Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Santorum Exploits 9/11 Tragedy by Repeating Bush’s Lie That America Was Attacked Because Muslims “Hate our Freedoms”


Ron Paul gets booed for simply speaking the truth as to why we were attacked on 9/11

by Larry Simons
September 13, 2011

In yesterday’s Tea Party debate in Florida, the issue of 9/11 and national security came up. Texas Congressman Ron Paul chimed in and gave his typical response, that we should cut military spending, bring the troops home and stop being the policemen of the world.

Neocon and Christian nut Rick Santorum was called on to respond to Congressmen Paul. Santorum mentioned that Ron Paul had a post on his website on Sunday that had blamed the United States for the September 11, 2001 attacks. In his Guiliani-esque manner, never to miss a chance to exploit 9/11 for his personal gain, especially since the 10th anniversary of 9/11 was just the day prior, Santorum said this to Paul:

“You said that it was our actions that brought about the actions of 9/11. Now, Congressman Paul, that is irresponsible….someone who is running for the President of the United States in the Republican Party, should not be parroting what Osama bin Laden said on 9/11. We are not being attacked, and we were not attacked because of our actions. We were attacked….because we have a civilization that is antithetical to the civilization of the jihadist. And they want to kill us because of who we are and what we stand for. We stand for American exceptionalism. We stand for freedom and opportunity for everybody around the world.”

Thank you George W. Giuliani.

Not only is Santorum flat out lying and regurgitating a decade-old debunked issue, but he is exploiting the 9/11 tragedy by lying to the American people just one day after the 10th anniversary of the attacks.

Congressman Paul responded in the midst of being booed. The booing was without a doubt a direct result from the fact that 9/11 is heavily on the minds of the Florida crowd since it was a day after the 10th anniversary of the attacks. Santorum knew that, and wanted to seize the opportunity to exploit that fact so bad, he did so with a colossal lie.

Santorum knew that since it was a day after the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, all he had to do was spew the buzz words: freedom, 9/11 and Bin Laden, and the Jeb Bush-loving Florida crowd would erupt with thunderous applause and boo anyone who thought otherwise.

Paul responded:

“As long as this country follows that idea, we’re going to be under a lot of danger. This whole idea that the whole Muslim world is responsible for this and they’re attacking us because we’re free and prosperous, that is just not true. Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, they have been explicit and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia, you do not give Palestinians a fair treatment and you have been bombing…[crowd boos]…I didn’t say that, I’m trying to get you to understand what the motive was behind the bombing. At the same time, we had been bombing and killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for 10 years. Would you be annoyed? If you’re not annoyed, there’s some problem.”



It turns out that Ron Paul is correct. In a 1998 interview conducted by ABC’s John Miller, Bin Laden said these words:

“The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.”

To the question asked by Miller [to bin Laden]:

You've been painted in America as a terrorist leader. To your followers, you are a hero. How do you see yourself?

Osama said this:

As I have said, we are not interested in what America says. We do not care. We view ourselves and our brothers like everyone else. Allah created us to worship Him and to follow in his footsteps and to be guided by His Book. I am one of the servants of Allah and I obey his orders. Among those is the order to fight for the word of Allah ... and to fight until the Americans are driven out of all the Islamic countries.”

Does that sound like Osama has ever sat around giving a two-cent shit that Americans are FREE?

One idiot blogger is so desperate to distort and twist Ron Paul’s words, that she deliberately lied and said when Ron Paul said “I didn’t say that” after the boos started, he was denying what he just said. I posted this on her blog, and naturally it was deleted.

You said:

"The audience was right to boo Paul’s follow-up….especially on the remark about the Palestinians. Ron Paul immediately said, when he heard the boos, “I didn’t say that.” Oh yes, you did say that, Congressman Paul."

Paul wasn't denying that HE said something by saying, "I didn't say that". He is clearly speaking the words of bin Laden prior to the boos, and when the crowd booed, he is simply saying, "I didn't say that" [in other words, he is saying "these aren't MY words", they are bin Laden's]. Anyone can clearly understand that. But you, like Santorum, LIE on your blog and make it appear as if Ron Paul is denying his own words. He's not. He's saying those aren't HIS words, they're bin Laden's. Now, will you make the correction or leave the LIE posted?

