English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

In the few short years since the first shackled Afghan shuffled off to Guantanamo, the U.S. military has created a global network of overseas prisons, its islands of high security keeping 14,000 detainees beyond the reach of established law.

Bush literally has 1000's & 1000's of "suspected terrorists"
in his secret torture prisons,
how come he hasn't been able to convict
ONE detainee for being a terrorist?
He's had 5 YEARS!

2006-09-17 10:44:06 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

15 answers

Simply because those responsible have not been arrested. The corollary is that those who have been arrested were not responsible.
This is because it was the government that was responsible.
Their official story is so full of holes that they are obviously hiding something, and it doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to discover what that is.

Let's just recap on the government's conspiracy theory, which is that 19 Arabs, who had been under surveillance, conspired together, walked onto four commercial aircraft without being detected, and without having their names appear on a passenger list. Then that they could overcome over 250 people with plastic box-cutters. And not only that, but with no previous experience of flying large jets, they could navigate from 30,000 feet and hit three out of four targets precisely, meantime conducting flying manoeuvres that fighter pilots would find difficult. Then, the amazing thing is that 7 of them survived the events and are known to be alive today.
Also for the first time ever in history, three, not two, but three steel framed buildings collapsed as a result of fire which could not possibly have burned hot enough to melt steel, and caused the buildings not to topple over, as one might expect, or to fall a little at a time, but to fall within their own footprint at the speed of gravity. And one of those buildings (WTC7) was not even hit by a plane.
Not only that, but the four aircraft disappeared completely without a trace of their 16 large engines, or any of the black boxes. This has also never before happened in history.


This theory is so amazingly full of holes that it is impossible for any sane thinking person to believe, yet that is what the official 9/11 commission report.says.


"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
-- William Casey, CIA Director (from first staff meeting, 1981)


All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer

2006-09-17 14:10:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Lets believe everything you print here is accurate and correct.

Lets also believe G-dub-ya is the devil incarnate. The most vile, sick minded person walking this Earth. He don't even care about the money, some say he's got more money than God! With him it's all about the power!! The power to destroy life by any means available, at any cost!!! And he is obviously very ineffective.

It's mid December, 2008. Troops are finally coming home. Not a single terrorist, suspected or plausibly guilty, has been charged with a single crime against the US. George makes a call and simply says, "Time to launch operation 'Git 'er Done!'" In this plan every detainee is to be systematically shot to death where they stand, sit, or squat in their "secret torture prisons" and their tiny high security islands. B2 bombers are to fly over a country far far away and drop so many massively radiation payloads the ground literally glows in the night!

You don't seem to like him much now, will your mind be changed about him in any way after he does it? What does he have to lose? If the citizens go to uprising he can use that to proclaim Martial Law! There will be no passing of the presidential baton then, my friend!

He's a figurehead, he's not conducting investigations, he doesn't carry a rifle, he's merely in charge. Listen up and learn - some of his own ppl don't do that - I would hope better that at least we would! After all, we've had 5 years.

2006-09-17 11:16:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Just as we won't know the truth of the Kennedy assassination until 2038, the truth about the 9-11 attacks will be hidden from the public for decades. I suspect the nameless, faceless power brokers who control our government behind-the-scenes helped plan 9-11, and knew when it would happen. They intentionally kept the information from the President so that he would have no clue as to what to say or how to act when he heard the news. He would be stupid enough to give it away, and they couldn't afford for that to happen.
Immediately after the 9-11 attacks, prominent Saudi business associates of the Bush family and investors in the Carlyle Group (of which George H.W. Bush is an associate) were quickly shuttled out of the country on private government jets.
Allegedly, the binLaden family invested $2.5 million in the Carlyle Group, which rapidly became a major contractor to the United States government. Supposedly, the binLadens own a huge compound outside of Orlando, Florida - could Osama be hiding there, living in luxury these past five years?
History will record that the Bush administration knew about the 9-11 attacks, and chose not to prevent it because it offered a means of declaring 'war' on Iraq for two reasons: 1) the Bush family had a personal vendetta against Hussein, and 2) Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer.
The Bush administration, in full collusion with the most corrupt, evil, cowardly, incompetent U.S. Congress in history, will be revealed, eventually, as a 'partner in crime' who either aided and abetted the enemy, or - at the very least - failed to do anything to stop the terrorist attack. -RKO-

2006-09-17 10:58:35 · answer #3 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 1

Did someone tell you that the President is personally responsible for prosecuting criminals? and you believed them?

