Hypothetical: BYU/LDS Church officially rejects Steven Jones

For discussion of secret combinations (political, economic, spiritual, religious, etc.) (Ether 8:18-25.)
User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

I did not mind the "pot shot," remember it was Bush who labeled other heads of state as part of an Axis of Evil. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! It is not befitting any head of state, remember, "we ALL act in our own best interest, there is no international community." Robert Wendzel author of U.S. Foreign Policy in a Changing World, and teacher at one of the war colleges, and a nice guy too.

User avatar
LDS Patriot
captain of 10
Posts: 32
Contact:

Post by LDS Patriot »

Pitchfire wrote:Clearly LDS Patriot Act is correct in calling for the type of unity that unites us all into a New World Order. After all of the terror I'm convinced, where do I sign up? Anyone else wanna join the coolest, newest club?
Pitchfork, unity is a gospel principle and you mock it? Are you advocating contentions and dissensions?

In the Book of Mormon, secret combinations gain power at a time when great contentions and dissensions occur among the people (Helaman 1:1-9; 2:1; 3:17-19; 4:1; 11:1; 3 Nephi 7:7; Ether 11:15).

Jihadists are to be blamed for 9/11, not fictitious "insiders".

Great contentions and dissensions have the power to destroy this country. That is one of the many lessons Mormon & Moroni wanted us to learn in our day relating to the threat of secret combinations.

Why help the Jihadists and other enemies divide and destroy America?

User avatar
LDS Patriot
captain of 10
Posts: 32
Contact:

Post by LDS Patriot »

Swmorgan77 wrote:Oh and on the idea of "Standing with the President", I
Why then, would we hold ourselves to such a standard of loyalty to a President ... To me, this is just common sense.
In the April 2003 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Hinckley gave his moral and spiritual stamp of approval for the Iraq war, supporting President Bush’s efforts on the War on Terror, including regime change. I'm standing with both Presidents, Hinckley and Bush. To me, this is just common sense.

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

I can dig it, or shovel it, or pitch it.

Unity is a two-way street. Are you advocating unity with the Jihadists or is that where it ceases to be a gospel principle, Satan too? I take issue with what you advocate we all be unified in. Have you enlisted yet? Unity is also what Hitler demanded.

Great contentions and dissensions WILL destroy this country. Gadiantons run the whole show and yes there are divisions among us. Those who seek unity with the gadiantons and those who seek to expose and rout them before the inevitable occurs.

If you believed that gadiantons ran our government would you still seek to be so unified with them as you do now? Carefull with the double standards wherein principle is concerned, you may seek to severe that "unity" when your eyes begin to clear the mists as you study the inspired writings of Cleon Skousen advocated over the pulpit!

We do need unity, that is for sure, in the gospel that grants MORE freedom and agency. In what way has this administration given you that?

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

Please supply quotes wherein President Gordon B. Hinckley gave his moral and spiritual stamp of approval for the war in Iraq. Certainly not in this talk!

"I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.

Gordon B. Hinckley, “War and Peace,” Ensign, May 2003, 78
My brethren and sisters, last Sunday as I sat in my study thinking of what I might say on this occasion, I received a phone call telling me that Staff Sergeant James W. Cawley of the U.S. Marines had been killed somewhere in Iraq. He was 41 years of age, leaving behind a wife and two small children.

Twenty years ago Elder Cawley was a missionary of the Church in Japan. Like so many others, he had grown up in the Church, had played as a schoolboy, had passed the sacrament as a deacon, and had been found worthy to serve a mission, to teach the gospel of peace to the people of Japan. He returned home, served in the Marines, married, became a policeman, and was then recalled to active military duty, to which he responded without hesitation.

His life, his mission, his military service, his death seem to represent the contradictions of the peace of the gospel and the tides of war.

And so I venture to say something about the war and the gospel we teach. I spoke of this somewhat in our October conference of 2001. When I came to this pulpit at that time, the war against terrorism had just begun. The present war is really an outgrowth and continuation of that conflict. Hopefully it is now drawing to a conclusion.

As I discuss the matter, I seek the direction of the Holy Spirit. I have prayed and pondered much concerning this. I recognize it is a very sensitive subject for an international congregation, including those not of our religious faith.

The nations of the earth have been divided over the present situation. Feelings have run strong. There have been demonstrations for and against. We are now a world Church with members in most of the nations which have argued this matter. Our people have had feelings. They have had concerns.

War, of course, is not new. The weapons change. The ability to kill and destroy is constantly refined. But there has been conflict throughout the ages over essentially the same issues.

