“It’s the Jihad, stupid.”

No wonder many Americans want to grab Obama by the lapels and scream:
It’s the Jihad, stupid.

Could it be that “Precedent” Obama is Jihadist-in-Chief?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to “It’s the Jihad, stupid.”

  1. Trevor Hilton says:

    When George Bush was President, we went 7 years without a terrorist attack on USA soil. Barely a year into Duh One’s administration, we’ve had nearly 10 of them!

    God, please give us Your Blessing on the next three years!

  2. Huh? says:

    Trevor,

    9/11/2001 = 7 years ?

    10 of them? Could you identify them please?

  3. Jonah says:

    If you count the failed testicle-burner under Obama, the you should count the failed shoe-bomber under Bush. I don’t really see any way for those numbers to make sense.

  4. Jonah says:

    But, more seriously, I think we all need to let go of this notion that any counterterrorism approach can be 100% effective. I’m far from the first person to say so—even Thomas Friedman, who I think we can all agree isn’t the smartest guy at the Times, has been arguing the same point since 2001, and Brooks’s column from last week is a more recent take—but the government (this one and the previous one) has been remarkably slow to figure it out.

    Also, Red, seriously?

    Could it be that “Precedent” Obama is Jihadist-in-Chief?

    Oy.

  5. Sally Hill says:

    I agree – attempted and failed are still counting – for both presidents. Although I also think Ft. Hood was a terrorist attack as well, which did NOT fail.

    In my opinion, Obama took his eye off the ball, he was too preoccupied with health care, cap and tax, stimulus, omnibus, lack of job creation, and last, but certainly not least – trying to fill all his open cabinet and administrative positions with people who have actually paid their taxes!

    The opposition knowns and understands that we have a soft President who his lax in foreign affairs and does not believe we are at war or even what the war is about – we will see more attacks.

  6. Jonah Says:

    Also, Red, seriously?

    Could it be that “Precedent” Obama is Jihadist-in-Chief?

    Oy.

    I’m absolutely serious.

    I think Obama is the worst of all worlds. I think he is both a Marxist and a Jihad-supporting Muslim. He hides both behind a facade of “Christian Social Justice”. His Chicago “church” and “pastor” of 20+ years are more aligned with the theology of Louis Farrakhan than the theology of the Bible.

    Show me the actions taken by Obama in the last year that have been in direct opposition to the agendas of the Communist Party USA and Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

    His actions are in near complete alignment with their agendas.

  7. Jonah says:

    Oy again. Sometimes I forget that this is a conspiracy theory blog, and not a forum for serious arguments.

    His actions are in near complete alignment with their agendas.

    We’re talking about a president whose first act in office was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and you think his actions are in complete alignment with a conference that, for instance, allows some of its most prominent member countries to ban women from driving cars. C’mon, man.

    Anyway, let’s talk about counterterrorism some more, in hopes of avoiding the crazy part of your brain. Did you read the Brooks piece? What do you think?

  8. Jonah says:

    Another thing. There are very few actions taken by Obama during his first year that I disagree with, and where I part ways with him, I usually think he shouldn’t have compromised as much with the right. So if you believe his actions show him to be a Jihad-supporting Muslim, I gotta ask: do you feel the same way about me and my beliefs?

  9. westexan says:

    Did the big fish swallow Jonah?

  10. Jonah says:

    Ba-dum-psh!

  11. westexan says:

    Obama Tells Muslims and Athiest What They Want to Hear.

    “When Barack and Jeremiah Wright say “I am a Christian”, It means they are followers of the racist, marxist, Black Liberation Theology”.

    It will be interesting:
    “The Looming Crisis In Human Genetics”.

    http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14742737

    The proof may be in the pudding, but the TRUTH may be in the genes. One way or the other we shall see. However, PC in America may prevail.

  12. Sally Hill says:

    Jonah, I’ve come late to the discussion, but based upon your comment that you agree with most of Obama’s actions to date – the answer to your question is, YES, it would appear that by approval of his actions, then it would seem you support Jihad. Whether you are a Muslim or not, I have no clue…are you?

    I don’t understand Obama – he says one thing, but does something different. Why?

    When making a speech, he has a Christian cross behind him covered. No Christian would ever do that, for that is counter to the teachings. If he is ashamed of his God, then he is no Christan.

