"Just because the government can do these things, doesn't mean that they actually do".

This is a CLASSIC denial comment given in response to factual evidence of events such as 911 being carried out by 'the government' (or elements within the government , to be more accurate).  People making such a comment will do so without any form of substance other than ignorant 'rationalisation'.  

To suggest that ones accusation against 'their government' is based solely on the idea that 'they can' is as uninformed as can be.  This is a textbook notion that indicates intense denial.  That a persons 'rationality' favours the innocence of their own government is at the core of the end result of a conditioned mind.  One obvious comparison is that of Adolf Hitler during WWII and the mass conditioning that told the citizens of Nazi Germany to worship their 'Fuhrer' and not ask questions.  Whereas Hitler and his men used slightly different methods of mass conditioning, the end results are the same.

"The real evil here is your comparison between Bush and Hitler. Governments in the West have gone to great lengths to avoid blaming Arabs in general, or Muslim peoples, for the terrorist threat. How can you compare that to the treatment of Jews by Nazis?" 

POINT 1:  The textbook indication of going into denial is to condemn a person who is opposing your view as 'mad' or 'bad'.  There are many ways in which this can be done.  In demonising a messenger who talks about the NWO agenda (as a negative), they turn the whole subject matter into a hot potato and knowing how denial works, know that many others will buy the demonisation and therefore they will perpetuate it on to others.  Not knowing that they are actually carrying out a higher agenda whilst thinking that it is their own personal agenda.  

This is a very clever and powerful way of gathering mass opposition to your target.  It does not have to be done person to person in a sense of 'lets brainwash and recruit a person into assisting our smear campaign'.  It carries itself out like a cancer of the societies collective mind using the 'bandwagon' technique (because everyone likes a bandwagon) though ridicule or defamation.  Again condemnation for being 'mad' or 'bad'.

Accusing a messenger of bigotry or racism seems to be the most commonly used techniques.  Once a person gets a label like that, other people who have not yet made their mind up, will often go into denial and formulate an opinion against the 'messenger' as it is easier to say 'bunkham' than to consider that which questions the conditioned view of reality.

POINT 2:  Whenever you make a comparison between modern 'government' and those of the past, such as Hitler and the Nazi's (the one most commonly used) you will often get people who pick you up on the technicalities which do not exactly mirror the modern scenario such as 'National Socialism' or the flat economy of the pre-war Germany.  But that is like saying "Those twins aren't identical because they are wearing different clothes!".

The main comment above is a real one, given by someone who obviously has not addressed the difference between overt control and covert control.  Indeed the Bush administration appears, on the surface, to have tried to not demonse the Arabs for the terrorist threat.  Nor should they.  Hitler on the other hand went to great lengths (to put it mildly) to demonise the Jews as the enemy of his police state and NWO agenda.  In doing this he was quickly overthrown, because this was in your face and overt control which has a finite life.  Bush's new world order is far more complex and needs to remain covert until fully realised.

But again the mentality of the person(s) making such a comment as quoted above, indicated mass denial of the very notion that covert control, through conditioning and keeping the people in ignorance even exists.  So when faced with a similar scenario from history, they get around this on an irrelevent technicality.

"What have WE got to gain by helping uphold a system which has given us ALL in the "West" more freedom, health, wealth, and security than anywhere else in the world, at any time in history? Hmmmm.....let me think...."

What you see in the above comment is textbook 'back the winning horse' syndrome.  The idea that joining the system empowers, is the biggest of lies that this new world order is putting out.

Understandably, in the UK (where this comment in question originated) ignoring the fact that those who follow the system are unwitting supporters of the very system that threatens their security (i.e. Her Majesty's covert terrorist network) is not essential, but it helps one go about normal life and punch in and out of work every day (provided you are lucky enough to have a job that hasn't been sent abroad yet) without the stress of facing it all.  

This approach to life is fine, but to attack those who chose to stand up and speak out against the lies and disinformation, is a clear demonstration of ones psychological defense mechanism, designed to 'shut up' anyone that questions the conditioned view of reality.

But why do they do this?  Well, the very idea of their beloved system being as corrupt as can be, threatens the very security that they cling to.  Buying into the propaganda (e.g. of taking national ID cards to help 'stop the terrorists') seems much easier than admitting that their government is a totalitarian fascistic communistic empire, soon to become realised.

This is why many of those who speak out against the new world order are treated as terrorists, because in a sense we are.  We use information which is terrifying in order to try to wake people up.  But this is not evil, this is not Osama supporting tactics at all, in fact it is quite the opposite.  This is how backwards this system has become.  Good is bad and bad is good.

I am not an expert on history by any means, but even I know that in times like we are facing now, whenever big empires have rallied for the people to support them without question, the people who buy into it are always enslaved.

"Terrorists are minority pressure groups who try to get their own way by spreading terror in the population at large. They do this because they can't win their argument democratically.... Bush, on the other hand, has just proved that he did win the argument democratically. Anyone suggesting that he is a terrorist is therefore stupid."

To give a bit of background information first, the above statement is a real one left on a message board following a comment made, promoting the well supported notion that the reason behind Bush being illegally given the US Presidency back in 2000, was mainly because 911 was planned and therefore Bush and his supposed 'right wing' persona was required to follow through.  Al Gore as a perceived liberal democrat on the other hand, appearances being what they are, would have been an inappropriate candidate to spearhead the planned 'war on terror' post 911.

Anyway, the person who left the comment was being very 'two dimensional' in their analysis.  Ignoring and working around the presented facts that the election was staged back in 2000 therefore Bush did not at all 'win the argument democratically' not to mention the following 'war on terror' which was not democratically supported by an informed public of the United States, but rather supported by a manipulation of public opinion aggravated by a staged ''helpful Pearl Harbour event' (i.e. 911) as they openly admitted to (see P.N.A.C) which is the very essence of terrorism!

The final sentence "anyone suggesting that he (Bush) is a terrorist is therefore stupid" as stated before, shows complete arrogance, hostility when confronted with a threat to their conditioned view of reality and like the icing on the cake helps explains their inability to understand the obvious political 'con trick' being played.

"I think you should go accuse the american goverment directly at their consulate in london.Then let us know about the consequences of the litagation that occurs, we can wait to hear about it!"

A sarcastic comment from a person posting on a message board responding the the 9/11 truth movement.

Firstly, we see that the commentator is 'straw-manning' the debate; implying that the 'US government' as a whole is in question.  A real lack of recognition or understanding of the subject matter.

Secondly, the poster makes an overture with much faith in the judicial system.  Such law suits have been brought forward, but go nowhere (in terms of prosecutions) as the system is deeply infiltrated and corrupted by the same power structures that we saw pulling the strings on 9/11.

MORE LITERATURE TO FOLLOW SHORTLY

You can't have a rational discussion with someone stuck in the mindset of conspiracies.  So Bush funds the Iraqi insurgents so he can kick their ass on telly. Yeh, nice one. hear about it!.