Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, here we go. Nice try. Sammi, it's not me ranting and raving, it's you. Of that there can be no question. You have a long history of posting ridiculous claims back by tenuous or no information. You have a well documented history of unreasonable and idiotic conspiracy theories with reagrds to government, corporate America and well, everything worth noting . Your statements go beyond the realm of any reasonable and credible political discourse.
Examples, please. I imagine this request will be met with a roaring silence.
What "line" is it that you take issue with? You cannot possibly be suggesting that the ENTIRE media has ignored evidence suggesting bin laden wasn't responsible and that there is "no Al-Qaeda". Come on.
No. There have been numerous stories in the media, in isolation. Did you not read any of those facts about 9-11 I posted? All of those anomalies (and many more) have been published in the mainstream US media ....you know, the ones seen, heard and read by you, and I, and Joe and Jane Public. Are you accusing the mainstream media of publishing a series of stories about 9-11 that are all false, perhaps because they don't gel with the Bush administration's interpretation?
And, it is you
who is being not only irrational, but misquoting, and second guessing me. Go ahead and point ou the place where I "said that bin Laden is not a terrorist or financed terrorist attacks". And, nowhere did I say that "al qaeda doesn't exist." What I did
say, at the start of this thread, but you obviously can't have read it, was that bin Laden/al qaeda was responsible for the African Embassy and USS Cole attacks...they even admitted culpability. And as for 9-11, the culprits remain largely unknown. Get over it. And as for al qaeda...see the link to the original article written by people who have studied terrorism, and know more about them than you, or I, or any member of this board...that al qaeda is a different kind of entity than what has been so heavily promoted since 9-11.
I am not making assertions of any kind. You are. These assertions are actually suppositions and the aforementioned conspiracy theories.
In the original thread, I asserted that the chance from dying from an international terrorist act in America is extremely rare, because it is just that...the number of International terrorist acts on American soil since I have been alive.....extremely rare. And the administration has been busy putting fear into the US people for its own agenda, using the images of 9-11 as a tool. Assertion coming...look out...this fortunate lack of international terrorism in the US would have more chance of staying that way if Bush and his blundering Laurel and Hardy team hadn't created the almighty and ongoing mess in Iraq.
Finally, I'd like to point out that this thread isn't about 9/11. It's about delaying the election in the event of a major terrorist attack. I contend that a short delay, if implemented properly by CONGRESS, would be a good thing. Are you disagreeing?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials have discussed the idea of postponing Election Day in the event of a terrorist attack on or about that day, a Homeland Security Department spokesman said Sunday.
This statement is ambiguous. It could mean delaying the election because of an actual attack "on or about that day"...or delaying the election because of the threat of an event of a terrorist attack on or about that day. What is to stop Homeland Security from postponing the election indefinitely, citing national security reasons and threats of terrorism, or until such times that the administration deems it the "best time" to hold the election?