Question of the Week: Terrorism

by Champagne_Socialist Thu 24 Jul 2014, 10:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

It has been 13 years since the war on terror began so the question I want to ask is this: Has the war on terror made the world (most notably western countries) a safer place?

by GSC Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:22 am

Moreover, why would these 1-2 people be random nutjobs.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:26 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
ONETWOFOREVER wrote:
kingraf wrote:Not much of Conspiracy theorist, but the idea that government can pull off a large scale plan, or idea is hardly without precedent. See: Manhattan Project, The. Or even, albeit with lesser success, and hands on deck, Project Mind Kontrol.

Can always rely on raf with sensible sound judgement.

These lot ask how?

how can a government hide such plans?

Well most technology used by the public today had been in existence 10 or more years before the public even knew about it. Its not hard for them to hide things they do it ALL the time. When you are part of a network that has its hands in every aspect of society from the economy, to science, to military you can choose what to reveal and what to conceal.

The American governments have many secret projects we don;t know about.
If they're secret projects, how do you know they exist? Either you know about them and therefore they're just projects or you don't know about them and are talking out the back of your head.

Or they are 'secret', yet people (1-2) still know about them, therefore lending considerable credence to Rowley's view that no government would actually be sufficiently competent to pull-off something of the scale of 9/11.

Well, if they couldn't cover up Watergate then 9/11 does seem a tad ambitious...like a bloke who can't change a light bulb but decides his next DIY project is to build a theme park

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:31 am

Like I have previously done Dave I believe you work in the civil service. On a daily basis do you encounter people of such ruthless efficiency and cunning that they could carry off such a task?

by GSC Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:32 am

Don't forget though guys, the government had twitter 18 years ago to organise this.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:39 am

Firstly there's nothing remotely civil about the service I provide but I can state without fear of contradiction that if the people I work with are involved in anything remotely underhand then it won't need a "Paddy Considine in the Bourne Ultimatum" type sting to uncover it.

My supervisor has now failed on four of the week's five working days to provide late cover for the department. Something tells me he's not part of the secret cabal and if he is, we're all going to Hell.

Although I must point out that, working for "The Man" it's my job to provide misdirection and obfuscation at every opportunity lest the black paint be squeegeed from the collective third eye

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:41 am

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

Questions around Pearl Harbour? What questions are those? You're really scraping the barrel if that's your supporting evidence.

You question the account of 9/11 - what would have satisfied you? What 'should' the story have been?

As for Iraq - I think most people now know that the official reasons were a sham. As for the underlying motives - who knows? Anyone can point out some imagined but feasible motive. Perhaps it was weapons contracts, perhaps redevelopment contracts, perhaps oil rights, perhaps about destabilising the middle east to prevent the rise of a rival power base, perhaps it was about stirring conflict to keep the muslim world divided. Who the hell knows? What's to say there has to be a single reason, anyway? If enough people have their own reasons, then that's enough.

Going back to the initial thread, is the world safer for the war on terror? That's a very loose question, and rather assumes that the purpose of the war on terror was to make the whole world safer. I'd suggest that the actual purpose of the war on terror was to make the western world safer from Islamist terrorists. In that respect, it has succeeded. At what cost, however?

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:43 am

Exactly what I expected you to say Dave. The facade is beginning to slip.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:50 am

Rowley wrote:Exactly what I expected you to say Dave. The facade is beginning to slip.

Or is that what I wanted you to think?

by GSC Fri 01 Aug 2014, 10:52 am

*Doctor Who Theme*

by TopHat24/7 Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:29 am

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
ONETWOFOREVER wrote:First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

Questions around Pearl Harbour? What questions are those? You're really scraping the barrel if that's your supporting evidence.

He'll start on vapour trails next........

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:33 am

TopHat24/7 wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
ONETWOFOREVER wrote:First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

Questions around Pearl Harbour? What questions are those? You're really scraping the barrel if that's your supporting evidence.

He'll start on vapour trails next........

Is that what he calls the stuff he's clearly sniffing? The only conspiracy around Pearl Harbor was the one that suggested Churchill was aware of the attack but refused to inform the Americans as he knew that once Pearl Harbour was hit the Americans would have no option but to join in.