It truly amazes me that even after 10 years since 9/11, people still believe this monstrous lie that Muslims “hate us for our freedoms”. It’s long-debunked and just plain moronic. If this was true, why did it take them 225 years [between 1776 and 2001] to discover we are free and prosperous? The World Trade Center had been around since 1971. We weren’t free and prosperous in 1971?

Rick Santorum is a lying, neocon Christian lunatic. His own state of Pennsylvania didn’t even want him re-elected in 2006, what makes him believe anyone wants him as President?

To illustrate the intellect of this Floridian audience, below is a clip during the health care questioning of last night’s debate of Wolf Blitzer asking Ron Paul a hypothetical question. Blitzer asks Ron Paul what he would do if a healthy 30-year-old man who made a good living decided not to buy health care because he was healthy, but then all of a sudden became ill and really needed the health care. Blitzer then asked, “Should society just let him die?”

The crowd erupted with applause and you can hear several people say “Yeah!”. Ron Paul disagreed with the cheering audience and said simply that it’s not the government’s responsibility and that when he practiced medicine in the early 1960’s, the community and churches took care of the sick and Dr. Paul personally never turned anyone away.

This Florida crowd of mindless barbarians would do otherwise, as indicated in the below clip. They cheer the idea of letting an uninsured man die. This alone makes me happy they booed Ron Paul.

Keep in mind, these audience members were the same lunatics who booed Ron Paul when he gave the real reason we were attacked on 9/11. Apparently, these people aren't real Tea Party members; they are members of the Insane Tea Party that was hijacked by their nutty leaders, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman.

watch the clip

27 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

Larry writes that

"Bin Laden said these words:...."

----

I thought you said Bin Laden wasn't real. I thought you said he was a representative of the CIA etc.

Now you are saying american foreign policy should be decided by the words of Bin Laden - a CIA asset.

I thought you opposed what the CIA wanted.

Yet if Bin Laden is mouthing what the CIA want, and you and Ron Paul are supporting the argument he makes.......then that makes you and Ron Paul subservient to the "false flag" demands of the CIA acting through the CIA.

What say you to that?

the_last_name_left said...

sorry this sentence

" then that makes you and Ron Paul subservient to the "false flag" demands of the CIA acting through the CIA."

should read

then that makes you and Ron Paul subservient to the "false flag" demands of the CIA acting through Al Qaida"

the_last_name_left said...

If you are going to say AQ is a false CIA front organisation, you can't then tout AQ's position as a real position, representing the real demands of the Mid East, Islam, etc.

You can't use AQ's position as a criticism of american foreign policy if you are to claim AQ is really a representative of american foreign policy.

Come on! This is an outrageous betrayal of everything you have been saying for years.

You have claimed AQ is really a false front of american imperial interests - yet here you are touting AQ's view as a reason to justify a new American foreign policy of non-intervention!

Accepting such a view of AQ for a moment, you are saying the CIA (who run AQ according to you) want america to get out of Middle East, and to stop attacking "muslim countries" etc.

You're saying America should do that - because it generates terrorism otherwise.

Even though at the same time you claim AQ is a product of the CIA>

Come off it. You have just jumped the shark, big style.

Nothing you say even makes sense anymore.

If you want to persist with your idea that AQ is essentially a false flag CIA asset type thing, fair enough.

But you bust your own idea wide opne when you then go saying AQ are motivated by USA intervention in Middle east etc.

The CIA running AQ want America to retrench and go home? Is that what you are saying? YOU HAVE NEVER SAID IT BEFORE>

the_last_name_left said...

This is brilliant.

This is the end of Ron Paul.

the_last_name_left said...

L: If this was true, why did it take them 225 years [between 1776 and 2001] to discover we are free and prosperous? The World Trade Center had been around since 1971. We weren’t free and prosperous in 1971?
---------------

haha - that's a funny line, Larry.

You can be funny and smart when you're pointed the right way, it just happens too rarely.

For those few moments there you were dealing with reality, and you were sharp and funny. That disappears when reality disappears from your perspective - which it does once you cross into conspiracism.

Give it up, and get real, and you can regain the funny and sharp Larry.

In this piece on RP you are taking AQ for real.....and so you are in touch with reality.....and so you can be funny. It works.

The thing is, you usually don't take AQ for real.....you paint them as imposters, a false-front to enable the American elite's bidding.

But such a view doesn't make sense if one accepts RP's reasoning, as in the quotes you give.

Think about it? The two positions are mutually exclusive.

