CIA: Saudi directly implicated to 9/11 attack

[ChunkyMonkey]

And I don't disagree with you. If what you claim is true (and I don't have any reason to doubt you), you have more knowledge of the ugly side of the muslim religion than anyone else lurking around here. My point is this:

Is a closet pedophile who never acts on his urges guilty of anything? Should a person that fantasizes about being a serial killer who has never taken a life be tossed in the hot seat? And should the populations of entire countries that didn't harbor or directly contribute or finance the attacks against us be subjected to our full military might simply because "they're muslim, too"?

The "left" if that is what you want to call them, is still pissed about at least one war against a 'people' that didn't directly kill our citizenry. I just think your reply to Nynco, who simply cited the findings of one steaming bag of shit (Micheal Moore), that may in fact be true, is lame, dismissive, and lacking of any real thought. That's all.

Nope, Michael Moore came out and stated that it wasn't the fundamental of Islam or even the radical of Islam who caused 9/11. During the promotion of his so called documentary, he clashed with bill maher on this very topic. When you thought maher is as left as one could be, there is Michael Moore!

Instead, he mentioned Bush administration' saudi goal and later, Saudi kingdom conspiracy to expand Sunni influence... To get rid of Saddam. He insisted there is no radical Islam.

That's the context in my answer.

[Great-Kazoo]

If Muslims were in the streets protesting / denouncing the 9/11 attacks, then yes some humbling conceding might be in order. HOWEVER not 1 imam, mullah, or middle eastern / Muslim leaning nation, condemned the attacks. Even worse was the lack of outrage, from clerics, here in America. Beheadings on line , silence.
Yet after warnings to evacuate villages where Known terrorist leaders were hiding, before bombing them.. Once we / coalition forces attacked. The uproar from Islamist, here and abroad was defening.
Islamist, jihadist, etc. Have only one goal, the suppression and elimination of any thing, other than Islam, Sharia law.

[jhood001]

Nope, Michael Moore came out and stated that it wasn't the fundamental of Islam or even the radical of Islam who caused 9/11. During the promotion of his so called documentary, he clashed with bill maher on this very topic. When you thought maher is as left as one could be, there is Michael Moore!

Instead, he mentioned Bush administration and Saudi kingdom conspiracy to expand Sunni influence... To get rid of Saddam. He insisted there is no radical Islam.

That's the context in my answer.

Moore may have made those points regarding the non-complicity of fundamental/radical islam in his film, but I personally got a much stronger message from his shitty movie. And it was this: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq? All fingers point to the Saudis.

He outlined numerous and deeply troubling examples and evidence of Saudi involvement in 9-11. Whether Moore is a tool or not is kind of irrelevant. He was RIGHT in regards to the involvement of the Saudi's and that naturally gave way to calling into question our involvement in Iraq.

I really, really, don't like Micheal Moore, but... he was right on at least one point.

I don't know about you, but I can hate the ever-living shit out of someone and still give them their credit when it is due.

[jhood001]

Islamist, jihadist, etc. Have only one goal, the suppression and elimination of any thing, other than Islam, Sharia law.

Agreed, Jim.

[Arsalan]

President Bush inexplicably censored 28 full pages of the 800-page report.
lets ask him!!
The findings, if confirmed,!!!!!!?????

[ChunkyMonkey]

Moore may have made those points regarding the non-complicity of fundamental/radical islam in his film, but I personally got a much stronger message from his shitty movie. And it was this: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq? All fingers point to the Saudis.

He outlined numerous and deeply troubling examples and evidence of Saudi involvement in 9-11. Whether Moore is a tool or not is kind of irrelevant. He was RIGHT in regards to the involvement of the Saudi's and that naturally gave way to calling into question our involvement in Iraq.

I really, really, don't like Micheal Moore, but... he was right on at least one point.

I don't know about you, but I can hate the ever-living shit out of someone and still give them their credit when it is due.

You keep changing and expanding the argument. Mentioning everything from German nazi to Iraq. Those are a whole another political argument in which we may agree upon.

I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

[jhood001]

You keep changing and expanding the argument. Mentioning everything from German nazi to Iraq. Those are a whole another political argument in which we may agree upon.

I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

I wouldn't say that I'm changing or expanding upon much of anything, but I do understand the "left" and I know what their point is even when they don't make it clear. Breitbart is a bit of an idol of mine. Regardless, I'll play:

So basically some of the allegations by Michael Moore and Farenheight 911 were right after all...

Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

I didn't see anything in Nynco's post about blaming, or not blaming "the muslims". He merely stated that SOME of the allegations is in fact 'right after all'. And that was the general gist of the article you posted, was it not?

How did we get of track here? I think I just followed your lead.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I wouldn't say that I'm changing or expanding upon much of anything, but I do understand the "left" and I know what their point is even when they don't make it clear. Breitbart is a bit of an idol of mine. Regardless, I'll play:





I didn't see anything in Nynco's post about blaming, or not blaming "the muslims". He merely stated that SOME of the allegations is in fact 'right after all'. And that was the general gist of the article you posted, was it not?

How did we get of track here? I think I just followed your lead.

I explained the context of my answer. Moore is blaming the Saudi without touching the religion aspect which is the only aspect.

So, back to these..

I am still very curious about your very first response. So back to the argument you made. I answered nynco that Michael Moore is a broken clock who is afraid to blame the real issue: Muslim. You said I cannot blame them, please do back that up.

I also asked you what other political purpose of the Saudi supporting their terrorist attacking 9/11 aside from religious purpose.

[jhood001]

Well, it took me all this time and typing to actually understand your initial reply to Nynco. Forgive me for that.

Broken clock, like most liberals who are too pc to blame the Muslims.

I did, and still do feel that your statement is dismissive in regards to the importance of identifying the (possibly) true perpetrator and supporters of the murder of our citizens.

Regardless, I personally prefer to identify and pass judgement on people based on their actions rather than their beliefs. Maybe that makes me crazy. Or perhaps it makes me afraid of the repercussions of thought-crime prosecution.

You posted the original article which leads me to believe that you are an advocate of punishing any and all responsible. I just believe that we may deviate on where we stand in regards to those who were punished in the past that had nothing to do with it.

[ChunkyMonkey]

Well, it took me all this time and typing to actually understand your initial reply to Nynco. Forgive me for that.



I did, and still do feel that your statement is dismissive in regards to the importance of identifying the (possibly) true perpetrator and supporters of the murder of our citizens.

Regardless, I personally prefer to identify and pass judgement on people based on their actions rather than their beliefs. Maybe that makes me crazy. Or perhaps it makes me afraid of the repercussions of thought-crime prosecution.

You posted the original article which leads me to believe that you are an advocate of punishing any and all responsible. I just believe that we may deviate on where we stand in regards to those who were punished in the past that had nothing to do with it.

Muslims are allowed to lie to the kafirs. Officially all of our allies in the Middle East with Israel as an exception denounced the attack.. While they celebrated in the open locally. The so called 'few' extremists are wealthy western educated Muslims. Look up all of the terrorists' background including our own homegrown.

My point in that comment is there is no way to punish just the perpetrators while there are 1.5 billions of supporters waiting for their turn, and expecting that that's the end of it.

My motive of posting the article is that the apologists keeps saying that lack of education, money, western suppression etc are what fueling the 'few' extremist. Meanwhile most of these assholes are from wealthy educated background supported and well funded by more assholes in high places of the govt of our allies.

The only common denominator is the cult they are all in.