Category 9/11 Conspiracies

Entries 27 Total

I Didn’t SEE a 757, Therefore it Didn’t Crash

Aug 12, 08 9:53 PM

Here’s another theory about Flight 93: that it was actually shot down.  Several witnesses have said they saw a small white plane in the area just after the crash, and one even says she saw it about a minute before the crash.  Here’s Susan McElwain, another of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists’ “smoking guns”:

If you google her name, you’ll come up with nearly 100 webpages dedicated to her story as one of the single greatest pieces of evidence that 9/11 was a hoax.  The headlines and exerpts say pretty much the same thing: “Susan McElwain saw hard evidence that proved the government story wrong, and the government covered it up!”  McElwain is one person, and her story is often intertwined with other stories that claim Flight 93 never crashed in Shanksville.  What about all the other witnesses?

Eric Peterson and Lee Purbaugh were working at an auto shop that morning when they heard a loud, whistling whine and looked up to see the 757 passenger jet so close that, according to them, “you could count the rivets.”  The plane crashed so hard and so fast that the shock wave blew the windows out of a nearby farmhouse.  Both ran to the crash site and saw a huge burning crater surrounded by all kinds of debris–seat cushions, pieces of clothing, and parts of the plane (which, according to the conspiracy theorists, was never found.  Whoops!).

Tom Fritz was sitting on his porch a quarter mile from the crash site and said that the plane suddenly flipped and dropped “like a stone.”  Students at nearby Stony Creek High School said the crash made the whole campus shake violently.  Anna McBride watched the 757 flip, nosedive and crash through her kitchen window.  72-year-old John Walsh also raced to the crash site and saw the same debris and burning crater that other witnesses saw.  Viola Saylor, Joe Wilt, Karl Landis, Rick King, Bruce Grine–all reported the same things.

Most of them also reported seeing the white jet in the area.

Susan McElwain swears up and down that she didn’t see a 757.  She says that she saw a small white jet flying low, and later saw the gigantic fireball that was Flight 93 crashing.  The plane was small, white, with no discernable markings, was moving fast and making little noise.  The answer has been given so often that it astounds me that it’s been ignored.  Pilot Yates Gladwell was flying a Dassault Falcon 20 for VF Corp employees that day when he suddenly received the order to land the plane–no explanation, just go to the nearest airport and land.  As he was in a landing pattern near 3000 feet, he got another call: the FAA has lost a plane and you’re the closest.  Can you go look for it?

He did, and circled for some time.  At first he couldn’t see the plane, and was about to leave–then it crashed and he couldn’t miss it.  Gladwell was an important part of the inital disaster relief effort.  He helped direct workers to the site.

Did Susan McElwain make it up?  Did she really see what she claims?  One eyewitness to the Pentagon attack said he saw a helicopter disappear behind the walls immediately before the massive explosion, but no helicopter crashed or was involved in the explosion.  Depending on where you are in regards to the direction everything else is moving, what you see can play tricks on you.  It’s common for witness identification at trial to be sketchy, even if the witness swears that they know who they saw at the crime scene; that’s because often people don’t always realize what they saw.  There are times when I wish I had that problem.

At any rate, I am not for one second calling McElwain a liar.  She likely did see the low-flying white plane just like everyone else.  Where she was in relation to where everything else was makes all the difference, and that hasn’t been taken into account.  It’s the conspiracy theorists (Alex Jones and Dylan Avery, please take note) who take things like this and make them more than they really are.

But what about her assertion that the plane had a “military look?”  This was what she saw:

It might actually be easy to call this a military-style jet, especially if you don’t know much about military planes.  Saying “I know it was a military plane, it just had that look” doesn’t convince me.  And saying, “I haven’t been able to find a plane like that on the internet” doesn’t do it, either–there are so many different kinds of planes out there that you have to know aviation terminology to find what you saw. 

The problem here is that nobody, not even Susan McElwain, is willing to admit that they might very well be mistaken in their assumptions.  None of this is anywhere near as conclusive as the twoofers claim; in fact, it’s more damaging to the cause.  Next!