If AQ is CIA, then you can't argue AQ is a response to American interventionism.

And if AQ is a response to American interventionism, you can't argue it is a CIA front designed to enable American interventionism.

Do the CIA want America to stop intervening abroad? That's what one would need believe, if one believes the CIA runs AQ.

That's clear and obvious, no? And I think the fact you're sharp and funny about reality shows that deep down you know the score - AQ is not the CIA.

Give up all that bullshit, Larry? Embrace reality? Be funny, and sharp, and nice once again? why not?

rob said...

ron paul schools another ass fuck in front of the nation. parry is a buildaberg group member anyway, he violated the logan act the dick. this will pull more people to the truth and dr ron paul. screw faux news. ron paul put the other candidates in thier place like larry puts this last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left in his place. another fraud exposed here on this site. last cock in mouth puts up a fight like his grand dad fought boredom in ww11. hes a fn joke. one day hell debunk something here.

Larry said...

"I thought you said Bin Laden wasn't real."

Never said that...not ONCE.

"I thought you said he was a representative of the CIA etc."

I did. How's that make him NOT real?

"Now you are saying american foreign policy should be decided by the words of Bin Laden - a CIA asset."

Not what Im saying at ALL. AT ALL.

"Yet if Bin Laden is mouthing what the CIA want, and you and Ron Paul are supporting the argument he makes.......then that makes you and Ron Paul subservient to the "false flag" demands of the CIA acting through the CIA."

You've lost your fucking mind.

You, ONCE AGAIN, miss the entire point. OR, you really do see my point and are PRETENDING to miss it to "get my goat". Really all you're doing is making a horse's ass of yourself.

My entire point is this:

Whether the CIA invented al Qaeda or Bin Laden is an CIA asset or not is NOT the issue here.

My ONLY point in my story is that Santorum is echoing LONG-DEBUNKED rhetoric. Even George Bush HIMSELF has admitted this is bunk, and yet Santorum is still spewing it.

What Ron Paul said is ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED, so whether Bin Laden is a CIA asset or NOT is NOT the issue. It's ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED that Bin Laden DID say these words, and that ALONE makes Santorum WRONG.

I personally don't believe that Bin Laden or the 19 hijackers was involved---and even if they WERE, they were hired guns by our government [black ops] to make it happen....but it STILL remains FACT that Bin Laden said these words...it's DOCUMENTED, and that alone makes Ron Paul CORRECT and Santorum a lying douchbag.

What I PERSONALLY believe about the history and background of the CIA, Bin Laden or 9/11 does NOT CHANGE one thing about whether Ron Paul is RIGHT or not. His info is from DOCUMENTED, ON RECORD information. Whereas Santorum's info is based on made-up, unproven and DEBUNKED BULLSHIT.

There has not been ONE SINGLE terrorist before or SINCE 9/11 that has stated they "hate us/attack us for our freedoms".

Not ONE.

Anonymous said...

the last fraud is exposed again. why do people come to this site to get destroyed? another lamb to slaughter. larry has won yet again.

the_last_name_left said...

Ok.

Answer a simple question?

Why did AQ attack USA?

Anonymous said...

better question. why are you a fn idiot? and why did your grand dad fight boredom in the war? you fn dick.

the_last_name_left said...

Grow up?

And Larry, nobody is taken in by you posting 'anonymous' comments.

Larry said...

"Grow up?"

Ahhh yes, more dodge and deflect. Since you obviously have a reading problem, I will post it yet AGAIN:

"My ONLY point in my story is that Santorum is echoing LONG-DEBUNKED rhetoric. Even George Bush HIMSELF has admitted this is bunk, and yet Santorum is still spewing it.

What Ron Paul said is ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED, so whether Bin Laden is a CIA asset or NOT is NOT the issue. It's ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED that Bin Laden DID say these words, and that ALONE makes Santorum WRONG.

I personally don't believe that Bin Laden or the 19 hijackers was involved---and even if they WERE, they were hired guns by our government [black ops] to make it happen....but it STILL remains FACT that Bin Laden said these words...it's DOCUMENTED, and that alone makes Ron Paul CORRECT and Santorum a lying douchbag.

What I PERSONALLY believe about the history and background of the CIA, Bin Laden or 9/11 does NOT CHANGE one thing about whether Ron Paul is RIGHT or not. His info is from DOCUMENTED, ON RECORD information. Whereas Santorum's info is based on made-up, unproven and DEBUNKED BULLSHIT.

