Book Says White House Ordered Forgery

I will not stoop to hurling insults at you sir. You are entitled to your opinion, but twice now you have attempted to personally insult me. Considering the source, I expect as much. However, it would be nice to exchange dialog without the caustic innuendos to mental illness and personal attacks.

 

Mental illness no. Distorted world view most likely due to indoctrination yes. It often takes some assistance to move beyond this.

Diminishing the acts of terrorism by placng terrorists on the same level of our founding Fathers is distorted. There is nothing about that that is grounded in reality. How do you figure your post was any less caustic.

 

My intention was never to diminish the acts of terror that you described. My intention was to call in question the accountability of those who label people as terrorists. My intention was to question at what point do we hold them accountable. By some people's definition sir, you are a terrorist, because of the views you hold. They say that you are a danger to society. Preachers standing in pulpits reading God's words are terrorists guilty of hate crimes.

My point is, a global war on terror is all well and good, so long as you are in agreement with who they determine to be terrorists. But what happens when you disagree, what happens when you find yourself labeled a terrorists, what happens when the beliefs that you hold are determined to be a danger to the society in which you live? My point is, a global war on terror is an ambiguous war against an ambiguous enemy. At any point, they are able to determine new enemies, they label new terrorists, and the war ever rages on.

My intention was never to put my fore fathers on the same level as islamic terrorists. I apologize that you read the post in that light. My intent was to call attention to the fact that people we revere as heroes, could be labeled by others as terrorists, even if we strongly protest.

You are in current agreement with who they have determined terrorists to be. Potentially, the democrates may win the presidential election. If they succeed, our nation is already in a declared war against terrorist. How easy will it be for them to redefine the target? Without having to declare a new war, they can determine certain people to no longer be terrorists, and others to be terrorists. Will a muslim president consider muslims to be terrorists? President Bush declared war against an ambiguous enemy that can dynamically change to fit an agenda.

 

So your concern is that the lable "terrorist" could be used as a tool against what is right. And this fear is because you see to much ambiguity in its definition. Is this correct?

Terrorism must by definition include both violence and threats of violence. What is ambiguous about that? How do you see that definition being used against what is right?


As far as our troops being demoralized because of the lack of boundries or end to this war on terrorism I believe this is a fallacy over all. They understand the nature of this war.

And it was not my intention for you to take what I said a mental illness. My words were poorly articulated and I apologize.

 

I do not find ambiguity in the definition, I find ambiguity in how politicians may manipulate terms to fit their agendas.

Not the definition, but the political application.

Maybe some do, maybe most do, I don't know; but the ones I have personal communication with, are wary in light of the election.

 

Can you elaborate on that?

 

You'd be correct in that theory if it were not for one nagging fact. Saddam's Iraq broke the 1991 Cease-fire Agreement between the US and Iraq long before President Bush was elected to office in 2000.:tonofbricks:

 

A giant scam.

Sure there is...whenever we kill or capture a made for prime time terrorist.

The perfect "war" if you're all about the transfer of wealth and power.*

The NWO order but they'd have you believe it's a bunch of rag tag muslims living in caves. Or your neighbor, or the liberal down the street, or the conservative on the corner, your brother, or schoolmates, or people who read almanacs, or religious books of one sort or another, or make to many references to the U.S. Constitution, or...

Pretty much.

The decider.

They were called rebels. Southerners were called rebels too. In both cases they were called rebels because they stood up to tyranny and dared to defend their inalienable rights against the wishes of usurpers and other deceitful and designing men.

Al Qeada was a group of Arab freedom fighters when "we" created it to help "defeat" the soviets in Afghanistan. Now the threat from Al Qeada...our creation is being used to create an authoritarian government in the USA.

What useful creatures, our creations are.

Inside the mind.

First they label you un patriotic. Because you remain loyal to your country and not the government. It goes on from there.

*This is a good thing. Actually. The longer "we" wage aggressive interventions against those that refuse to join the global collective, the international community, new economic order, new world order, whatever...the bigger the transfer of wealth and power from the people (90%) to the global elite (10%).

This is of course a bad thing for the 90% but good thing for the 10%. Just so long as the 90% can keep the 10% fighting amongst ourselves and divided along political, racial and or religious lines they can continue to plunder our wealth and consolidate and strengthen their control over us.

The "GWOT" is the perfect giant scam if you have an urge to create a New World Order. That's what a global war on terror is.

Note. "we" = those who mistakenly or intentionally align themselves with flag waving globalist tyrants and willingly become their stooges, useful idiots, mindless minions or any combination there of.