It is an interesting charge. Not surprising, but interesting. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881833834&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull Smells kind of "john kerryesque" with his secret meetings with our enemies to discuss terms of surrender during the Vietnam war.
Actually, I think that the questions are "did the meeting actually happened." and "What officials" because at this point I don't view members of the government of the Palestinian authority as being very credible sources for any kind of information, any more than I would trust someone from the council for the promotion of Cannabis when speaking on pot.
*chuckles a bit* Well at least that was recognized. By the way, I am sorry if I have offended anyone from Palistine, but please be aware that I dis my own government just as much, if not more, than yours. I expect more from people in power than average citizens.
Here's some culture for you GTech: 9/11 Truth: "True Lies" by Poet Taalam Acey http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lcoNKJAttY it's very good. and if you have about an hour to spare, you should watch this: Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime - 9/11 World Trade Truth... WTC inside job - an insightful and evidence-based documentary. Here's a 10 minute slice of it on YouTube if you don't have the time to spare http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iswVPEZvFZM&feature=PlayList&p=7B74DDC7CB15EF60&index=138
Ahhh, conspiracy theory...yuck. Man, I could deal with allegations, but lets have one thread where we're not talking about 9/11 conspiracy or some massive set-up by the 'man'.
Well, isn't that what this thread is about? An alleged conspiracy between 'Democrats' and Hamas and secret talks with officials of European governments, including Britain and France?
Did I miss a post about "conspiracy?" /gtech scrolls back up to note: "It is an interesting charge." mcfox, I thought you learned your lesson the last time you tried to stand behind conspiracy videos? I felt kind of bad for you, that you got suckered in so easily and they were so easily refuted. I guess conspiracy videos are the new way to make a quick buck on the internet.
No, it's about democrats in secret meetings with terrorists... can we keep the 9/11 conspiracy theories outa this? Let's base what we know off of fact
Hey mfox, I remember that we have discussed a lot about the supposed to be 9/11 coverup before. Problem is that it turned up that all the so called proofs for the 9/11-government conspiracy was explained by the my side to not be any proof/evidence. I have since then not got any counter arguments from your side.
This thread title is dumb. I almost thought threads of this sort were going to vanish after the elections. One thing about the elections was that it put a stamp on the mood of the American public that said that these dumb accusations of the US or any source speaking with the enemy was to be equated with weakness or something even dumber such as being a traitor. In the 1980's Reagon branded the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire" and all the while he met with and negotiated with them. Earlier than that Nixon traveled to China and met with the Chinese Communist leaders who were advocating and spreading Communism throughout Asia as best they could. Throughout history these types of interactions have occurred. It is only with this administration and its twisted juvenile logic that we don't speak with any other source or government. In Bush's mind to date we only speak at them and never with them. On top of that the Bush defenders and lovers have branded anyone who even suggested we speak or interact or engage in diplomacy as traiters, wimps etc. What BS. The Bush outlook has created a disaster in Iraq. We aren't winning, we aren't losing, we aren't helping, we aren't pushing American interests forward in the middle east. All that is now happening is that too few American soldiers, who are too inadequately supported by weapons, materials, and real leadership and logic are getting shot at by a myriad of enemies of many types. And it all came from this immature, twisted type of leadership. I read the article twice. First the article had the references cited and copied above by GTech. They revised the article and it no longer cites any interaction between the PA and either representatives of the Dem party or European countries. What gives with the article? I suppose there will be follow up... but that part of the reporting is now a mystery. Suppose some members of the PA met with some democrats. There is no singular representative of the dem party. Like republicans dems are spread about the political spectrum. But if you want to label dems then we should also label Repubs. My best characterisation of a typical repub is Lincoln Chafee. I think all repubs are like him!!!!!! Ah so all repubs are part of the chicken-sh*t CUT and RUN party. How absurd isn't it!!!! Similar with efforts to label dems. Beyond that though the adults are coming back to the government in the US after we have hit this horrendous mess....led by W Bush who amongst other things has been saying and more importantly acting on the following premise for the last 6 years; Don't negotiate with anyone you don't like. Don't talk to em don't interact with em...and above all else Brand anyone who does that as a wimpy @ssed traitor. What BS...and the voting public finally got tired with it because it hasn't been working and it seems to be moving America backwards not forwards. The bipartisan, ADULT, group among its clearest signals said start meeting with, talking with and including Iran and Syria in talks to try and clean up this Iraq mess. No clearer signal could be made. The adults have raised issues that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their puppet monkeys have advocated and brandished for the last few years until the public got sick of it. Even Rumsfeld published a memo just before he resigned suggesting alternatives that months before he was claiming were tantamount to pussy wimp support of terrorism. That guy made a 180 degree turn. If there were talks between the PA and representatives of other entities that doesn't make anyone simptamatic of a phrase that is analogous to traitor. If anything if anyone spoke with them it makes them smarter and more competent and more capable than Bush and his wacky dangerous followers. Dave
Personally I think saying any group of politicians is in talks with terrorists is pure bull. Its funny that the democrats are accused of it while the republicans aren't though...