The book of Revelation speaks briefly of what must have been a terrible conflict for the minds and loyalties of God’s children. The account is worth repeating:

“And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

“And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.

“And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him” (Rev. 12:7–9).

Isaiah speaks further concerning that great conflict (see Isa. 14:12–20). Modern revelation gives additional light (see D&C 76:25–29), as does the book of Moses (see Moses 4:1–4), which tells of Satan’s plan to destroy the agency of man.

We sometimes are prone to glorify the great empires of the past, such as the Ottoman Empire, the Roman and Byzantine Empires, and in more recent times, the vast British Empire. But there is a darker side to every one of them. There is a grim and tragic overlay of brutal conquest, of subjugation, of repression, and an astronomical cost in life and treasure.

The great English essayist Thomas Carlyle once ironically shared the observation, “God must needs laugh outright, could such a thing be, to see his wondrous mannikins here below” (quoted in Sartor Resartus [1836], 182). I think our Father in Heaven must have wept as He has looked down upon His children through the centuries as they have squandered their divine birthright in ruthlessly destroying one another.

In the course of history tyrants have arisen from time to time who have oppressed their own people and threatened the world. Such is adjudged to be the case presently, and consequently great and terrifying forces with sophisticated and fearsome armaments have been engaged in battle.

Many of our own Church members have been involved in this conflict. We have seen on television and in the press tearful children clinging to their fathers in uniform, going to the battlefront.

In a touching letter I received just this week, a mother wrote of her Marine son who is serving for the second time in a Middle Eastern war. She says that at the time of his first deployment, “he came home on leave and asked me to go for a walk. … He had his arm around me and he told me about going to war. He … said, ‘Mom, I have to go so you and the family can be free, free to worship as you please. … And if it costs me my life … then giving my life is worth it.’ ”He is now there again and has written to his family recently, saying, “I am proud to be here serving my nation and our way of life. … I feel a lot safer knowing our Heavenly Father is with me.”

There are other mothers, innocent civilians, who cling to their children with fear and look heavenward with desperate pleadings as the earth shakes beneath their feet and deadly rockets scream through the dark sky.

There have been casualties in this terrible conflict, and there likely will be more. Public protests will likely continue. Leaders of other nations have, in no uncertain terms, condemned the coalition strategy.

The question arises, “Where does the Church stand in all of this?”

First, let it be understood that we have no quarrel with the Muslim people or with those of any other faith. We recognize and teach that all the people of the earth are of the family of God. And as He is our Father, so are we brothers and sisters with family obligations one to another.

But as citizens we are all under the direction of our respective national leaders. They have access to greater political and military intelligence than do the people generally. Those in the armed services are under obligation to their respective governments to execute the will of the sovereign. When they joined the military service, they entered into a contract by which they are presently bound and to which they have dutifully responded.

One of our Articles of Faith, which represent an expression of our doctrine, states, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (A of F 1:12).

But modern revelation states that we are to “renounce war and proclaim peace” (D&C 98:16).

In a democracy we can renounce war and proclaim peace. There is opportunity for dissent. Many have been speaking out and doing so emphatically. That is their privilege. That is their right, so long as they do so legally. However, we all must also be mindful of another overriding responsibility, which I may add, governs my personal feelings and dictates my personal loyalties in the present situation.

When war raged between the Nephites and the Lamanites, the record states that “the Nephites were inspired by a better cause, for they were not fighting for … power but they were fighting for their homes and their liberties, their wives and their children, and their all, yea, for their rites of worship and their church.

“And they were doing that which they felt was the duty which they owed to their God” (Alma 43:45–46).

The Lord counseled them, “Defend your families even unto bloodshed” (Alma 43:47).

And Moroni “rent his coat; and he took a piece thereof, and wrote upon it—In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children—and he fastened it upon the end of a pole.

“And he fastened on his headplate, and his breastplate, and his shields, and girded on his armor about his loins; and he took the pole, which had on the end thereof his rent coat, (and he called it the title of liberty) and he bowed himself to the earth, and he prayed mightily unto his God for the blessings of liberty to rest upon his brethren” (Alma 46:12–13).

It is clear from these and other writings that there are times and circumstances when nations are justified, in fact have an obligation, to fight for family, for liberty, and against tyranny, threat, and oppression.

When all is said and done, we of this Church are people of peace. We are followers of our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, who was the Prince of Peace. But even He said, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword” (Matt. 10:34).