"Damnit Winston, we lost 3000 men"
"We're losing that every day!"

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:34 am

Or GM foods, Vaccinations, Aliens, etc etc etc etc.

It's absolutely bonkers some of the stuff that comes under conspiricies and how many times stuff has been proven wrong (Example, they have to keep spending money to do various studies on the link between autism and Vaccinations due to ONE report (later discredited) that said their was a link.)

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:40 am

Derbymanc wrote:Or GM foods, Vaccinations, Aliens, etc etc etc etc.

It's absolutely bonkers some of the stuff that comes under conspiricies and how many times stuff has been proven wrong (Example, they have to keep spending money to do various studies on the link between autism and Vaccinations due to ONE report (later discredited) that said their was a link.)

You wouldn't find it funny if, like me, you had an autistic cat

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:42 am

I thought he was just evil incarnate Dave (like all cats) Wink

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:46 am

She is a c*nt....chucked her out last night then went out to the garage to collect the stuff from the tumble drier and saw the cat run into the house. Put the clean clothes down and discovered the cat sat on the windowsill crying to get out.

"Why did you come inside in the first place you stupid sh!t?" I screamed, as I hurled the f*****g stupid creature into the road praying for an articulated lorry to come hurtling past.

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:49 am

At least she hasn't sat on your clean clothes...................yet. Ours has currently decided that the best place to hunt flys from is just above my fricking head and the best time to do it is at 02 in the morning, and he's also decided that the comfiest place to sit is in front of the flipping telly, but only after the Missus has gone to sleep.

If there's any conspiracy it's that he wants me gone steam

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:54 am

The cat sleeps in the dirty laundry basket, the clean laundry basket, on top of the wardrobe, in my bed, my daughter's bed, my daughter's play tent, my son's cot and the carry cot we currently have at the side of our bed. Once found the cat sleeping in his pram and even underneath the pram in the little carry basket. Even found it sleeping on top of my trainers.........

I wouldn't wring it's neck but wouldn't cry if someone else did

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:55 am

I think you've summed up what owning a cat feels like all in one post their Smile

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 11:58 am

I dearly love my cat. She is awesome. I would kill anyone who wrung her neck, violently and brutally.

by ONETWOFOREVER Fri 01 Aug 2014, 12:33 pm

Rowley wrote:I dearly love my cat. She is awesome. I would kill anyone who wrung her neck, violently and brutally.

Extremist????

by TopHat24/7 Fri 01 Aug 2014, 1:25 pm

DAVE667 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
ONETWOFOREVER wrote:First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

Questions around Pearl Harbour? What questions are those? You're really scraping the barrel if that's your supporting evidence.

He'll start on vapour trails next........
Is that what he calls the stuff he's clearly sniffing?

No, google it, it's hilarious.

Basically, you know the scientifically proven and factually explained occurance of planes travelling at certain speeds in certain atmospheric conditions leaving white 'vapour trails' behind them when they fly?

Well a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing retarded red-neck conspriacy theorists think they are actually government controlled planes flying through the air pumping out chemicals into the atmosphere to suppress and subdue the general populace below.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 2:04 pm

TopHat24/7 wrote:
DAVE667 wrote:
TopHat24/7 wrote:
jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
ONETWOFOREVER wrote:First off I have my doubts about the official 9-11 explanation.

For something so big and tragic it merited more then just a cowboy and Indian story which the US government gave to the world.

''The indians attacked and now the Cowboy heros will get revenge'' I am sorry there is more to the explanation that needs to be discussed in a court of law.

It has been proven that a few of the recent big wars have started on a lie. There are questions surrounding the pearl harbour attacks, the Gulf of Tonkin incident which led to the Vietnam war that has been proved to be a lie, the pananma invasion, the sinking of the Lusitania and most recently the lies that have led to the war in Iraq.

So history has showed us that inventing a reason to go to war in order to gain public support has been used again and again by nations with an agenda which can only be met through military expansion.

9-11 has more questions then answers and that is my opinion.

As for the question well NO the west promised along with many other lies to make the world a safer place which it has failed to do. It got rid of Saddam and now look at the situation in Iraq today. Is Iraq a safer place? NO, was operation Iraqi freedom a success? NO. So ask yourself WHO BENIFITED from the war in Iraq?