Comments (11)

“The 9/11 Drug is Wearing Off”

Aug 11, 08 11:50 AM

In the run-up to the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’ll be dissecting the biggest conspiracy theories out there that claim the terrorist act to be a creation of the US government.  As time goes on more and more of these idiotic “theories” comes out, usually disseminated in the form of a YouTube video claiming that there’s new smoking-gun evidence to prove that it was all a farce.  They say they want to open dialogue about it, they want to discuss it, they want to have new investigations opened into the questions that have been raised about the veracity of the government’s claims about what really happened on 9/11.

But have you ever gotten into a “discussion” with one of these people?  Anyone who has will correct me: you don’t get into it with just one, you get into it with the whole tribe.  They’ll call you over and say, “hey, we just wanna talk about it!  C’mon, we have evidence, what’ve you got?”  And as soon as you start to answer their questions with hard facts, they shout you down.  It’s the idiot’s way to win an argument–gang up on a guy and shout until you drown him out, then he’ll just walk away and you haven’t been proven wrong.

Gag me.

I’ll be starting with this claim, the claim that the crash site near shanksville is really a “bomb crater” and that the “wing scars” were already part of the landscape:

At 2:01 into the clip, the producer asks, “ready for this?”  I sure am, skippy.  I don’t think you are, though.

The first thing he says is that the video is “smoking gun evidence that flight 93 did not crash in shanksville.”  That is either wishful thinking or pure delusion.  The entire video is unbelievable.  He says, “I’m no scientist…”  Well, we can certainly tell by his poor spelling and punctuation. 

Then he goes on to show footage of the difference between what a real plane crash looks like as opposed to bomb craters.  The crash sites he shows have wreckage littered about and flaming parts of the plane being put out by firefighters.  The bomb craters, obviously, show holes in the ground that show where the bombs were dropped and detonated, leaving little wreckage of the device used.  The maker of the video says, “where’s the wreckage?  Where are the bodies?”

“Godspeed2012″ could answer his own questions with the “evidence” he presents.

When a plane is about to crash, the pilot tries desperately to keep the craft level with the ground in an effort to save lives.  Consequently, when a plane crashes, normally it skids into the ground at a high rate of speed and breaks apart.  Laws of physics, right?  When a bomb is dropped, it is designed to explode on impact and falls nose-first into the ground.  Flight 93 was no ordinary plane crash.  The hijackers knew they were losing control of their “mission” and had decided to take the plane down–nose-first.  The passengers were unable to recover from the extreme descent; it was too late.  Flight 93 went practically nose-first into the ground that day.

Ready for this?

The producer then shows a satellite image from the US Geological Survey from 1994.  The image shows a dark ditch or tree cluster near the crash site, possibly a trench dug by large equipment.  He claims this to be the pre-existing hole that makes up the “wing scars,” thus proving that all the government did was drop a bomb to make it look like a crash site.

If you look closely, the crash site itself is very close to the tree line–NOT WHERE THE USGS SURVEY PHOTO SHOWS THE TRENCH.  They’re in two different areas.  And it wouldn’t have taken long for a trench like that (if it wasn’t made up in the first place, photoshopped to look real) to be worn away by the elements.

The argument here is a remarkably poor one, hacked to pieces by sound logic.  Try again.

Comments (22)

Maher Finds out the Downside of Being a Liberal

Oct 22, 07 10:33 PM

This was a real treat!  The only people dumb enough to believe that the government was involved in 9/11 conspiracies are liberals (aside from the crazies supporting Ron Paul).  Here we go again with more “Building 7″ propoganda.  (The same conspiracy Rosie O’Donnell believes in).

I feel sorry for Maher.  Aside for the fact that his guests were Sheila Jackson Lee and Chris Matthews; he actually has to try and sit through an audience of liberals who have spent too much time surfing 9/11 conspiracy sites, Alex Jones sites, and reading Rosie’s blog (and not working like the rest of us have to) . 

I like Bill Maher in the sense that the man is actually smart and funny.  But it has to be said that up until this point, these crazies thought they’d be welcome in his audience.  More Democrats and Ron Paul should vocally denounce these crazies every chance they get.  But unfortunately, most fall into this trap (let’s face it, Paul needs every vote he can get).