This places us in the position of those who long for peace, who teach peace, who work for peace, but who also are citizens of nations and are subject to the laws of our governments. Furthermore, we are a freedom-loving people, committed to the defense of liberty wherever it is in jeopardy. I believe that God will not hold men and women in uniform responsible as agents of their government in carrying forward that which they are legally obligated to do. It may even be that He will hold us responsible if we try to impede or hedge up the way of those who are involved in a contest with forces of evil and repression.

Now, there is much that we can and must do in these perilous times. We can give our opinions on the merits of the situation as we see it, but never let us become a party to words or works of evil concerning our brothers and sisters in various nations on one side or the other. Political differences never justify hatred or ill will. I hope that the Lord’s people may be at peace one with another during times of trouble, regardless of what loyalties they may have to different governments or parties.

Let us pray for those who are called upon to bear arms by their respective governments and plead for the protection of heaven upon them that they may return to their loved ones in safety.

To our brothers and sisters in harm’s way, we say that we pray for you. We pray that the Lord will watch over you and preserve you from injury and that you may return home and pick up your lives again. We know that you are not in that land of blowing sand and brutal heat because you enjoy the games of war. The strength of your commitment is measured by your willingness to give your very lives for that in which you believe.

We know that some have died, and others may yet die in this hot and deadly contest. We can do all in our power to comfort and bless those who lose loved ones. May those who mourn be comforted with that comfort which comes alone from Christ the Redeemer. It was He who said to His beloved disciples:

“Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

“In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you, … that where I am, there ye may be also.

“Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid” (John 14:1–3, 27).

We call upon the Lord, whose strength is mighty and whose powers are infinite, to bring an end to the conflict, an end that will result in a better life for all concerned. The Lord has declared, “For I, the Lord, rule in the heavens above, and among the armies of the earth” (D&C 60:4).

We can hope and pray for that glorious day foretold by the prophet Isaiah when men “shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isa. 2:4).

Even in an evil world we can so live our lives as to merit the protecting care of our Father in Heaven. We can be as the righteous living among the evils of Sodom and Gomorrah. Abraham pleaded that these cities might be spared for the sake of the righteous. (See Gen. 18:20–32.)

And, above all, we can cultivate in our own hearts, and proclaim to the world, the salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ. Through His atoning sacrifice we are certain life will continue beyond the veil of death. We can teach that gospel which will lead to the exaltation of the obedient.

Even when the armaments of war ring out in deathly serenade and darkness and hatred reign in the hearts of some, there stands immovable, reassuring, comforting, and with great outreaching love the quiet figure of the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world. We can proclaim with Paul:

“For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,

“Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

This life is but a chapter in the eternal plan of our Father. It is full of conflict and seeming incongruities. Some die young. Some live to old age. We cannot explain it. But we accept it with the certain knowledge that through the atoning sacrifice of our Lord we shall all go on living, and this with the comforting assurance of His immeasurable love.

He has said, “Learn of me, and listen to my words; walk in the meekness of my Spirit, and you shall have peace in me” (D&C 19:23).

And there, my brothers and sisters, we rest our faith. Regardless of the circumstances, we have the comfort and peace of Christ our Savior, our Redeemer, the living Son of the living God. I so testify in His holy name, even the name of Jesus Christ, amen."

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

I apologize for the length of that, but it is quite relevant, feel free to delete it if needs be Brian. Thanks

Oh and thanks for getting me to re-read the talk, it was inspiring!

I also want to apologize for being antagonistic and the jab at your moniker LDS Patriot.

ShawnC
Minion
Posts: 1062
Location: Idaho

Stamp of Approval???

Post by ShawnC »

I'm with you Pitchfire on this. NEver has The prophet given his stamp of approval. People who would suggest so are just seeing or hearing what they want to instead of the truth through the power of the spirit. Moroni 10:5.

Shawn

User avatar
WYp8riot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1609
Location: WYOMING

Help me.

Post by WYp8riot »

LDS Patriot wrote:
Swmorgan77 wrote:Oh and on the idea of "Standing with the President", I
Why then, would we hold ourselves to such a standard of loyalty to a President ... To me, this is just common sense.
In the April 2003 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Hinckley gave his moral and spiritual stamp of approval for the Iraq war, supporting President Bush’s efforts on the War on Terror, including regime change. I'm standing with both Presidents, Hinckley and Bush. To me, this is just common sense.
This is clearly a contraversial topic. I understand the other side that has a different perception and interpretation than what you have suggested, It is largely based on the history of the Bush family and its ties to NWO and the Banking Cartel. Including the fact that the Bush family rise to wealth was a direct result of a Nazi Banking scheme. So my point is that those who support the office also legitimately, I feel see the clear subversions to freedom. It is a belief, not based on blind faith. Just as reading the book of mormon is important to believe it rather than just interpreting what the prophet or any other has said.