    I have to really wonder if he understands that we are at war. Does he understand that the war waged upon us, and not the other way around? Does he understand what this war is about? I’m not being coy or snide – I’m asking sincere questions.

    If he understands that we are at war, what is he doing closing Gitmo? Gitmo serves and continues to serve a purpose….housing enemy combatants. Does he understand what enemy combatants are? If so, why does he want to read them OUR rights and try them as civilians – they are NOT civilians, they have NO rights – they are our ENEMIES! They are trying to kill us in the name of their religion. These enemies need to stay at Gitmo, and I no more believe Gitmo has strengthened their resolve than a man in the moon! They hate us and everything that America stands for. Whether there is a Gitmo or not, they will continue to hate us and will continue to try and destroy us. Am I to actually believe, if there were no Gitmo, there might not have been the underwear bomber on Christmas? Phhhfff…how ridiculous.

    If he understands that war was waged against the US, why does he apologize? Apologizes are for people who are in the wrong and want to right that wrong. Where exactly did the US go wrong or do wrong? While I certainly agree we have made mistakes, we are not a perfect nation – I think that the trillions of dollars we send in foreign aid surely makes up for some of those mistakes. Honestly, the way he has made his trips around the world bowing to everything on two legs and apologizing to the point of groveling, makes no sense for a nation that helps the global community as much as we do. We have NOTHING to be sorry for!

    Does he understand what the war (which he thinks doesn’t exist) is about? Does he understand that it is a religious war? Meaning, a war of the heart and mind – meaning, there doesn’t necessarily have to be logic behind the reason. It’s not a war in the sense of fighting over land, or weapons, or policy. It is a war of HATE! Yet, he wants to continue to try and placate these enemies who know no reason and are willing to die in the name of their religion. I mean, come on – to what end? As a civilized society, we can barely wrap our brains around their cause – let alone understand it, but we do understand that it most definitely exists. It is real.

    When he does not want to use the words terror, war on terror, radical Islam, or face this war head on – that leads me to believe he doesn’t understand. When he wants to close Gitmo, try our enemies in civilian court, and Mirandize them – that leads me to believe he doesn’t understand we are at war, who we are at war with and what the war is about.

    So Jonah, do you understand that we are war, who we are at war with, and what the war is about? If not – what do you think is going on with the terrorist attacks?

  13. Jonah says:

    Jonah, I’ve come late to the discussion, but based upon your comment that you agree with most of Obama’s actions to date – the answer to your question is, YES, it would appear that by approval of his actions, then it would seem you support Jihad. Whether you are a Muslim or not, I have no clue…are you?

    Depending on my mood and linguistic whim, I usually describe myself as either an atheist (that’s e-before-i, westexan) or a secular Jew, but not a Muslim.

    Anyway, in the paragraphs that follow (in which I will spend too much time linking to people more eloquent than myself), I’ll hope to convince you of precisely one thing: Obama and I hold very different opinions on how best to fight terrorism than the ones espoused by you and Red, but we still want to achieve the same goal. You may think someone else’s ideas are wrong, but you can say that without accusing him or her of being evil. I’d really appreciate it if you could acknowledge this, and refrain from calling me a Jihadist simply because I disagree with you. That’s basic courtesy. Thanks.

    Anywho. Where were we? Ah, right:

    I have to really wonder if he understands that we are at war. Does he understand that the war waged upon us, and not the other way around? Does he understand what this war is about? I’m not being coy or snide – I’m asking sincere questions.

    Well, here’s Obama in May:

    Now let me be clear: we are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates.

    (Side note, for those of you playing at home: whenever the President says, “Now let me be clear,” take a drink.)

    So, yes, it would seem so. I suppose what you’re objecting to is the administration’s decision to phase out the phrase “war on terror”. Frankly, I think there are lots of good reasons to do that.

    In short, wars are things that civilized countries declare on each other when they have a dispute. They send soldiers out, and those soldiers try to kill each other, but when the war is over, this is forgiven. Yeah, we try people for war crimes, but that’s because they’ve done something unacceptable above and beyond what normally happens in war.

    That just isn’t what’s happening with terrorists. They are not just sending soldiers after our soldiers; they’re sending murderers after our civilians. By accepting the language of the “war on terror”, you allow terrorists to see themselves as soldiers, doing something reasonable relative to what war is. They aren’t. Targeting innocent civilians is never reasonable, and it’s not what soldiers do.