If Maher would have spent more time making fun of these crazies in lieu of degrading his President that has kept him safe since 2001, perhaps this type would not show up to act as opportunists.  And perhaps they would never think that this type of venue would welcome them in the first place.

Nice to see him make fun of them and throw them out!

BTW, I didn’t see Sheila Jackson Lee or Chris Matthews vocally denouncing the crazies as Maher did. (Unless it’s in a later segment.)  Prove me wrong otherwise.

****Update****

Apparently Maher did bring this up a month ago and made fun of the 9/11 conspiracy loons.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxOljd9oOzo

I give him credit for that, but I still find it funny that he really is the only mainstream liberal pundit to make fun of the Rosie-crowd to this extent.  Maybe Ann can get him really drunk one night and convert him.  ;-)

Comments (1)

My Conspiracy Theories about the Conspiracy Theorists

Aug 26, 07 1:01 PM

The more these types of videos show up on YouTube, the more people seem to be getting fed up with them.

Ron Paul’s heyday is ending and we know there is no chance in Hell that he is going to win the primary. 

The same people who posted this video are also Ron Paul supporters. 

The subject of this video features this kook; Barry Zwicker, who right off the bat, ADMITS being an anti-Vietnamer nut from the 70′s and also admits being left-winged and tops it off by admitting that he is an environmental activist.  So obviously; the man is touched.  He’s been supporting anti-human and anti-American causes since the John Lennon “Give Peace a Chance” era.

Now, to Paul’s credit — he did denounce some of these crazy theories, but he has not come out to denounce all of the support he is getting from these loons.  Moreover; Ron Paul continues to make excuses for terrorists by blaming America for “intervening” after it has been well-documented time and time again of what happens when we refuse to “intervene” as Carter did in 1979 and as Clinton did during his entire tenure.  Ignoring them didn’t stop 9/11!

I mean, the evidence is so overwhleming to folks that the last thing on the minds of Muslim fanatics when it comes to Western civilization is peace!

I’ve always thought that Ron Paul, his supporters, and these crazy 9/11 conspiracy people were dangerous to our society.

My conspiracy theory has developed from these types of folks being simply insane to actually pondering if Paul, his supporters, and/or these nuts are being paid by Al-Queda to vocally denounce America.

I mean, it makes perfect sense to me.  These folks say the exact same thing about the American government to support their cause (when it has been disproven over and over again) and imply that the government is covering up truth.  But miraculously, the provisions provided in the Patriot Act that they are so hysterical over have managed to prevent from hauling them all off to preventative detention or the looney bin where they belong.

These people are either crazy or they are being funded by Al-Queda to betray their country and demoralize Amrica and its troops in this crucial time of war.

We can’t be nice to these people anymore.  This kind of speech should not be tolerated because it is threatening EVERYONE’S security. 

Comments (6)

CIA Review Released Today: Democrats’ Conclusion?

Aug 21, 07 10:43 PM

rockefeller.jpg Jay Rockefeller (D)

It’s George Bush’s fault!

“Sadly, the CIA’s 9/11 accountability review serves as a sobering reminder that the Bush Administration policies for the past six years have failed to capture or kill Osama bin Laden”

That is what West Virginia Democrat, Jay Rockefeller had to say in response.

Every major news agency is reporting this tonight.  Basically it gives up everything we already knew:

–During the Clinton administration, we knew (or “suspected”) that Al-Queda wanted to attack us.  Some called this clever CIA intelligence, others were tipped off by the various attacks that Clinton did nothing about during his administration.

–From 1998-2001, the CIA refused to do enough to track Al-Queda’s every move to keep us safe here in America.  (But at the same time, liberals would not have allowed us to throw suspicious Arabs out of the country, profile them at airports, or create a Patriot Act back then.)  Democrats cry over the Patriot Act post 9/11, we are supposed to believe they would have supported the CIA taking more serious measures in monitoring Al-Queda before it happened?  Would liberals have supported NSA wiretappings before 9/11?

