NEWS: Tunnel Terrorists Nabbed

Good lord man I was being sarcastic. No shit the Illuminat isn't real, that the crux of my original jab.

Think what you want but your point is pure fanatsy.

Speculation, and reasonable speculation at that.
Fantasy would be believing that politicians wouldn't play political games with security related information.

On the basis of what do you come to this conclusion?

I mean is God talking to you like he does King George?

No, and the burden of proof is on your shoulders. You are the one makeing the outlandish assertions. What kind of evidence are you basing this line of thinking on. And by the, other left wing bloggers do not count as "sources."

Oh for Christ's sake, do you read at all!? During the runnup to the 2004 election we had all sorts of "color code" alerts. Now, let me ask you, have you heard of one since November 2004?

Go to the library and check out an American history book. What you will see there is that American elections have always been characterized by manipulations of the resources available to the government to sway the voters. Did left wing bloggers invent pork barrel politics or the "October Surprise", a staple of American presidential politics (such as bin Laden's "release" of a video 3 weeks before the election in 2004?)

But, all of that aside, who in the fuck do you think you are? I mean, I can see from your posts that you are a self righteous prick, but here is the play dude: I said something, you said it was fanatasy. Now it seems to me that the "burden of proof" is on you, as you have asserted that my statement was fanatasy. But even with that, you do not get to assign the "burden of proof" nor do you get to a priori disqualify sources.

At least not in the real world.

But maybe in the one you fantasize about while you beat your conservative meat under the covers at night.

So - prove that what I said was fanatasy,or shut the fuck up.

Oh, and by the way, Faux News does not qualify as a source (just in case you were wondering if you are the only self righteous prick on this site.)

that bastard.

pretty much. i don't necessarily believe in a huge single-minded conspiracy, but i do believe that politicians will be complete douchebags in the performance of their job. that total douchebaggery will likely create some of the same conditions of a united conspiracy.

Hey there pal, you can call me whatever names you want, I don't really care but it does kind of take away from your arguement. To be honest I am not going to waste my time refuting your rediculous claims. It would be akin to argueing with a 'flat earther' about how I can proof the earth is round. At this point you aren't going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. Have a nice day and enjoy your hate and vitriol.

...um, you can prove that the earth is round. If you think that your opinion is of equal validity, then you should prove it. Then there, if nothing else, is something to have a discussion about. When you simply dismiss what NickFaust has to say without giving any support for your position, well...

I don't mind having a reasoned discussion but his position is SO out there that I don't see the point in argueing about it. That is JUST MY OPINION. You guys can hang out and swap conspiricy theories all day long, I'm not going to stand in your way.

Then why bring it up, much less waste everyone's time (including your own) in a round of flames? If it's that out there, then surely people will notice that on their own, much like you, and ignore him. And if you think there's enough people that would, then isn't it worth discussing so you can convince them otherwise?

It is my humble opinion from years of experience in political discourse that some people (like NickFaust) are not going to change their minds no matter what kind of evidence I present. So why did I bother saying anything? I was expressing MY opinion just like everyone else here. I made my points and I said my peace. And as far as I can see no one, not even old NickFaust bothered to respond to my original point and everything went down hill from there:

Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United State
is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the
following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorist
attacks worldwide.

There is nothing to refute in your point - it is a list of events, and I have never, nor would I ever, dispute that America is a target of terrorists.

With our foreign policy, how could we not be.

However, the two points - yours and mine - are unrelated. The fact that there have been terrorists attacks against the US does not mean that the Bush administration is not capable of "leaking" the arrest of every yokel with a fertilizer connection and an Arab last name and making a big hullabalu about it in an election year.

It was done in 2004, it was done two weeks ago with the Miami arrests and I fully expect it will be done up until the election, at which point there will be fewer "leaks" until the runnup to the 2008 election.

You seem to want to deny that this President, indeed any president, would not tweak announcments from an executive agency to effect the outcome of an election. If you really believe that you are sadly, possibly congentially naive.

Your characterization of my post as "fantasy" and your further indication that my perspective is so far beyond the pale lead me to believe the you really have no clue as to how the American political system operates.

"Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and it is shameful to surrender it too soon." George Santayana

Have you ever considered for even a moment that those people in Miami are actually terrorists? Does that possability even enter your mind? My point is that the US has been attacked for decades by these Islamofascists, it did not start with Bush. The big difference is that Bush is the first president to fight back in a meaningful way.

Pushing the news that helps you is very, very different from fabricating news which is what you implied. Of course Bush will spin the news to his favor, everyone in Washington does.

This country has been attackted for decades by terrorists but when a terror plot is stopped you cry conspiracy. Skepticism is fine and good but as Sigmund Freud said "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Um... well... again, I never claimed any conspiracy. There is really not one needed. Just a memo or two from the Executive office.

I never claimed that the news was fabricated, nor did I suggest that the people arrested did not commit some crime or other. I simply said that the release (leak) of the information was part of a political agenda.

However, there is a difference between the "terrorists" in Miami (they were more like terrorist wannabees) commited crimes and positing that they posed a real and credible threat to the Sears tower (or even the local Walmart). Ditto the New York folks.

More likely a memo went out to district directors telling them to start pulling the triggers on any cases that fit the "turist" bill 'cause the public needed to see some arrests.

You can live on in your studied and determined blindness all you want Dano, just don't expect the rest of us to hang out there with you.