DiscussMormonism.com

Al Qaeda attacked the WTC in 1993 and 2001. Both times it was in the first year of a new administration. United Airlines 93 was probably headed towards the US Capital when it crashed. based on this, the probable target of an 2009 attack is the Capital if Al Qaeda is capable of such an attack. What do you think about this?

I don't even think about it. I am so tired of being told I should be afraid.

Let's not even get into in how many directions I should be afraid for my immortal soul as a postmo. That is in itself mind-boggling.

Even from my government I am supposed to be afraid and duck when Washington says so. From rationalizations of groundless wars, 700 million dollar economic bailouts, and various "axis of evils", I am supposed to quiver with fear.

Bush and Co. has even told me how afraid I am supposed to be on a daily basis with their "yellow," "orange," etc. days.

Good grief.

They have cried wolf too many times for my liking. I have a number of flights scheduled during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday seasons as well as the new year. I certainly am not going to let fear direct my life.

Besides, if it happens, it will probably be so quick, I won't have a chance to even care.

I would if I were them. Especially if Obama were elected. It would force him to either make good on his promises to his terrorist friends on the liberal left to withdraw or it would force him to implicitly acknowledge that Bush has been right all along by responding appropriately to the attack. Al Qaeda is more likely to assume a Spain II imho.

A guy who should know agrees with me

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The nation's chief intelligence official warned Thursday that a new president's first year in office is the most perilous time for the country.

"I would say the period of most vulnerability for the United States is the first year of a new president," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told an annual conference of intelligence officials and contractors in Nashville, Tennessee, on Thursday.

McConnell cited the attack on the World Trade Center shortly after Bill Clinton took over the presidency in 1993 and the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington, which occurred less than eight months after George W. Bush took the oath of office.

McConnell's comments seemed similar to those made recently by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was criticized when he suggested his running mate Barack Obama would be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in office. Biden referred to it as a "generated crisis to test the mettle" of Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/30/mcconnell.terror/index.html

CNN wrote:McConnell's comments seemed similar to those made recently by Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, who was criticized when he suggested his running mate Barack Obama would be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in office. Biden referred to it as a "generated crisis to test the mettle" of Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/30/mcconnell.terror/index.html[/quote]

Oh sweet mother of Irony... If Biden says it you morons deny it and go on with idiotic and often borderline racist attacks on Obama's supposed "terrorist" ties, but when a Bush Administration Butt Muppet says the EXACT same thing, you retards start tripping all over yourselves to quote it as a sign that Obama is the first sign of the coming apocalypse.

Angus McAwesome wrote:Oh sweet mother of Irony... If Biden says it you morons deny it and go on with idiotic and often borderline racist attacks on Obama's supposed "terrorist" ties, but when a Bush Administration Butt Muppet says the EXACT same thing, you retards start tripping all over yourselves to quote it as a sign that Obama is the first sign of the coming apocalypse.

Using insults is not a way to increase discussion. Biden's comment has not been denied by conservatives; we have been shouting it from the rooftops. The point about the One is that his inexperience makes it even more likely that he will be challenged. Remember how Iran freed the hostages just as Reagan became president. They were afraid to challenge him the way they had challenged Carter. All new presidents are liable to be pressed but a weak naïve guy like BHO is a bigger than normal target.

richardMdBorn wrote:Using insults is not a way to increase discussion.

Fair enough, exclude yourself from the rest of the morons, Rich.

richardMdBorn wrote:The point about the One is that his inexperience makes it even more likely that he will be challenged.

And exactly what executive leadership experience does McCain have that would make him more qualified? Oh, right... He doesn't have any either. And you can go on about Palin's supposed "experience", but you know as well as I do (even though you probably won't admit it) that having a border with Canada and a 90+ mile body of water between Alaska and Russia is NOT foreign policy experience.

richardMdBorn wrote:Remember how Iran freed the hostages just as Reagan became president. They were afraid to challenge him the way they had challenged Carter.

Which completely contradicts the point you're trying to make, Rich. At the time he was Elected, Reagan had precisely zero foreign policy experience and his military policy experience at the time consisted of having been an actor in a few bad westerns, never mind the Iran-Contra affair and other back channel deals that were actually responsible for the release of the hostages...