Suffice it to say that with liberal policies and crazy rules and regulations delivered by them to the CIA along with the fact that most of this “pre-9/11″ surveillance occurred during the Clinton administration, I can see why liberals could blame this on George Bush.

The article goes on to clearly state:

“Yet the review team led by Inspector General John Helgerson found neither a “single point of failure nor a silver bullet” that would have stopped the attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people.”

So in conclusion we had a planning and tracking phase that the CIA could basically do nothing about thanks to half-baked liberal policies, a President in the White House who refused to do nothing in response to the largest number of attacks on America’s interests since it all began in 1979, and a report that basically tells us: they could have done stuff, but in the end none of it would have done any good anyway!

And Jay Rockfeller says this is a reminder of Bush’s policies that have kept us safe since 2001?

I swear, if they could get away with it they would find a way to blame George W. Bush for the stain on Monica’s dress.

Comments (7)

3,000 Americans and How Many Civilians? Thanks Anti-War Folks!

Aug 15, 07 1:20 PM

ww2.jpg

Take a good look at this photo.  This is what happens in wars that we win effectively and we move through like champions.  This is what happens when we ignore tree-huggers that run around claiming to love and support the troops while simultaneously waiting for them to be defeated.

Democratic Presidential candidate, Barack Obama took potshots at the military this week.  Read the whole story at Sweetness & Light.  Obama said recently:

“We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians”

What an asinine thing to say!  He’s right, we do have to get the job done.  We could have gotten the job done a lot sooner had it not been for the stupid liberals (not to mention Ron Paul supporters trolling the internet) who have done everything imaginable to make excuses for terrorists and lay the blame of all of it on the USA. 

Obama does not realize apparently that concern for civlilians in a time of war is “red-flag number one”when identifying language of people who are trying to protect our enemies.  We had killed and/or captured hundreds of thousands of insurgents and members of Al-Queda.  We have captued the 9/11 Mastermind and while most us were grateful to the military for it, liberals in Congress cared more about his rights to read the Koran and whether or not he was being water-boarded.  We killed Zarqawi and we have rounded up much of Al-Queda’s top guys.

Democrats and supporters of Ron Paul say that this war miraculously gave birth to terrorists.  I say that it got the roaches out of their cracks and gave us the opportunity to drop bombs on them.

But thanks to Democrats, the MSM, and blowhards like Ron Paul, the roaches have been able to run back to their cracks and plan for more attacks as is evident of the large bombings in Iraq last weekend.

We could have cleaned up Iraq AND Afghanistan in a week if we fought this war like our brave men fought WW2 as illustrated in the picture above.  Civilians would have died, and so would have members of our troops.

But because we are unable to fight it the way we once did, more troops and civilians have died slowly over time than would have if we would have handled this the right way from day one.

If it continues this way, we will lose.  Harry Reid can be confident in his position because individuals like himself are making sure of it.  Ron Paul and his supporters and making sure of it, and with Rove leaving, something tells me Bush will be making sure of it.  Just today, General Patraeus — in response to the Al-Queda suspected bombings over the weekend — is already advocating troop cuts.

2008 is right around the corner folks.  We need a real wartime leader who isn’t going to cave-into caterwauling. 

All of our lives are at risk here.  If the way we fight this war does not change, then I will have absolutely no choice but to fully support Giuliani.  At least he will get us past this by fighting this war without much regard for civilian casualty or Democratic whining for Constitutional Rights of terrorists.

While Ron Paul supporters and liberals run around crying about their precious civil rights and bash the Patriot Act, I can somehow in my mind wish that their hysteria would materialize with a few choice amendments to the Bill.  The sad fact is folks; these people are just as dangerous to us as Al Queda is.  By supporting Ron Paul and using their freedoms to bash our President and troops in wartime, it means they have the rights to go on with their blather because of the ways we once fought wars decades ago.  But unfortunately, they are simultaneously making sure that those same freedoms will eventually crumble for all of us.

Is Al-Queda or our other enemies giving much regard for casualties of civilians?  Do they care about treating their enemies with regard to constitutional rights?

We can thank one group ultimately for the death of civilians and troops in Iraq, the Democrats and anti-war crazies!  They have allowed Al Queda to fight us harder and have blatantly stopped our troops and country from properly defending us.