On the other hand the prophet did say what he said. Perhaps we are wrong, or there is partiall correct on both sides. Can you help me or anyone else provide anything to support your interpretation rather than just suggest "common sense" even though it contradicts almost all evidence?

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

I believe that his point is that blind loyalty is far different than loyalty to an office of government. In other words if your bishop told you to jump off a cliff...

But I will let him speak for himself, and no offense Bishop but you first!

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

Post by creator »

In the April 2003 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Hinckley gave his moral and spiritual stamp of approval for the Iraq war, supporting President Bush’s efforts on the War on Terror, including regime change. I'm standing with both Presidents, Hinckley and Bush. To me, this is just common sense.
LDS Patriot, you claim to be a patriot but it seems you match the description of what President Benson called a false patriot...

LDS Church President Spencer W. Kimball in an address entitled “The False Gods We Worship,” given in honor of the US Bicentennial, in June of 1976 said:

“When I review the performance of this people...I am appalled and frightened...We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:

"Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

"That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven." (Matt. 5:44–45.)

I try not to apply labels to people and attack their message and not the person, but I couldn't help it after reading on your website your comparison of Captain Moroni to President Bush! regarding the "NSA warrantless surveillance program"

Wow! I hope you repent soon of this ignorance. In Captain Moroni’s situation he only did “warrantless spying” on a KNOWN enemy, these were people who he saw attack him previously. The lamanites had already attacked him and so there was already a clearly identified enemy… in the case of George Bush they are simply spying on people who are not known enemies, only supposed enemies, many of which are not enemies at all. There is a difference. Please stop associating Moroni, who was a saint, with W Bush who is a Lucifarian.

User avatar
cboyack
captain of 100
Posts: 186
Contact:

Post by cboyack »

We've discussed Moroni's intentions over at the Blogger of Jared.

Basically, Moroni's initial military tactics were against his own sedionist countrymen. He only attacked the Lamanites after Amalickiah stirred them up against the Nephites and then attacked them. Against a foreign power (the Lamanites), Moroni's military tactic was not preemptive war, but preparation.

Shoemaker
captain of 100
Posts: 410

Post by Shoemaker »

You've got to be kidding me! How could anybody in their right mind compare Moroni to King George W. I thought I've heard it all by now but apparently I haven't. Sigh.

User avatar
WYp8riot
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1609
Location: WYOMING

Post by WYp8riot »

Pitchfire wrote:I believe that his point is that blind loyalty is far different than loyalty to an office of government. In other words if your bishop told you to jump off a cliff...

But I will let him speak for himself, and no offense Bishop but you first!
Yes, but the contraversy is about what the prophet said. My personal and current position is that there are many that are blindly loyal to thier own interpretation of the prophets statements and adding to it statements which clearly contradict the evidence regarding the Bush "empire" as it may be called.

User avatar
SwissMrs&Pitchfire
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 6047
Location: Driven

Post by SwissMrs&Pitchfire »

Ignore my comment, I was refering to what Swmorgan77 wrote is common sense, not what LDS Patriot wrote is common sense. Looking back I was not very clear.

I think that the evidence is all too obvious to anyone willing to see and read through all of the sources whether you like them or not and them check them out.

For anyone that beleives that Pres. Bush is genuinly a good person doing his best, I challenge you to READ the sources that you detest and then check the material against other sources to verify it. You will find that all of the Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, CFR, SPP, PNAC, Bilderberg, Rockefeller stuff is factual. Pretend it's harmless if you must but READ what the prophets have said about these secret societies and THEN tell me that you support the president. Until then your loyalty is blind.

User avatar
creator
(of the Forum)
Posts: 8240
Location: The Matrix
Contact:

not pre-emptive...

Post by creator »

We've discussed Moroni's intentions over at the Blogger of Jared.

Basically, Moroni's initial military tactics were against his own sedionist countrymen. He only attacked the Lamanites after Amalickiah stirred them up against the Nephites and then attacked them. Against a foreign power (the Lamanites), Moroni's military tactic was not preemptive war, but preparation.
On the "Blogger of Jared http://www.bloggerofjared.com/2006/09/2 ... for-peace/", the article is titled: "Moroni’s Preemptive, Imperialist War for Peace"...

Moroni's wars (both Moroni's) were not pre-emptive or imperialist... they were defensive wars fought in his own land. He was either defending against invasion of the Lamanites or defending freedom from the enemies within the country. He never approved of any foreign wars, and in the instance when the Nephites decided to do an offensive/pre-emptive strike in the land of the Lamanites they began to be destroyed....

The only time they waged a war that might seem "offensive" is when they were just attacking to regain their own cities that had been taken from them, this is really just a defensive action.

The Book of Mormon is full of examples and principles showing that the Lord was often with the Nephites when they were defending themselves from the Lamanites who came into their land. While they were waging a defensive war the Lord often protected them, but when the Lamanites decided to go unto the Lamanites (OFFENSIVE/PRE-EMPTIVE) that is when the Lord stopped helping them:

from Mormon Chapter's 3 & 4:

"...the Lamanites did come down to the city of Desolation to battle against us; and it came to pass that in that year we did beat them, insomuch that they did return to their own lands again... because of this great thing which my people, the Nephites, had done, they began to boast in their own strength, and began to swear before the heavens that they would avenge themselves of the blood of their brethren who had been slain by their enemies.

"....they did aswear by the heavens, and also by the throne of God, that they would go up to battle against their enemies...

"...I, Mormon, did utterly refuse from this time forth to be a commander and a leader of this people, because of their wickedness and abomination...

"...I [Mormon] utterly refused to go up against mine enemies; and I did even as the Lord had commanded me; and I did stand as an idle witness to manifest unto the world the things which I saw and heard, according to the manifestations of the Spirit which had testified of things to come.

"...the Nephites did go up with their armies to battle against the Lamanites, out of the land Desolation... the armies of the Nephites were driven back

"...And it was because the armies of the Nephites went up unto the Lamanites that they began to be smitten; for were it not for that, the Lamanites could have had no power over them.

"...from this time forth did the Nephites gain no power over the Lamanites, but began to be swept off by them even as a dew before the sun."

Swmorgan77
captain of 100
Posts: 518
Location: Bluffdale, UT
Contact:

Post by Swmorgan77 »

LDS Patriot wrote:
Swmorgan77 wrote:Oh and on the idea of "Standing with the President", I
Why then, would we hold ourselves to such a standard of loyalty to a President ... To me, this is just common sense.
In the April 2003 General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Hinckley gave his moral and spiritual stamp of approval for the Iraq war, supporting President Bush’s efforts on the War on Terror, including regime change. I'm standing with both Presidents, Hinckley and Bush. To me, this is just common sense.
REEEE-HEEEE-HEAAALLY?

I think you're either inferring too much from that statement, or disregarding this:
"I know of no other writing [the Book of Mormon] which sets forth with such clarity the tragic consequences to societies that follow courses contrary to the commandments of God. Its pages trace the stories of two distinct civilizations that flourished on the Western Hemisphere. Each began as a small nation, its people walking in the fear of the Lord. But with prosperity came growing evils. The people succumbed to the wiles of ambitious and scheming leaders who oppressed them with burdensome taxes, who lulled them with hollow promises, who countenanced and even encouraged loose and lascivious living. These evil schemers led the people into terrible wars that resulted in the death of millions and the final and total extinction of two great civilizations in two different eras."

The God of heaven spoke to these people of the Americas through prophets, telling them where true security could be found: "Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ" (Ether 2:12).
You see, true security is not to be found in the building up the false Gods President Kimball spoke of as quoted above. If you lay your individual sovereignty on the altar of your government for the sake of unity and for security, you are not only participating in a form of idolotry, but you are seeking security by means through which it will not, and historically never has been, acheived. The greatest numbers of deaths in the history of humanity have been wrought by the hands of governments in the 20th century who promised unity and security, and they were wrought upon the very citizens that they had promised to protect.

The scriptures and revelations are clear. Niether Unity, nor any other noble purpose, is be sought at the expense of agency, or demanded by virtue of authority (D&C 121).

That is NOT the plan that was adopted in the preexistence. Unity is only a virtue when it is centered on eternal principles, and derives from the free exercise of agency.

User avatar
Col. Flagg
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 16961
Location: Utah County

Post by Col. Flagg »

I've done a lot of research on this subject of 9/11 possibly being an inside job and I partially agree with Dr. Jones. I do not believe the U.S. government (or a faction of it) was solely responsible for the events of 9/11, but I do buy into the theory that 9/11 was allowed to happen by the Bush administration in order for a lot of their objectives to be achieved, among them being their planned PNAC agenda. PNAC stands for "Project for a New American Century", and a document describing its guidelines discusses the need for a new 'Pearl Harbor" to occur in order for its purposes to be initiated and fulfilled. bin Laden was simply a fall guy... he used to be a CIA operative back during the Russian-Afghan war. There are far too many coincidences that do not add up which point to collusion. Satan is cunning and he works deception to perfection.

Post Reply