you think? If you're not
going to vote then stop monkeying with politics in this country.
Indeed, foreign lobbyists must be registered with Dept of State.
- regards
- jb
-----------------------------------------------------------
THE REVOLUTION GROWS: ST. PAUL 2008
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd379.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
|