Comments (9)

They Never Seem To Answer the Debate…..

Aug 7, 07 11:53 PM

Whenever I see a lefty-moonbat blog-post about me, I wonder if they are actually going to refute a point.  Apparently, not this genius piece of writing.  As liberals most often fall victim to, it shows that he was not even able to understand the point with coherence.

In response to the video via YouTube I posted on Ann Coulter, he proclaims (intellectually and full of thought of course) “It’s all in the perception.”

He begins his post by stating:

“Via Gay Conservative (I’m laughing right now. Sorry. A gay person proud to be a Republican always kind of makes me think of a Jew joining the Nazi League for Jewish empowerment)”

For the billionth time, as long as folks like this can run around proclaiming that it’s perfectly normal to be “liberal-American”, I say there is nothing shocking about being a gay-Republican.  I could say a liberal-American equates a Muslim-terrorist minus the Koran and the energy to do anything about their hate for America.  Unlike the fella that wrote these things about me, I find liberals who proclaim to be American anything but funny.  It’s sad, and it’s kind of sick.  Particularly when they run around pretending to care about equality for gays and blacks, plus let’s not forget their phony concern for our troops as well as their convenient sympathy for Cindy Sheehan and the Jersey Girls while they simultaneously support Stalin and the Taliban.  Perhaps I can direct this fine gent to my post regarding the liberal trick of “we like you more than they do.”

He goes on to say:

“Failing that, she then resorts to sarcasm and says that the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike In US” wasn’t specific enough and shouldn’t have roused our Chief Executive to action on his vacation because it didn’t specify that it would consist of 19 Arab men boarding three different aircraft on September 11th and striking two specific targets by name.

In other words, since the PDB didn’t contain the gate and flight numbers on each of the 19 boarding passes, her idiot hero couldn’t have possibly had enough to go on. In other words, we have to spell things out for him in inhuman detail.

Naturally, Coulter didn’t want to go into the fact that Russia, Italy and Great Britain all warned Bush around the time of the G8 summit in Genoa that bin Laden would try to assassinate him or that the Hart Rudman report in December 2000 and Paul Bremer’s National Commission on Terrorism issued a report at about the same time that specified much the same massive threat or that Richard Clarke tried to warn the incoming administration of the al Qaida threat. Instead, Clarke was ordered to find a link between Iraq and al Qaida, despite Clarke telling the administration that it simply didn’t exist.”

First, he’s setting up a strawman to avoid the point.  He also avoids her point that Al-Qaeda is “still determined to attack.”  He mentions the President taking “action” but he doesn’t tell us — as Franken could not — what that action should have been.  The idea that post-9/11, liberals won’t let us racially profile men named Mohammed boarding planes speaking Arabic; and that they are still pretending that there was something George Bush could have done before the attacks is just preposterous.  When they are faced with these facts they jump right back to: “He was warned!”

If Bush would have held Arabs in preventative detention, thrown them out of the country, or directed airport security to give the attention needed, 9/11 would not have happened.  But liberals would have then said that Bush overreacted to the memo, that civil rights of Muslim fanatics should not have been violated, and that racial profiling is uncivilized.   Come to think of it, liberals along with the ACLU would have even had another made-up reason to impeach him on seeings as protecting the country is just not acceptable in their world of tofu and poetry reading.

Liberal policies have been cleverly designed to hurt America, punish anyone who defends it, and silence anyone like Ann Coulter that exposes them and their idiotic ideology which has made it impossible for our CIA and President to protect us properly.  Liberals like Carter and Clinton let 20+ years of attacks happen all over the world and on our soil.  When it is thrown in their face like Coulter gave it to Franken, all they can say is: “Bush was warned!”

So I challenge any liberal-moonbat out there to answer this very simple question: what policy was available to Bush that would have enabled him to find out the specifics and what would they have supported him doing in response?  Most liberals out there as well as Ron Paul supporters and 9/11 conspiracy nuts continue to insinuate that America deserved 9/11. 