    That’s my take, anyway. I’d say this discussion here is a bit too theoretical, though, so let’s get a little more specific.

    If he understands that we are at war, what is he doing closing Gitmo? Gitmo serves and continues to serve a purpose….housing enemy combatants.

    But, of course, nobody is suggesting that we set people free if they’re trying to kill us. We are saying that some Gitmo residents are wrongly imprisoned, and the ones who aren’t can be dealt with in a manner more befitting of other brutal criminals. Because that’s what they are. Anyway, I hope you don’t mind if I skip this part, because you and I have sort of had this discussion before. I think I had the last word there, so feel free to respond to any of those points if you’d like to.

    If he understands that war was waged against the US, why does he apologize? Apologizes are for people who are in the wrong and want to right that wrong. Where exactly did the US go wrong or do wrong?

    I’d like to hear specific examples of apologies here. It’s not like we’re apologizing to Al Qaeda. But, yeah, when our soldiers wake eight Afghan sixth-graders in the middle of the night, handcuff them, and shoot them (I’d provide a link, but I think I’m close to WordPress’s spam filter already; you can probably Google this yourself), I think their loved ones maybe deserve an apology. Perhaps you think world aid is a good enough, but I suspect those close to the victims would disagree.

    Does he understand what the war (which he thinks doesn’t exist) is about? Does he understand that it is a religious war? Meaning, a war of the heart and mind – meaning, there doesn’t necessarily have to be logic behind the reason. It’s not a war in the sense of fighting over land, or weapons, or policy. It is a war of HATE! Yet, he wants to continue to try and placate these enemies who know no reason and are willing to die in the name of their religion.

    I think you’re either confused about our expectations, or deliberately putting words in our mouths. I don’t think you can talk a terrorist out of being a terrorist. But I do think that terrorists’ success at recruiting youths to their cause is largely due to our nation’s image and economic realities in poorer parts of the world.

    But I’m mostly confused by the implication behind the word “placate.” The things I think we should be doing (some of which we’ve already done) in order to improve our image: stopping torture, following the law in dealing with terrorists, trying not to kill as many innocent civilians, and ceasing to treat Islam itself (rather than radical Islam) as the enemy. I think those are all good goals in and of themselves. Maybe you disagree. Fine. But I hope you feel by now that I’m not a terrorist-sympathizer.

    Anyway, the thing about wars is that they have a beginning and an end. Do you really believe that either side in the “war on terror” will ever win?

  14. Jonah says:

    Oops, I meant to end on the note mentioned in my second paragraph: it’s not too important to me that I convince you of the “correctness” of anything I stated above. I don’t expect either you or Red to suddenly believe in my and Obama’s way of fighting terror. All I’m really after is your acceptance that, despite our differences, we’re both trying to do the same thing. If we continue from here with you still disagreeing with the beliefs I outlined above but refraining from calling me a Jihadist, I’ll be pretty satisfied.

  15. Aaron says:

    The terrorists already see themselves as soldiers; they always have seen themselves as soldiers whether we are at war against terrorism or not. Anyone claiming that this is not a war is deliberately ignoring that fact. Have all the lefties forgotten that they declared and have been waging war upon us since 1799. Or does the memory of the USS Philadelphia really mean nothing to the left?

    The US does not torture and never has. Waterboarding is not torture. The left only called it torture because it was happening under the Bush administration. If it was happening under Obama’s watch, they’d never even use word “torture” to describe it. If you want to see torture, just look up YouTube and see what kind videos are posted by Muslim terrorist groups.

    It’s called any number of things, but I like the term “selective outrage”. While it happens on both the left and the right, to compare HOW MUCH it happens on both sides would be to compare the volume of water in Lake Eerie (selective outrage practice on the Right) to the volume of water in the Atlantic Ocean (selective outrage practice on the left).

    The lefties claim they’re not suggesting we set any terrorists free and yet they DID set terrorists free…to the tune of about 80 so far. I’d wait for them to come back and claim, “bu-bu-BUSH set some free, too!” But I’d rather preempt it now. Bush released 6. Let’s compare 6 to 80. In the mind of the lefties–who will desperately need to draw a moral equivalency in order to shift the subject back to blaming Bush (again)– 6 = 80. Hey, that’s how mathematics works in the left-wing.