What about all the murderers, rapists, thieves and thugs? Why don't you hold him responsible for their sentencing as well?

Because there is a process, and the terrorists will (unfortunately, imo) be granted the benefit of attorneys, hearings, postponements, appeals and a bevy of other delay tactics.

I would also remind you that in the past five years, we have not had any other attacks on US soil. That too is thanks to George W. Bush, but you seem to have conveniently forgotten that.

Do you suppose we should just let these people go? Give them their freedom? Do you think we're the only country in the world to have unannounced prison camps?

These 'detainees' as you refer to them are suspected of wanting to kill Americans, British, Australians, and any other citizen from a free and democratic society. They were responsible for genocide in their own countries. They are part of the same religious fanatical group that took hostage hundreds of children in a Russian school in Beslan, and their actions resulted in the deaths of more than 300 innocents.

I don't really care if those people ROT in those prisons -- they can't hurt anyone where they are and I thank our President for having the guts to stand up to whiny-a**ed, crybaby liberals who think everyone will respond to the nicey-nice techniques you see on television.

2006-09-17 11:01:28 · answer #4 · answered by princessmeltdown 7 · 0 1

properly, permit me purely say that examining those solutions grew to become into quite depressing. If we stand for something, as individuals, for reality and justice and all those amazing-sounding ideals, we can't purely word those ideals while they are politically expedient or handy, by way of fact then they are meaningless. Trials are a human suitable, no longer an American one. John Adams individually defended a British soldier charged with the Boston bloodbath--he grew to become into charged with being complicit in murdering quite a few American civilians--by way of fact he needed to coach a factor. the factor grew to become into that honest trials could be prolonged to everybody. era. that's an important cornerstone of our justice gadget. people who've deluded themselves or wallowed in lack of awareness to the factor that they actually propose executing prisoners of conflict or accused terrorists without trials are not from now on effective than terrorists themselves. The very advice is barbaric.

2016-10-01 02:05:20 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Bush is NOT trying to fight the war on terror as a law enforcement issue. If you try terrorists in open court then you have to weaken national security by revealing the tactics and sources involved in the capture and detainment. Clinton tried to fight terrorism as a law enforcement issue and it led to 9-11. Bush wants military tribunals, but liberal nuts want foreign terrorists given absolute constitutional rights and Geneva convention rights (neither of which they are qualified to receive) and tried in open court, thereby putting American lives at risk. For the most part, Bush is doing what is intelligent and necessary.

2006-09-17 10:58:08 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Remember the "Deck of Cards", the 52 most-wanted Iraqi terrorists? Nearly all of them have been killed or captured.

As for your "1000's & 1000's", how about a few facts. Youi simply don't know what you're talking about. Again, MANY Afghan terrorists have been killed or captured.

2006-09-17 10:57:23 · answer #7 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 0 1

because bush is a moron same reason osama bin laden is still working at the mcdonalds down the street. I could name so many other things wrong with the bush administration but I will just leave it at he is full of S H I T

2006-09-17 10:53:30 · answer #8 · answered by raechelblueeyes 4 · 1 0

Yes, I agree. And not one congressman, senator or police official is raising a finger to stop this mockery of American justice.

This administration is dragging the good name of America through the mud and NO bureaucrats are doing anything.

Is it time to revive the sixties? Do we have to "take it to the streets".

I was talking with a Republican friend of mine at work last Friday and we both agreed that, in this respect, we are sadly relieved our fathers are both dead, so they aren't able to see what America has become.

I think it's time for a revolt.

2006-09-17 10:51:12 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because we have killed them all that havent been caught. You don't want me to be in charge because I would kill all but maybe five and then maybe just maybe they might get the message. Do you want to get the message? Are you a chicken shi--t terrorist or just one who call's our troup's baby killer when they come back from a war? War is hell and we would be best not to get to like it very well but you have started this war and were going to give you all that you want. Yea Iam just like that!!!!!!!!!Let's get it done! Need some help?

2006-09-17 10:59:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers