|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 10:30:40 GMT -5
The Debate is officially over with a direct quote from the 9/11 Commission Report.
The 9/11 Commission Report Confirms that our presence in the Middle East, Bombing Iraq for 10 years and sanctions killing thousands pissed off the terrorists and is listed as a motivation for the attacks and hatred of us.
Quote is from the bottom of page 48 to the top paragraph on page 49. The section is 2.2 Bin Laden's appeal in the Islamic World.
"He (Bin Laden) inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel."
Bin Laden is quoted in the last paragraph on page 51 in the 9/11 Commission Report as saying the U.S. should "abandon the Middle East."
Isn't amazing how Brian Solomon has access to information that most off the mindless clapping idiots and Guiliani don't know about. It is simply amazing isn't it. Dale what do you think about this info? Will you admit that you stand corrected?
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 11:55:54 GMT -5
People don't won't the truth. They like sugary coatings and rock stars.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 12:21:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by killer on May 18, 2007 12:31:33 GMT -5
Off subject, but did anyone see the YouTube video of the black guy saying white people should be exterminated?
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 18, 2007 12:56:24 GMT -5
Off subject, but did anyone see the YouTube video of the black guy saying white people should be exterminated? No but I kind of knew that a few blacks thought that way considering FBI stats from a years back showed that for black to make up around 20% of the population they account for around 80% of the violent crimes. There is a really good book by Jared Taylor called Paved with good intentions. Get online, find it and buy it. It will be well worth the money. It is about the truth about races in America and "racism".
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 17:42:51 GMT -5
So we should use the report of the Iraqi Surrender Group to somehow justify what Ron Paul said?
Look at who is really behind this "groundswell" of support for Paul- Democrat bomb-thrower websites such as DemocratUnderground. the Soros front-group called Media Matters and the good old anti-American DailyKOS.
Now why is it do you suppose that Ron Paul is suddenly the Left's favorite candidate....
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 18, 2007 19:23:14 GMT -5
Surely you're not referring to this book, are you? Sorry, dude, maybe a potshot but you can't keep using a book to justify stuff when it appears you don't believe in it.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 18, 2007 19:33:57 GMT -5
Dang solomon....I see the picture of your kid there...you went from obviously hating the 9/11 commission report to quoting it to defend your positions.
Whoa!...dude is that a glock laying next to your baby in that photo? You start them out early don't ya.
I know I am going to get some flack and I don't want to say it but man...these photos you are flying around are just screamin for DHR to come knocking on your door.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 18, 2007 22:08:53 GMT -5
The 9/11 Commission was a FRAUD.
Republicans and Democrats on the panel had completely different goals when it came to the ultimate purpose of the Commission.
Republicans thought the idea was to get to the bottom of what happened, suggest fixes to address the failures and outline a plan to move forward.
Democrats thought the idea was to destroy the Bush Administration.
How else can you explain the presence on the Commission of Richard Ben-Veniste- a Clintonista- and Jamie Gorelick- the architect of the "wall of separation" that prevented various investigatory and intel agencies from sharing data? If anything, these two people should have been WITNESSES, not commissioners.
And then there's Sandy Berger- he of stuffing national security documents in his socks and down his pants, ultimately destroying them. Remember why he was in the National Archives in the first place: to refresh his memory as to the circumstances surrounding the so-called "Miliennium Bombing" plot and what effect Bill Clinton's anti-terrorism policies had- or didn't have- on foiling the plot.
Democrats made certain that as little as possible was done to investigate the myriad failures during eight years of the Clinton Administration to effectively deal with terrorism while focusing instead on the eight-month period Bush was President. Republicans were too feckless to ignore Democrat obfuscation and get at the truth.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 19, 2007 9:54:53 GMT -5
Dang solomon....I see the picture of your kid there...you went from obviously hating the 9/11 commission report to quoting it to defend your positions. I quoted the 9/11 Commission to defend what Ron Paul said my positions. Don't try to twist the story and imply that I accept it in it's completely. It does not say a word about how WTC 7 fell witout being hit by a plane. To calm the fears of any who may tremble and wet themselves about my nephew having his picture taken with a Glock it was unloaded. And the 22 rifle my girl was holding was unloaded. I am pro gun but I am pro Dad a whole lot more.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on May 19, 2007 10:26:59 GMT -5
To calm the fears of any who may tremble and wet themselves about my nephew having his picture taken with a Glock it was unloaded. And the 22 rifle my girl was holding was unloaded. I am pro gun but I am pro Dad a whole lot more. From my limited exposure to your values, I would strongly believe this statement (particularly the latter).
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 19, 2007 20:33:22 GMT -5
solomon - It's kind of hard for me to determine by the picture of you screaming at the book that you do accept a portion of it's contents. Maybe if you had a caption that stated, "Page 57 and 82 are excluded from my wrath."
I kind of figured you would have enough sense not to have loaded weapons in the hands or next to children of that age. Then again, I still find it disturbing that there is a baby picture with a glock in it...at a minimum it is weird at a maximum, there is a mental problem with the adult(s) involved in it's inclusion. Just my honest opinion which I would also find disturbing if I was alone in that thought. Maybe it's a cop thing. I will honestly say that it's the first time that I have seen a baby picture with a gun placed next to their head. Am I alone on this? Perhaps I don't get out enough....
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 9:28:56 GMT -5
solomon - It's kind of hard for me to determine by the picture of you screaming at the book that you do accept a portion of it's contents. Maybe if you had a caption that stated, "Page 57 and 82 are excluded from my wrath." I kind of figured you would have enough sense not to have loaded weapons in the hands or next to children of that age. Then again, I still find it disturbing that there is a baby picture with a glock in it...at a minimum it is weird at a maximum, there is a mental problem with the adult(s) involved in it's inclusion. Just my honest opinion which I would also find disturbing if I was alone in that thought. Maybe it's a cop thing. I will honestly say that it's the first time that I have seen a baby picture with a gun placed next to their head. Am I alone on this? Perhaps I don't get out enough.... You know you lost the debate don't you.... ? That is why you are groping around on the ground like a blind man...now you are talking about some silly pictures that were meant to be humorous and to mess with people of the wimpy liberal mentality that are of the pro gun control. Come on now...I have seen you do alot better debating in this forum in the past. Man up and get on the right side.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on May 21, 2007 11:17:36 GMT -5
I don't recall losing any debate. I gave specific quotes from bin laden himself for the specific reasoning for 9/11, which included the specific reasons for hitting the twin towers. Case was closed at that point.
The pictures have nothing to do with this thread debate...they were a side excursion. I never said I was for gun control..you think the pictures are funny and they are with my opinion of the exception of the baby with the glock next to his head. I don't find anything humorous about it. Different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by solomon on May 21, 2007 16:38:52 GMT -5
Blow Back...It's whats for dinner.
|
|
|
Post by W.O.M.I on May 21, 2007 18:37:43 GMT -5
Appeasement- The Other Other White (Flag) Meat.
|
|