    They claim that Obama is fighting terror, yet his actions speak otherwise. Rather, he is ignoring it in favor of his pet agenda: lining the pockets of health insurance companies with tax money, doling out political kickbacks disguised as, “stimulus”, and hamstringing the growth of private industry by citing junk science in the name of “climate catastrophe prevention.”

  16. Jonah says:

    The terrorists already see themselves as soldiers;

    Again, this isn’t about the war’s image in the eyes of terrorists. It’s about future terrorists, and all the people who will turn to Al Qaeda and other groups because they need some way to feel powerful despite living in dire conditions.

    Have all the lefties forgotten that they declared and have been waging war upon us since 1799. Or does the memory of the USS Philadelphia really mean nothing to the left?

    Are you suggesting that Islamic terrorism has been a national issue for the past two hundred years? Why on earth were we supporting the Taliban before 1997 or so? Perhaps these issues are a little more complicated than you’re making them out to be, and there’s not this one monolithic organization of Terror, but rather many many players acting out in complicated ways. Just throwing that out there.

    The US does not torture and never has. Waterboarding is not torture.

    I disagree, and I think you’re the one playing semantics. Waterboarding meets perfectly the dictionary definition of torture (“inflicting severe pain … to force someone to do or say something”). Conservatives will claim that it’s not torture because there’s “no lasting damage”, but I don’t see that requirement anywhere in the definition. I hate to pull out dictionaries as an authoritative source here, but since our laws were dismantled in order to let us do whatever we pleased on this issue, I’m not sure we’ve got a better option.

    If it was happening under Obama’s watch, they’d never even use word “torture” to describe it.

    I don’t know where you get that impression. Yes, there is such a thing as selective outrage, but there are also principles that each party stands by, and I think this is one of them. The execution of schoolchildren I described above happened under Obama’s watch, but I still call it barbaric. And since one of Obama’s first acts was to stop the US from waterboarding, I don’t see how you think we don’t believe in what we’re saying.

    If you want to see torture, just look up YouTube and see what kind videos are posted by Muslim terrorist groups.

    Right, right. “But the terrorists are worse! Therefore we’re the good guys!” I hear that again and again on this site. “Do unto others slightly better than they do unto you,” I suppose. Hey, if that’s your brand of morality, embrace it, man.

    The lefties claim they’re not suggesting we set any terrorists free and yet they DID set terrorists free…to the tune of about 80 so far. I’d wait for them to come back and claim, “bu-bu-BUSH set some free, too!” But I’d rather preempt it now. Bush released 6.

    Hm. Where are you getting your data? These are difficult things to count, because so much of this stuff is classified, but your numbers are almost certainly wrong: here, via the Department of Defense, is a list of 28 detainees released under Bush who have returned to terror. I can’t find an exact number of the ones released under Obama, but as far as I can tell he’s released about a dozen detainees total, and none of them have returned to terror so far. Maybe you’ve got another source, though. Cite away.

    Hey, that’s how mathematics works in the left-wing.

    Heh. As a liberal mathematics teacher, I gotta say, you nailed me.

    …and hamstringing the growth of private industry by citing junk science in the name of “climate catastrophe prevention.”

    I saw you made a brief appearance in the global warming discussion. If you’d like to elaborate over there, I’d be happy to hear from you.

    Best,
    Jonah

  17. westexan says:

    In 1805 the Continental Marines stormed the Barbary pirates fortress. That was 204 years ago. It was a National issue then and it is a National issue now. IEST.

  18. westexan says:

    Jonah was pretty slow in catching on when God sent him to Niniveh too. LOL! Has Jonah been swallowed by the big fish , or has Jonah swallowed the big fish. I suppose it all depends on what the definition of “hook line and sinker” is . Just like the definition of what “is” is. LOL. And global warming seems to be freezing the nation today. :) : ) : )

  19. An American Expat in Southeast Asia says:

    So here we are now, a year later and despite having elected a prophet of hope and change, the reality is that we are still at war. Worse we have become as Bernard Lewis warned “harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend”. Our enemies around the world have been emboldened by America’s bumbling “Apologist in Chief” and our allies who have stood by us have been left abandoned and confounded.

    After Barack Hussein Obama’s speech at the United Nations, allies of ours here in Southeast Asia see Obama not only as “idealistic” and “weak” but now as an unreliable partner in the war on terrorism.

