So "hate" is appropriate then. We agree. You just think it's
justified. And, of course, you offer no evidence to substantiate
your justification.
It's not that I think it's justified, but it's not surprising that people get worked up. Anyway, hate is not the correct term. You don't hate a criminal, you just want them brought to justice. Now if the system fails to do that then that situation will cause many to react.
"If you're not with us, you're against us".
That's not what Bush meant and you know it.
But that's what's happened. If you disagree with Bush's means of dealing with terrorism, like invading Iraq for example, you're accused of being unpatriotic, a terrorist sympathizer, etc.
I'll see your Michael Moore death threats and raise them with ****
Cheney, George Bush, Richard Perleman, and Donald Rumsfeld death
threats.
I disagree with such threats to anybody, regardless of their position.
A Zogby poll last year found that 51% of New Yorkers believed that
the Bush administration had foreknowledge of the attacks yet failed
to act. Many of those same New Yorkers were probably in the
audience at this event:
So... a poll means that this is FACT? A poll is OPINION, not fact.
A poll gives a good indication of people's feelings about a particular topic. But what you're dismissing is that the government's story is also opinion, because it has never been proven. There has been no independent investigation nor have the accused been found guilty in a court of law.
See here: At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html
"If those who hijacked the 9/11 airplanes were using stolen identities, then we don't know who they were or who they worked for. We can't. It's impossible."
"In September 2002, [FBI Director Robert Mueller] told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."
Mirror of the original Insight news article:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_denies_mix_up_of_911_terrorists.htm
What I don't get about the anti-Bush types is that they are willing
to hold Bush accountable for all this... but not bin Laden or the
Islamofascists. Further, they are willing to see Bush punished
severely... but not the Islamofascists.
That's not my way. If you disagreed with the invasion of Iraq because of the refusal of the U.N. to back it because there wasn't enough evidence, that does not make you anti-Bush, it does not make you pro-Saddam.
How can anyone take you seriously when you are more angry with
George Bush, a president who had been in office less than eight
months and who was having difficulty getting his administration
appointments through the Democratically-controlled Senate, than you
are with bin Laden who has CLAIMED responsibility for 9/11,
When did he claim that?
http://www.pbs.org/flashpointsusa/20040629/infocus/topic_01/timeline_sep2001.html
"September 16, 2001
Osama bin Laden denies any involvement in the 9/11 attacks in a statement to Al Jazeera television, saying, "I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks, which seems to have been planned by people for personal reasons."
You must be talking about the video "confession":
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
On Fox & Friends, Oct 10 2004, Ann Coulter admitted that Osama was dead:
HOST: [Bush said to Kerry] "You can run, but you can't hide." That's what he said about Osama bin Laden.
COULTER: I hope the results are similar, since Osama is D-E-A-D, dead in Tora Bora since December, 2001"
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001939.htm
Nobody claims to know all that happened that day but any honest person has to admit that, all things considered, there is a prima facie case for a full and independent investigation - something the Bush administration, true to its record of secrecy, has steadfastly refused.
Saddam Hussein who has bragged about the hundreds of thousands
he's killed?
With the backing of the U.S and its allies no doubt. What everyone forgets is that most of Saddam's worst crimes against humanity were carried out before the 1990-1 Gulf War, when he was a puppet of the U.S. Where was all the objection and calls for his ouster then?
Let's see. They found the guy's body. ...................
You're not seriously suggesting that this didn't happen, are you?
Could be, that
is classic COINTELPRO stuff - but I was quoting the Australian medical expert who cast doubts on the authenicity of the video. Read it again.
If they were then it would probably be too late.
Then QUIT claiming they are!
Can't you see that we are oh so very close to that? Already the president has the power to put away anybody of his choosing, with no due process of law:
U.S. Can Confine Citizens Without Charges, Court Rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090900772.html
Can you substantiate that claim?
Perhaps that is just one isolated incident. But is there any proof that they are actually who they say, and not some goon squad dressed up as anti-Bush supporters?
Similar things have happened. In Seattle in 1999, the protest, although large, was going very peacefully until suddenly a group purporting to be protesters started smashing up Starbucks. Strange... more trademark COINTELPRO agency stuff.