I’d be willing to bet this clever chap is against the Patriot Act, NSA wiretapping, holding terrorists at Guantanamo, etc.  We cannot even get them to approve of just one of Bush’s anti-terror policies post-9/11 and they continue this endless blather about “He was warned!”

I just couldn’t leave this last part out:

“Although I’m amazed that you didn’t see the delicious irony of Ann sarcastically saying that Bush should’ve just rounded up all Arabs and thrown them out of the country, which is exactly what Ann would ordinarily love to do with them and then some.”

Well sir, if he were allowed to temporarily restrain them or do something of that nature, I suspect that there would be 3,000 Americans still alive and there would not be a gaping hole in lower Manhattan.  Then again, that would be too Pro-America for your crowd, now wouldn’t it?

I have plenty of quarters, the trouble is your game and I’m sorry but it’s a bit rusty.

Comments (15)

Ron Paul Clutching Reagan’s Coattails – Continued

Aug 5, 07 12:35 AM

In response to a post I wrote just minutes ago, a commenter left the following Reagan quote in response:

“In any case, the sending of the marines to Beirut was the source of my greatest regret and my greatest sorrow as president. Every day since the death of those boys, I have prayed for them and their loved ones.”

“In the months and the years that followed, our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress. (We all felt that the Vietnam War had turned into such a tragedy because military action had been undertaken without sufficient assurances that the American people were behind it.)

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.”

What I find hilarious is that the following paragraph was left out:

 ”After the marines left Beirut, we continued a search for peace and a diplomatic solution to the problems in the Middle East. But the war in Lebanon grew even more violent, the Arab-Israeli conflict became more bitter, and the Middle East continued to be a source of problems for me and our country.” –Ronald Reagan

The main point of my post was in response to Paul supporters’ “do-nothing” policy to terrorism.  What Reagan said there was after the bombings had occurred when Congress (Democrats) was pressuring him to leave.

I wondered what he would have said after the Italian ship incident in 1985.  How about the disco-club bombing in 1986?  How about the 1988 Pan Am flight bombing? 

We had a President that did nothing in response to terrorism, remember?  His name was Bill Clinton.  The highest number of attacks happened during his tenure and Clinton never struck back (aside from the pathetic aspirin-factory bombing.)  Moreover; after Clinton ripped our troops out of Somalia, OBL told ABC that our troops were “paper-tigers” who ran in defeat.  He simutaneously was planning 9/11.

Eight years of “doing nothing” led to the worst attack ever.  Since then with Bush’s war policies and domestic policies like the Patriot Act, we have not been attacked on our soil nor has an official American interest been blown up.  His efforts have stopped terrorist plots against us and the foiled JFK plot and Fort Dixx incidents is proof that terrorists are running out of professional juice.

My only regret is we won’t fight harder within our own borders with stronger terrorism policies like racial profiling.  I also think that adding a few more bombs to our war strategy overseas could end the war a lot sooner.

We need to fight like we did in WW2 without Democratic yammering about civilians.  We need to fight like we did when we actually won wars and opportunists like Ron Paul and his supporters of conpiracy theorists did not exist.

Comments (4)

Ron Paul Clutches Reagan’s Coattails

Aug 4, 07 11:12 PM

paul.jpg

Ron Paul supporters are living in an absolute fantasy world.  On top of their insane proposal that we rip our troops out of Iraq and leave it to Al-Qaeda; and believing that just ignoring the terrorists will miraculously make it go away, they use Ronald Reagan’s good name to promote this fella who blames us for 9/11. 

The one quote out there that they keep using is the following:

“Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.” — Ronald Reagan

Let’s take a look at Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy and the ways in which he handled it.

In 1982, our Embassy in Beirut was bombed.  At the request of Lebanon, Reagan sent troops to create a peace-keeping force between Muslims and Christians.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters have approved of this judging by their standards put forth today?  Of course not. 

After the peace-keeping force was established, Muslims showed us just how peaceful they were and blew up the Marine barracks a year later killing hundreds of other American troops.  Reagan (after the Democrats in Congress harped and demanded so) withdrew our troops out of Lebanon.

Would Ron Paul or his supporters approve of this judging by the standards put forth by them today?  Of course they would!  We backed away and decided to not “intervene” anymore.

