And you fail to realize that you don't have much credibility here. So while you may feel like mentally masturbating here; since you do not think he is guilty, you are really just showing everyone how silly you are by thinking bush should go after someone you think is innocent. Secondly, you have failed to intelligently reply to a logical reason why bin laden is not reachable; which tells me that your argument here is not based on reason, it is simply based on BDS. In this thread, and the previous thread, I have given several reasons why Bin laden is possibly not gettable. Have you directly responded to any of these? Nope.
Face it mate, you have no credible reply to my question. Forget my thoughts about Bin Laden, I'm just a conspiracy kook lol. I want to hear your thoughts as a person that believes Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 and I'll ask the question again: Why did George Bush say that he was wanted "dead or alive" on 12th September 2001 then just 6 months later (March 2002) he says that he "don't spend that much time on him"? And remember sir, this is no conspiracy, this is exactly what Bush said, jesus, the one link (in my OP) from March 2002 where he says he "don't spend that much time on him" is actually from the official Government site.
I must admire your style lorien, you have been the only DP Sheeple to try and defend your knight in shining armour, the others like GTech, Mia, d16(GTech)man etc. have remained ominously quiet. I am giving you credit for trying, you should be honoured as I don't give many sheeple any credit at all.
I'll read that as. "I didn't read it the first time, so I certainly won't read it a second time and am just using this thread to express my BDS." What's sad is that you actually think I am defending Bush, when its quite the contrary I think the failure to catch bin laden sucks, but right now, his capture won't change anything. You devolve everything into either pro-bush or anti-bush and since you perceive everything through your narrow vision, you fail to understand anything.
Actually he did. The challenge you face isn't Lorien's reply, but owning up to your own lack of intelligence to see that which is clearly before you. Has nothing to do with Bush, but it's just another interesting observation that proves a consistent point I've made, that blind hatred towards a president means that people like you believe you cannot support America without it appearing that you support Bush. It's a shame you do not have the intellect to see the difference, despite the fact it happens all the time. Exactly. AGS is so anti-Bush that he's willing to become anti-America and pro-terrorist to demonstrate such.
A CONSISTENT POINT YOU'VE MADE? You have not made a point, and certainly your conclusion that people that do not support Bush do not support America is totally unfounded, and without reason. What is "blind hatred"? I bet you had "blind hatred" towards Suddam Hussein. That is the idiot reason the US is in Iraq. However, the US is supposedly doing it to save Iraq. I wonder what motivates people with a so called "blind hatred" of president Bush? They want to save their country, and people. "Blind hatred" is perhaps justified at times. I only disliked GW Bush because he is so contemptuous and ignorant. Now, My "blind hatred" for that simple fuck is justified, and in actuallity, it is not blind. His supporters, however, are very blind and stupid. Demonstratably so.
Ah, but I have made that point very clear. That you were not able to comprehend that point is not the surprise here
No sir I am not anti-American and neither am I pro-terrorist either, but yes I am very anti-Bush because since your Republican neocon super hero has come into power in early 2001 the world has become a much more dangerous place due to his wanton lies and deception. I could not have worded that any better myself.
What are you talking about? President Bush said the day after 9/11 that capturing bin Laden and bringing him to justice was the primary job of the country and then less than a year later Bush said bin Laden wasn't important and that he didn't think about him much. I don't care if the President is a Republican, Democrat or Liberatian, when he makes a promise to bring to justice the person responsible for an attack like 9/11, you shouldn't be allowed to flip-flop out of that promise.
It was actually only 6 months after mate and you must remember that in GTechs eyes Bush is a great President and has done nothing wrong.
Poor AGS. Still mindlessly expressing his BDS and not willing to respond to actual answers to the original question. Nevermind, that AGS thinks OBL is innocent, so cannot, logically even think that bush should go after him anyways
Hey buddy, I am taking it from the "original version" of events as we were told by your Government here. That evil man that masterminded 9/11 from his batcave in the middle of nowhere needs to be brought to justice. And the man that promised us (the world) that he would be found "dead or alive" owes it to all the victims and victims families mate.
I didn't know Bush and the Illuminati were living in caves, AGS. Right? Let's be honest with your beliefs and lack of credibility here This is the 3rd time I'll ask you this. If Bin Laden is in Pakistan (like everyone thinks) and we have an agreement with the government not to cross Pakistan's border, how do we get him? Break a treaty? Create a civil war in pakistan? is this your wish? How many troops are you willing to commit to this? Will it matter if he's found and brought to justice? Nothing I'm asking you is very difficult here. But your sad ability to directly respond to the questions just tells me that you are expressing your BDS and not seriously looking for any answers. Which is typical, for you.
Stop making excuses lorien, if he was in Pakistan (as everyone else thinks) then Pakistan would allow the US in to find him. Remember that Pakistan are allies with the US mate. You just keep stonewalling me because you know like I do that Osama was just the patsy and now your hero doesn't care where he is because he has served his purpose, and that was to blame him for 9/11 so the US and its allies could invade Afghanistan. The WMD hoax was the sham to get into Iraq. Tell me lorien, what bullshit do you think we'll be fed to get people to support a disastrous and foolish attack on Iran? Having said that, Bush will just do it anyway because he just does not give a shit what anyone else thinks including top level US Generals and the majority of public opinion.
Maybe because the common sense tells us that OBL is already dead, but also the common sense tells us that W. need to feed otherwise to keep the troop bringing oil home...
Yep. AGS. That's it. Must be. Nothing else makes sense? So again, you are happy that bush isn't going after Bin Laden - since he's innocent, you are happy he's out there free and unfettered, right? (Here. I'll answer for you. "yes, lorien, i am happy about that since he is not the cause of 9/11, bush as no right to go after him" - there I said it for you so you don't have to type it yourself.) Repeat after me. Pakistan and US have an agreement that we will not cross their border. AQ knows this and that is how it runs its hit and run campaigns across the semiautonomous tribal regions. Pakistan made a section of their country semi-autonomous because Bin Laden is so popular there. If Pakistan had let us in there, it'd have a civil war on its hands. Your inability actually read and understand these things is very pathetic. I don't like this decision by the US and Pakistan, but its in place and its a fact of life. Pakistan is a rare ally in that part of the world. Why piss them off for a guy whose capture doesn't really matter in the scheme of things? I'm not stonewalling at all. I'm actually responding to your comments. You are not reasoning your way through this, as normal. You are the one with omniscience and can tell the future and know what the deep dark secrets of the world are. You and all your deep knowledge of the illuminati. You tell me *yawn* boring change of subject that's been debunked hundreds of times before. Not that I'm expecting any intelligent retort to any of this. Your sad efforts here are too obvious
Yep, he says he doesn't support terrorists, but he does so in open view of the world when he continues to seek to absolve terrorists of their crimes and give their credit to others, despite evidence that clearly debunks the *for profit* conspiracies that alex jones, dylan avery and john conners tells him to believe in. That is supporting terrorists. Seeking to give their credit to others. This isn't an unreasonable question and really doesn't take the kind of thought process that would usually cause you a headache, AGS. No response? Here's a trick question AGS...who here works harder than anyone else to give terrorists' credit to others?