There has not been ONE SINGLE terrorist before or SINCE 9/11 that has stated they "hate us/attack us for our freedoms".

Not ONE."

"And Larry, nobody is taken in by you posting 'anonymous' comments."

I only post under "Larry" [not logged in] and "Real Truth Online" [logged in]. I dont give a rats asshole if you dont believe it.

I ALREADY post stories under my REAL name---unlike COWARDS like YOU that are AFRAID to post their real name [for fear that when they post LIES and DISINFO, the LIE and DISINFO will be attributed to YOU]because youre a fucking pussy coward. If not a coward, can we all have your REAL name please?

No? LOL. That's what we thought.

the_last_name_left said...

What Ron Paul said is ON RECORD and DOCUMENTED
=====================

For sure.

BUT IS IT TRUE?

It is also on record and documented that George Bush said "they attacked us for our freedoms" etc.

He said it, but was it true?

So is it true what Bin Laden said or not?

If it is true that the leader of AQ said that - and it is also true that AQ is a CIA asset - then the CIA must want people to believe that interventionist American foreign policy causes terrorism.

That's the implication of what you are saying.

Larry said...

"It is also on record and documented that George Bush said "they attacked us for our freedoms" etc."

God, you are a fucking MORON. There is NO PROOF that what Bush said is true. Where's the PROOF that they "attack us for our freedoms"??

I fucking QUOTED Bin Laden saying what the VERY REASON IS THEY ATTACK US, and your response is "but is it true?" Whether it's true or not isn't the point. It is the reason that is STATED by Bin Laden himself as the reason.

On the other hand, there is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that we get attacked because we are FREE.

I even stated you previously:

"There has not been ONE SINGLE terrorist before or SINCE 9/11 that has stated they "hate us/attack us for our freedoms"."

And naturally you keep IGNORING that.

So, I ask you this-- you fucking moron:

Name ONE terrorist that has said, find ONE story stating or one shred of evidence that we get attacked for "our freedoms". Find ONE shred of evidence that is true. I will be here waiting on it.

the_last_name_left said...

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you?

If it is true that the leader of AQ said that - and it is also true that AQ is a CIA asset - then the CIA must want people to believe that interventionist American foreign policy causes terrorism.

And therefore your American "black-ops" which you believe runs Al Qaida must in fact have undertaken 911 so as to encourage America to change foreign policy - to a policy of LESS INTERVENTION in Middle East and the 'Nations of Islam' etc.

In which case, the War on Terror would suggest they failed abysmally - and that their "black op" failed completely as it produced results completely opposite to what they set out to do.

It's quite funny how you are now suggesting 911 was a false flag operation designed to get America to withdraw from intervention abroad.

You're also suggesting the War on Terror was a completely unexpected result to these black-ops people (CIA or whoever you think was really running AQ)

And that completely undermines what you supposed was the rationale for the black-op of 911 in the first place.

And that completely undermines your reasons for believing in a grand conspiracy.

Why did the CIA etc running this supposed false flag terrorist outfit (AQ) want America to withdraw from the Middle East?

--

You just don't get it.......yet you're posturing like you still have a point......as if your whole reasoning about 911 and the War on Terror hasn't been fatally undermined......

the_last_name_left said...

You see, here's a report about Iranian President Ahamdinejad on the subject:

=========
"The Iranian president has previously called the 9/11 attack a "suspect event" and a "big fabrication" used to justify the US war on terrorism."
--------

If it's a fabrication it can't be BOTH the cause and justification for the War on Terror AND the cause and justification for a policy of disengagement.

Duh!

So which is it?

the_last_name_left said...

Here's Larry writing a little while ago:

===
Show me ONR article, ONE link, ONE source that says the FBI HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE THAT BIN LADEN CARRIED OUT 9/11.
===

lol - Larry believes the FBI have no evidence, but Ron Paul does.

hilarious.

According to Larry Ron Paul has enough evidence on which to rest his proposal to change the entire US foreign policy.

Because Ron Paul wants to change foreign policy, suddenly Osama DID claim responsibility......suddenly 911 shows the error of foreign intervention.....

whereas any other time Osama never claimed responsibility and 911 was a flaseflag to JUSTIFY foreign intervention.

Man, you spin so fast you must get dizzy.