  20. Jonah says:

    In 1805 the Continental Marines stormed the Barbary pirates fortress. That was 204 years ago. It was a National issue then and it is a National issue now. IEST.

    Sorry, is there some convexity law of national issues I don’t know about? If not, I don’t see how your statement implies anything about the interval in between.

  21. Aaron says:

    While our (the US) priorities have fluctuated during those 204 years, theirs have not. They hated us then just as much as they do now. The Muslims hated those United States back then because our leaders refused to pay the blood-money (in their words, Jizya) they were used to getting from all the European powers. While America has not always been at war with Islam, Islam HAS always been at war with America.

    You think those 204 years in between disprove that? Do you really think that 1805 marked the end of the fighting against those Muslim Pirates?Have you forgotten that the Ottoman Empire (the Caliphate, itself!) fought against America and her allies in WWI? Do you really conveniently forget the wars and terrorism initiated and waged by Muslims after WWII? They didn’t just start fighting on 11 Sep 2001.

  22. Jonah says:

    The Muslims hated those United States back then because our leaders refused to pay the blood-money (in their words, Jizya) they were used to getting from all the European powers.

    Which seems pretty different from what we’re talking about today. Also I see you’re now claiming that not just radical Islam, but the entire religion has been at war with us:

    While America has not always been at war with Islam, Islam HAS always been at war with America.

    Again, I really, really doubt that the world is as simple as you think it is.

    Do you have anything more to add to any of the points I addressed earlier? I’m particularly interested to see where you got those numbers (6 vs. 80) about Guantanamo releases.

  23. Aaron says:

    The only reason the Muslim countries aren’t demanding Jizya out of us or any other nations is because they don’t have the firepower necessary to follow up on their demands. It would be like an unarmed street thug demanding an armed policeman to hand over his wallet.

    They are simply changing their tactics and their demands, their hatred has never gone away. You can see that every day when they terrorize the Israelis for settling Israeli land. (Despite the efforts of anti-semitic Roman generals; and brutal, murderous, 7th century empires, that land is Israel’s)You can see it in the terrorist attacks at Ft Hood and the Arkansas Recruitment office. (yes, those were terrorist attacks)

    It’s one thing for you to claim I’m oversimplifying Islam, but you do it while sitting in a comfy PC chair back in the Western Hemisphere. You know very little about the reality of Islam. Meanwhile, I am exposed to peaceful Muslims, mainstream Muslims, and radical Muslims everyday. It’s a part of living and working in the middle-east. In addition, I own a Quran and have studied it to see for myself what Islam is about.

    Peaceful Islam does exist, but it is NOT mainstream. It is (fortunately) more widespread than radical Islam. About the best example of (mostly) peaceful Islam is Kosovo, Macedonia, and Albania. The populations of those countries actually LIKE the US and Albania even sent military forces to assist us in Iraq, but their relatively small populations mean that they’re hardly mainstream. Elsewhere in the Islamic world, mainstream muslims harbor hatred for America and quiet (or sometimes not so quiet) support for the actions of radical muslims.

    As for the previous numbers, those came from an article in one of last week’s Stars & Stripes. I mistook the 80 cleared for release for actually released. Since you want to talk about that, though, let’s also discuss the 75% recidivism rate among the released terrorists. Guess Obama hasn’t apologized enough for America to get them to drop their arms and get real jobs yet. So far, Obama’s answer to that has been to…(drumroll)…blame Bush, again.

    Also, what were you saying about preventing “future” terrorists from considering themselves soldiers if we just stop acting like it’s a war? I lost track of it somewhere between all the PAST generations of terrorists that did, regardless of whether we were at war or not; and the current generation that does, regardless of whether we’re at war or not.

    But hey, if WE stop acting like we’re at war, then the terrorism will end because they somehow can’t see themselves as soldiers fighting a war anymore! Afterall, they can’t wage a war against us if we’re not at war!

    (sigh)…I really, really wish that the world was as simple as you think it is.

  24. Jonah says:

    Aaron,

    The only reason the Muslim countries aren’t demanding Jizya out of us or any other nations is because they don’t have the firepower necessary to follow up on their demands.