But let's not let petty things like facts could our debate, amirite?

richardMdBorn wrote:All new presidents are liable to be pressed but a weak naïve guy like BHO is a bigger than normal target.

You mean like Clinton was? Clinton proceeded to use US military force at least once every two weeks for the remainder of his presidency, and got us involved in that fun little "peace keeping" jaunt through what used to be Yogoslavia... I think you're exaggerating your case a bit much, Rich. Look back on our history and you'll notice that a lot of times it's the supposedly naïve and inexperienced guys that tend to be some of our greatest asskickers.

The government carried out both of the attacks on the WTC.
Especially good evidence for attack on WTC in 1993.
I wasn't aware of Al Qaeda ever being blamed for it.
Amad Salam (spelling?) .. Egyptian fellow -- no supposed "connections" with A-q as I'm aware.

There has been a lot of talk about a second 9/11 for a while.
Just yet another false-flag attack, but when it happens, it'll be used to justify military rule or some other major form of taking peoples liberties away.

Oh goodie... It's one of "those" people.

Brenton wrote:The government carried out both of the attacks on the WTC.

And your evidence for this is which idiotic and easily refuted crackpot conspiracy sight? By all means, bring out moronic conspiracy wankings about thermite and pre-planted explosives and how several hundred thousand people hallucinated seeing a pair of aircraft fly into two very large and highly visible parts of the New York skyline.

Brenton wrote:Especially good evidence for attack on WTC in 1993.
I wasn't aware of Al Qaeda ever being blamed for it.
Amad Salam (spelling?) .. Egyptian fellow -- no supposed "connections" with A-q as I'm aware.

You mean Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who was captured at an AL Qaeda safehouse in Islamabad, Pakistan, and openly stated at his trial "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government."?

Or are you talking about Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was the leader of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, had close ties with Osama Bin laden, and was a member of Al Qaeda?

Seriously, stop reading conspiracy websites before your brain is rotted further and you're unable to even form the semi-coherent ramblings you post now.

Brenton wrote:There has been a lot of talk about a second 9/11 for a while.
Just yet another false-flag attack, but when it happens, it'll be used to justify military rule or some other major form of taking peoples liberties away.

I don't even conspire.
Clearly the government in the very least allowed it to happen.
The Airspace Command failed multiple times in one day, and it had NEVER failed before.
It wouldn't be questionable if maybe one of the attacks were succesful, but since they -all- were...

In regards to all the thermite discussion, well ... the only problem there is that patented thermite was the sort found -- the sort used especially for explosive/deconstruction of buildings. However that has no regard to me.
The other problem with saying that thermite had nothing to do with it is the molten steel. Jet fuel simply gets nowhere near hot enough to melt steel or iron.

No, I don't deny the planes actually hit, that's a no-brainer and I cannot sympathise with those who say the planes were "edited in". However, since you seem such an expert on structures I must ask you ... building 7? ;)

You mean Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, who was captured at an AL Qaeda safehouse in Islamabad, Pakistan, and openly stated at his trial "Yes, I am a terrorist, and proud of it as long as it is against the U.S. government."?

Or are you talking about Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was the leader of Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, had close ties with Osama Bin laden, and was a member of Al Qaeda?

Seriously, stop reading conspiracy websites before your brain is rotted further and you're unable to even form the semi-coherent ramblings you post now.

No I don't mean any of them. The 1993 bombing was CIA sponsored, I'll try find the information later -- but ofcourse you clearly already accept a closed view, whereas I'm open to new information.
Anyway, the 1993 bombing didn't kill enough people -- so then Oklahoma city was attacked and enough people were killed. Not too long after the first anti-terror legislation which takes away many constitutional rights and civil liberties is passed.

In the end the problem isn't if the government did this or lied about that. The problem is the system itself and we all need to change so we can change this world into a much more fair and just world for all human beings.

Edit; I just had a thought ...
I do not know anybody that does not or has not questioned 9/11 among other attacks...
Not the least of reasons being that buildings do not fall straight down, and explode outward ... or fall at free-fall speed ... that's pretty wierd.
The pancake theory as described in the commission report doesn't allow for the building to explode outward ... the floors should've been stacked up to a certain height still .... not pulverised to smitherines.

Found a snippet of the information I was looking for...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs
Why the FBI got away with the first WTC bombing (article)
Just for your consideration, I'm not expecting you to say "wow! you have enlightened me!", just remember.