You face both ways. You're being silly and transparently opportunist - you just paint yourself into a corner of incoherence.

For Ron Paul's point to be sustainable it demands that OBL claimed responsibility and that AQ did it.

You've spent years denying that exact thing.

You've been chundering on for years about how 911 was a flaseflag event desgned to JUSTIFY the War on Terror.........but suddenly because RonPaul says so you believe 911 now justifies American non-intervention......

which means that if AQ were really a CIA/black-ops/false flag operation......then AQ's controllers must really have wanted the USA to withdraw from the Arab World, the Mid East, Afghanistan etc.

Hilarious.

Especially as you have been saying the exact opposite for 10 years.

You're a busted flush, Lars. There's no way out of it - your entire argument is bust.

the_last_name_left said...

Here's Larry again from a while back:


---
With Bush, you had his supporters [supporting the wars] and his opposition [opposing the wars]. It was two camps of people...simple.
===

So, if 911 was false-flag designed to get USA to leave the middle east etc - as Larry is now arguing - then Bush and his supporters couldn't have been involved.....because they SUPPORTED the wars (obviously).

But if Bushco were involved, as LArry has been arguing for 10 years, then 911 can't be used as a reason for disengagement.

You can't use supposedly false-flag terrorism as a reason to oppose policy which generates supposed terrorism.


If 911 was really AQ and AQ are REAL.....then Ron Paul has a point.

But if AQ are not "real" and 911 was a falseflag operation then Ron Paul is talking rubbish.

You can't have it both ways.

So which is it?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry again

----
Obama is in power and he is carrying out the neocon foreign policy of the Bush regime.
====

So, if an interventionist policy is "neocon foreign policy of Bush regime".......how on earth can 911 be a falseflag operation?

If it were it would mean Bushco weren't involved.....and that whoever it was who carried out the supposed "falseflag" of 911 OPPOSES "NeoCon Bush regime" policy.

Your position is untenable Larry. Better to face it.

the_last_name_left said...

LArry again:

----
I have always claimed these wars, 9/11, Iraq, etc... was never about Osama. He was NEVER important to me, dead or alive. He's a CIA operative and our boogie man whenever a tragic event created by our own government took place so we'd have someone to blame.
======

Oh, so Osama wasn't important before......but now Ron Paul blames him for 911 then suddenly Larry changes his tune.

Ron Paul is claiming OBL/AQ did 911 Larry - and he is using it to justify his wish to "bring the troops home".

If 911 was a falseflag operation, then they didn't do it because of American interventionist foreign policy --- therefore one cannot use it to argue "we should bring the troops home" rah rah rah.


You really must abandon something Larry - either Ron Paul's view of 911 and his argument for bringing troops home, OR your idea that 911 was falseflag/inside job.

Which will you abandon?

Neither? haha.

the_last_name_left said...

Ron Paul said

-----
Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have been explicit, they have been explicit and they wrote and said that we attacked America because you had bases on our holy land in Saudi Arabia..........
=====

Larry says Ron Paul is correct.

But Larry also says 911 was "falseflag", that OBL and AQ are unimportant, etc/

Tut tut Larry - you're clearly facing two-ways on this.

funny.

LArry says

----
Ron Paul .. gave the real reason we were attacked on 9/11.
=====

And yet Larry also says

======
I have always claimed these wars, 9/11, Iraq, etc... was never about Osama. He was NEVER important to me, dead or alive. He's a CIA operative and our boogie man whenever a tragic event created by our own government took place so we'd have someone to blame.
======

So......Larry believes the real reason America was attacked was for the reasons given by OBL, but Larry also believes 911 was a falseflag operation and OBL and AQ are irrelevant.

LOL.

Come on larry, give it up?

Either RP is wrong, or you and the other Truthers are.

Which is it?

the_last_name_left said...

Here's the Janus-like Larry writing previously:

----
documents prepared by the Rumsfeld Pentagon reveal that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may have never been about terror at all (which is what I have been saying for years now).

=====

Yes, that IS what you have been saying for years Larry.

Only problem is you AGREE with Ron Paul who says something quite different.

Gotcha.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry wrote: Our own FBI has admitted that it never had enough evidence that Bin Laden carried out 9/11, but you would not know that from listening to politicians or watching the news.
======

Oh, but what about Ron Paul?

Larry said...

You are the biggest fucktard Ive ever had the displeasure to tolerate.

I'm going to say this one last time so maybe, MAYBE you will understand and then Im never going to address it again because Im sick and tired of putting up with brain dead shit fucks like you.

Whether Bin Laden carried out 9-11 or not is NOT THE FUCKING POINT. Get that? It's NOT THE FUCKING POINT. I have ALREADY addressed this. My article is NOT about whether OBL REALLY carried out 9-11. Do you get that?????? Do you, you stupid fuck??

It's about the REASON WHY THEY ATTACK US. In fact, the quote from Bin Laden in my story is from 1998----THREE FUCKING YEARS BEFORE 9-11, so you continuing this fixation on 9-11 specifically is a moot point. It's not about any ONE, IN PARTICULAR terrorist attack. It's about the OVERALL reason they hate us----and it's because we are always OVER THERE in their fucking business---and it's NOT because they "hate our freedoms" like Rick the DICK Santorum claims.

Get it now?? Or do you need pictures?

I noticed that in all of your senseless posts you never did give evidence and PROOF of ONE terrorist claiming they attack us "for our freedoms". I've asked for this evidence THREE times now, and you keep IGNORING it.

WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE that Santorum is right????? HUH??????????????

HUH?????????????

HUH?????????????

Now GO AWAY you stupid fuckstick.

Anonymous said...

the last cock in mouth queenie fraud name left is debunked, refuted and defeated yet again.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry says this blog of his is

----
"about the REASON WHY THEY ATTACK US."
====

Indeed. But who did it and why?

You're now saying AQ attacked USA.....and they did it for all the reasons Bin Laden said - eg military bases in SaudiaArabia.

The problem is you have been saying something quite different for the last number of years.

Until now you have been saying AQ attacked America because it is a false-front utilised by the American government to provide a reason for intervention in the MiddleEast etc.

But now you're agreeing with Ron Paul that AQ attacked USA because of "bases in Saudia, support for ISrael, blah blah blah".

Those are essentially mutually exclusive reasons, Larry. They cannot both be true.

1) IF AQ attacked America because of bases in Saudi Arabia, support for Israel, blah blah blah, then AQ represents genuine (and somewhat legitimate) concerns of the people in those nations and of Islam. If that is the case, then Ron Paul has a point - bringing the troops home may well reduce the risk of terrorism from AQ and others.

2) If AQ attacked America because it is a false-flag organisation used to justify The War on Terror, then Ron Paul's point makes no sense, and 'bringing the troops home' will not make any difference to the threat of AQ terror.

If AQ attacked America because it is really an entity controlled by the American government (or elements of it) then it makes no sense to suggest America should bring the troops home so as to prevent terrorism - which is what RonPaul is arguing - a view which you claim to support.

Whilst if Ron Paul is correct, and AQ attacked America because of bases in Saudi etc then it makes no sense to claim it was an inside job, that it was a false-flag event, a giant conspiracy by the neo-con cabal, whatever.

You understand the point?

You have been saying for years that AQ is really a false-flag operation, used to cause justification for American intervention - a New Pearl Harbour.

But now you're agreeing with Ron Paul that it was actually about genuine grievances, such as bases in Saudia Arabia, support for Israel re Palestine, intervention in MidEast, etc.

If 911 etc were about genuine grievances, then it isn't false-flag.

If it is false-flag it isn't about the grievances which Ron Paul (and OBL) claim.

And now you're getting grumpy because you know you're in an contradictory position which undermines all that you have said about 911 these last years.

To sustain your belief in AQ as false-flag you would have to admit RonPaul is wrong about why AQ attacked America.

To sustain your support for what RonPaul said, you would have to abandon your belief in 911 as false-flag inside-job.

I've made this point many times previously, but now RonPaul has made the position much clearer. Troofers must either abandon their support for RonPaul's claims about 911, or, if they wish to support RP on this, they must abandon their idea of 911 as a false-flag US government conspiracy designed to enable WaronTerror.

So which is it?

To illustrate, let's have your rationale about why 911 happened?

If it was a "new pearl harbour" brought about by "the cabal" to justify the WaronTerror, then it cannot also be a means to persuade America to abandon foreign intervention in the countries targeted by TheWaronTerror, brought about by Arab/Islamic hatred of such intervention.

rob said...

again speaking so much but saying nothing. last dork left has embarrassed himself again.