    I kind of hate these sorts of hypothetical arguments, at least when presented as such. Same goes for the prior statements about liberals who would have supported torture under Obama. I mean, how do you know that? In your later paragraphs here, you paint a reasonably fair picture of the Muslim world, so it’s strange to have such a sentence leading your post. I mean, yes, certain readings of the Qur’an will show that this is a “law”, but I don’t need to recite similarly absurd laws from the Bible (yes, often abused by atheists like me) for you to see where I’m going with this: the scripture is not always indicative of it’s adherents’ beliefs. So please, expound on this statement with more evidence, or stop talking in hypotheticals.

    (yes, those were terrorist attacks)

    I don’t dispute this, for the record.

    It’s one thing for you to claim I’m oversimplifying Islam, but you do it while sitting in a comfy PC chair back in the Western Hemisphere. You know very little about the reality of Islam. Meanwhile, I am exposed to peaceful Muslims, mainstream Muslims, and radical Muslims everyday. It’s a part of living and working in the middle-east. In addition, I own a Quran and have studied it to see for myself what Islam is about.

    I still think, up until this comment, that you were oversimplifying Islam. Now you’re starting to portray a more moderate take, and I appreciate that. And I certainly don’t mean to suggest that I know more than you on the subject—it would appear that I probably don’t—but I recognize my ignorance on the subject, and I try not to make broad statements that are obviously out of my league.

    On that note, my curiosity is piqued: what do you do, anyway? I know when this question is asked between ideologically opposed people, there’s often an implied, “what are your credentials, anyway?”, but that’s not my intention. I’d just like to better understand where you’re coming from here.

    Elsewhere in the Islamic world, mainstream muslims harbor hatred for America and quiet (or sometimes not so quiet) support for the actions of radical muslims.

    You had me until here. Surely you realize that the Islamic world is very, very vast, and that even in adjacent countries or within a particular country, there’s no single prototypical “mainstream Muslim”. So while it’s probably true that somewhere else in the Islamic world, your statement is true, I’m skeptical that you can make any sorts of broad generalizations about non-European Muslim countries. Maybe this isn’t what you mean to suggest, and if so I apologize for the unintentional straw man. But I know several Muslims who’ve lived in Pakistan, say, who support the United States in its fight against terror (if not against Islam), but who never portray themselves as a minority in that opinion. Not that battling anecdotes is really the best way to have a discussion, but nobody ever accused me of being a good debater. We should probably try to find some better evidence, though.

    I mistook the 80 cleared for release for actually released. Since you want to talk about that, though, let’s also discuss the 75% recidivism rate among the released terrorists.

    You, sir, are having awful luck on the statistics front lately. I’m finding numbers like 20%. Where’d you get yours? And I think the point of the comment you read as “blaming Bush” is that the new screening process, at least so far, is having a much better track record, so bringing up recidivism numbers based on less discriminately released detainees just clouds the debate.

    Guess Obama hasn’t apologized enough for America to get them to drop their arms and get real jobs yet.

    Aww, baby’s first straw man! C’mon. You know how it feels to have words put in your mouth (cf. Ryan in the other thread), so don’t do it to me. Have I suggested that apologizing for our mistakes or dropping the phrase “War on Terror” will solve all our problems? No. I just think they’re good ideas. Likewise,

    But hey, if WE stop acting like we’re at war, then the terrorism will end because they somehow can’t see themselves as soldiers fighting a war anymore! Afterall, they can’t wage a war against us if we’re not at war!

    (sigh)…I really, really wish that the world was as simple as you think it is.

    I’ve argued that thinking about this as a war is not helpful, and that it plays into the terrorists’ framing of things in the first place. If it seems like I’ve suggested that not thinking about this as a war will solve all our problems, however, then I apologize, but I think I’ve been careful about this point.

    You seem like a reasonable guy, Aaron, so I don’t want to think you’re setting up these straw men intentionally (especially since, as noted, you’ve had to deal with them yourself). But if not that, then it seems you’re resorting to these arguments out of laziness, because it’s easier to rebut ridiculous things. Either way, please cut it out.

    Best,
    Jonah

  25. haha says:

    Huh? I thought the CIA was behind all attacks.

    -killing JFK
    -9/11
    -mass weapon of deception
    -Muslim protesters
    -saying Bin Laden is alive
    -attacks in Iraq by terrorists

    and many many more. Too bad the tv doesn’t instruct you guys to believe that.

  26. haha,

    I challenge you to disprove even a single one of the TRUTH: statements here…

    A Different “9/11 Truth”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s