Three years later after we left, Muslims must have still been sore at Americans when they decided to hijack an Italian cruise-ship in 1985 where they decided to shoot a 69 year old passenger (American) and throw him overboard with his wheelchair.  It looks like choosing to “pull out and not intervene” didn’t work out so well.

Reagan responded by having the animals captured and handed them to Italy, who then made sure they returned safely to Iraq (the place where terrorists never lived but for the constant “intervening” of the United States).

After indirectly turning those terrorists over to safe harbor in Iraq (something that Reagan had no “direct” hand in), Muslim extremists struck again by bombing a West Berlin dance club in 1986 killing more Americans.

I wonder by looking at this crucial time period what Ron Paul and his supporters (better known as “dreamers” and “9/11 conspiracy crazies”) thinks the appropriate time table would be to sit and wait for Muslim fanatics to STOP attempting to hurt us and our interests.

I guarantee when Ronald Reagan said what he said about Ron Paul above, he had no idea that one day he would propagandize an insane position to rally support from 9/11 conspiracy theorists in order to get nominated for President.

It is clear that Muslims don’t want peace ever with the United States.  Paul and his supporters at this point are just as dangerous to our security as liberals are.

Comments (32)

More Ron Paul Idiocy

Jul 30, 07 7:59 AM

This comment cracks me up left by a commenter on my last post:

“Using fear for political ends is the very essence of the neocon strategy, historically.”

Good lord, I’ve done this before but here goes:

  • Starting in 1979 under the Carter administration, our embassies in Tehran were seized and Americans were held hostage for 444 days.
  • In 1982 the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was blown up and 63 Americans were killed.
  • In 1983 the Marine barracks in Lebanon were blown up and 241 Americans were killed.
  • In 1985 the Italian Cruise Ship was seized and American was shot and thrown overboard with his wheelchair.
  • 1986 a West-Berlin Dance Club was blown up (coincidentally the dance club was visited often by US Service Men) – two U.S. Servicemen were killed and over 50 severely wounded.
  • 1988 Pan Am Flight 103 hijacked and over 200 people were slaughtered.
  • 1993 — The first WTC bombing.
  • 1995 — A Car bomb in Saudi Arabia blew up killing five Americans.
  • 1996 – 23 U.S. Servicemen were killed in a bomb set in an Air Force Housing Complex.
  • 1997 — Another car bomb.
  • 1998 — The Embassy in Kenya was blown up. (Multiple deaths)
  • 1998 — The Embassy in Tanzania was blown up. (Multiple deaths) 
  • 2000 — USS Cole blown up (Multiple Deaths)
  • and the grand finale, 9/11!

Since then of course, there haven’t been any massive attacks on the U.S. or its interests.  I guess those “neocon” scare tactics are paying off somewhat.

Tell me, was it neocon scare tactics that caused the destruction committed in 20 years mentioned above?

The truth is out there staring us in the face.  We never needed a 9/11 commission and we certainly don’t need someone as misguided as Ron Paul.

Finally, Michelle Malkin points out that Ron Paul has visited Alex Jones on a couple of occasions.  Do you know who Alex Jones is? 

Man, I guess Paul will get support wherever he can.

More from Malkin’s article where she actually quoted “Scholars for 9/11 Truth”

“In regards to Rep. Ron Paul, he states twice in the Student Scholars video that he believes that the first 9/11 investigation was one in which there many “cover-ups.” Paul also claimed he “never automatically believes anything the government does when they do an investigation.” Additionally, he has been on the Alex Jones show several times. Ron Paul knows very well that something is very wrong with the official explanation of 9/1l. However, like Dennis Kucinich he cannot look right into our cameras and proclaim “9/11 WAS A SELF INFLICTED WOUND!” Through acknowledging the legitimacy of the 9/11 Truth Movement’s concerns, these candidates are expressing their support for our cause.”

Be sure to respond and remind me again how this is all just an evil plan of neocon war-mongers.  Moreover; make the claim that it is the fault of the United States for all terror attacks in the last 20 years. 

Comments (57)
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 347 other followers