That sounds like a good suggestion. Not only because it's unrelevant, but because the 9/11 theories consists of these three elements: 1. disproven "proofs" 2. fantasies&fiction 3. far-fetched conclusions I wonder what Al-Qaida members generally fell when their actions is blamed on others.. are they comfortable with it? do they see this a success or do they feel that they need to do more to show that they actually exist?
And here I was, waiting for you to start the thread For if it had been republicans, you'd have wasted no time what-so-ever! Sorry, but you cannot equate normal diplomatic meetings between heads of state with secret party meetings at undisclosed locations. There is a difference. Heads of state are expected to meet under diplomatic efforts. For example, Clinton met with a known terrorist, Yasser Arafat, numerous times during his *Presidency* for diplomatic relations. This is not treason, it was part of his duties and responsibilities. But when you have a party meeting in secret with a known terrorist group, that's a whole other issue. Of course, it is just an allegation at this point. And I have no doubt had it been republicans, you'd have been all over it. I always enjoy your bipartisanship, when it comes to democrats. I just wished it had merit and carried over when dealing with republicans. That's why that "bi" part is there
first: The revised article removed mention of secret meetings. What gives? Was it bad information? Did the editors think that was politically incorrect or too inappropriate? Did something else happen? I have no idea. But they did remove the information...so its a mystery on my part. If at any point during the last 6 years Bush had engaged in secret (unless leaked we never would have known) or non-secret meetings with any enemy at any point I would have respected it and waited to see what was to come of it. There are long studies suggesting American political bs of freezing out and not speaking w/the enemy doesn't work. Need an example? Look at Cuba. 40+ years where American political non-interaction hasn't worked. Why do we do it? Drop the political bs about being evil or whatever. Its all because of internal American politics. It doesn't work. Usually not anywhere. So if some govs somewhere are speaking with the PA (palestinian authority)....give it a shot. Try and see if diplomacy will ultimately work. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't. Non speaking is politically great for the red meat political boys but it just doesn't work over history. It is simply JUVENILE! Need an example? IRAQ. The adults just came back and basically BLASTED the Bush policy and said. START SPEAKING with the IRANIANS and SYRIANS. The ADULTS (the Baker Hamilton commission) basically said the Bush policy isn't working. Bush's nominee for Sec Defense clearly said that Bush policy isn't working. Rumsfeld, in a memo the day before the election, said Bush policy isn't working. AND those are the guys who should be on his side The example of describing it as "treasonous" is the prime example of why pols do it. They play to their political strength and feeds the frenzy of the Political hate extremists. Whether any group listed spoke to PA (either some members of the dem party or some reps of European nations) we don't know since the news article specifically deleted that language in its update. But if some people are speaking to the enemy....there is nothing wrong with trying that at any point.
And what do you think would be discussed at this supposed meeting to call it treason GTech? Where you present at this meeting? It's not even confirmed and you are jumping up and down screaming treason. What do you think they where discussing was there a meeting? How the U.S. could be destroyed? What about the CIA training the PLO GTech? What kind of issue would that be? Since he (Arafat) and his organization was afterall categorized as terrorists and the CIA giving training to such an organization would be qualified by you as? Treason perhaps? http://www.svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=40786&a=436899 Liberal bashing is all that matters right GTech? Just one single message that you would like to put forward in your personal pro-war Bush propoganda.
No need to feel bad for me - I wasn't suckered into anything, GTech. I watched, listened to, and read as much of the available evidence as I could find and formed my own opinion. I admit to giving more weight to evidence as presented by ex-military chiefs and high-ranking officers and also to the huge body of scientists who themselves have presented their thoughts and conclusions. Anyhoo, the first post alludes to a 'conspiracy' of capitulation and appeasement so I thought I'd chuck in a few video links rather than start yet another 911 thread since we were already on the subject of conspiracies. btw, any weapons of mass destruction been found in Iraq yet?