Has it really been 16 years?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is definitely true. We let them abuse their relationship with us too much. Especially Israel. They have no business lobbying our Congress.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is definitely true. We let them abuse their relationship with us too much. Especially Israel. They have no business lobbying our Congress.

For any elected official to allow lobbying of them by a foreign power....that should be considered treason.

In the last election we had all matter of hell break out over DJT's crew talking with Russia. Whether what they were doing was intended to be nefarious or not, the fact is it is nothing new. Non-state employees and candidates interact with foreign agents all the time, each and every day. And im willing to bet that as often as not, its more about pursuing said foreign agents agenda.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

That is definitely true. We let them abuse their relationship with us too much. Especially Israel. They have no business lobbying our Congress.

For any elected official to allow lobbying of them by a foreign power....that should be considered treason.

Yeah. That is a huge conflict of interest. Israel has no interest in our wellbeing except outside of our goals being aligned.

In the last election we had all matter of hell break out over DJT's crew talking with Russia. Whether what they were doing was intended to be nefarious or not, the fact is it is nothing new. Non-state employees and candidates interact with foreign agents all the time, each and every day. And im willing to bet that as often as not, its more about pursuing said foreign agents agenda.

It shouldn't be the norm. That's how we got into the situation in the first place.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It shouldn't be, you are right.

And I hope something changes. I don't hold out hope. Nothing ever really changes, other than for the worse.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
They have no business lobbying our Congress.

I agree with the Texan, lobbying is bad enough but when foreign powers can openly buy influence it migrates into treasonous behavior.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yeah. I ain't opposed to that either.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


I'll grab the tiki torches.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: Krazysh0t


That's where I was going. Just bring a flag to cool me off.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No worries, man. I actually respect how you call out BS, even when that BS comes from people you're cool with (like me lol). I have no clue how I'd be able to follow up on most of this stuff, though. And the people who would potentially be involved would be so powerful that I wouldn't be able to do anything if I had the necessary evidence.

The only one that I can imagine getting "busted" would be the Saudi Prince Bandar and that's because of the info in that 28 page 9/11 document. He's also the one who supposedly threatened Putin with a Chechen Wahhabi insurgency if he didn't go along with some anti-Iran plan a few years ago (I think it was opposing the Obama-Iran deal). And it was one of his "rebel" groups that supposedly did the first chemical weapon attack in Syria in order to call Obama's "red line" bluff.

Then again, he's got multiple properties in the US & was on such good terms w/Dubya that he got the nickname "Bandar Bush". And when the West needs "boots on the ground" in our proxy wars on Muslim soil, he's sure to be involved in some capacity. I don't know Saudi domestic politics well enough to know if they would hand over Bandar if our govt actually followed up on any of this, but I also doubt that our political powerbrokers would go after him in the first place. Then again, maybe it's his assets that some of these 9/11 lawsuits are going after? Who knows.

As for the super lobbyist Jack Abramoff, he went to jail for a while over a completely unrelated scandal. But he's supposedly back as a lobbyist now. And the hijacker Atta's appearance on his casino boat could've easily been an exchange of funds between Atta & some other guests without Abramoff's knowledge. Or Atta could've just gone there coincidentally because he wanted to gamble. I wouldn't even care about him if it weren't for the fact that Abramoff was a powerful lobbyist back then & some of his clients could've also had a hand in the conspiracy I'd outlined in my previous plan. So maybe the appearance on the boat was to let his clients meet their high priced merc and confirm the final details?

Of course, most of my interpretations are just speculation. And like I said before, even if I could get the info I want, I doubt anything would happen. I mean, a Democratic controlled House, Senate, and Presidency wouldn't even prosecute the torture policy writers or any Bush officials for their roles in that or the lead up to the Iraq War. At this point, I don't even think most people in the US care about 9/11 or any extra people who may have been involved in it.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Yeah. It's unlikely that there will ever be any adequate conclusion to the story from then. Then once Hollywood gets a hold of it, no one will remember it correctly again.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Maybe it's controlled opposition. Get everyone to fight over the weirder stuff so that no one focuses on the real conspiracies. And by the time any info comes out about the real conspiracies, everyone's already moved on to the next scandal.

a reply to: enlightenedservant


It's a valid point and I'm sure some of the players in the actual conspiracies are just fine with the woo-woos talking about nano-frickin-thermite.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Salander
I don't believe Bush is guilty of anything except being a poor leader.

But you're going to take a pass on explaining why he and Cheney fought any investigation for 2 years? Why am I not surprised......

I suppose you would also take a pass on commenting on why Dubya & Dick would not testify under oath, and did testify behind closed doors (like Rodriguez did) to the commission?