The soldiers out there fighting?
the parents and loved ones of the fallen soldiers?
The Iraqi people?
the middle eastern region?

Or have the numerous arms contractors benifitted from the war? Yes
the oil contractors? yes
the people funding the war? yes

The so called war on terror was never meant to be won. Its imperative that this war continues for a long time because war is money. So get used to a world of conflict

Questions around Pearl Harbour? What questions are those? You're really scraping the barrel if that's your supporting evidence.

He'll start on vapour trails next........
Is that what he calls the stuff he's clearly sniffing?

No, google it, it's hilarious.

Basically, you know the scientifically proven and factually explained occurance of planes travelling at certain speeds in certain atmospheric conditions leaving white 'vapour trails' behind them when they fly?

Well a bunch of tin-foil hat wearing retarded red-neck conspriacy theorists think they are actually government controlled planes flying through the air pumping out chemicals into the atmosphere to suppress and subdue the general populace below.

I would Google it but for some reason, I suddenly can't be bothered. Probably nothing to do with living fairly close to Leeds/Bradford airport.

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 2:22 pm

1 - I hate cats. My girlfriend's mother has one...
how I do hate her

2 - these people lie. America talked about not getting involved in apartheid South Africa... and yet, slap bang in the middle of a costly war, still have enough time to practically gift wrap freedom fighters to the Secret Police. To this day, the CIA still refuses to release files which would either exonerate, or incriminate them in Mandela's imprisonment. In 1961 the US ordered the assassination of Congo's first democratically elected president... didn't quite succeed, but these are nasty people, with no remorse, and it doesn't take a tinfoil to realise there's very little they can't/won't do.

by ONETWOFOREVER Fri 01 Aug 2014, 3:53 pm

kingraf wrote:1 - I hate cats. My girlfriend's mother has one...
how I do hate her

2 - these people lie. America talked about not getting involved in apartheid South Africa... and yet, slap bang in the middle of a costly war, still have enough time to practically gift wrap freedom fighters to the Secret Police. To this day, the CIA still refuses to release files which would either exonerate, or incriminate them in Mandela's imprisonment. In 1961 the US ordered the assassination of Congo's first democratically elected president... didn't quite succeed, but these are nasty people, with no remorse, and it doesn't take a tinfoil to realise there's very little they can't/won't do.

Great point raf

The Patrice Lumumba incident as typical CIA. THE DANGER OF A GOOD IDEA spreading to other nations. As I have said before war is money and a stable third world nation is bad for buisness.

The CIA did the same thing in IRAN when they reinstated the diposed Shah.

Complete idiots like TopHat, rowley, and the rest refuse to accept that ''anglo - saxons'' can be resonsible for pretty nasty anti democratic behaviour towards other countries. Far easier and pleasing to them to point the finger of blame to the ''brown skin'' peoples of the Earth. They are to blame for everything.

They refuse to see things from our side raf. The corrupted governments in the pocket of these so called super powers and the resulting numerous failed states that have emerged due to ''interferance''

Its ok that blood is shed as long as it aint in their lands and their people. To them we are all tin foil loonys

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:00 pm

Yep, a fear of people with brown skin goes hand in hand with my chosen career!

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:07 pm

You working at a tanning salon now Rowley?

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:08 pm

Raffy, are you saying 9/11 was a conspiracy or just pointing out governments have done Poopie things?

Onetwo, 9/11 has been proven time and again not to be a conspiracy yet it continues to draw Numptys like a moth to a flame. Money had to be spent time and again to do this, money which could have been used to help the poorer in society, so in effect it's truthers keeping the poor down, not the government.

For anyone interested, this is the article that's had me looking up conspiricies last week
http://www.cracked.com/article_20466_5-conspiracy-theories-that-are-shockingly-easy-to-debunk.html

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:08 pm

Onetwo, that is the second time you have suggested I don't care about people dying. Can I ask where you are getting this from. The fact that I don't believe the illuminati are responsible for everything is not the same as not caring about anything.

by Duty281 Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:10 pm

Please tell me that OneTwo is being sarcastic.

I don't think there are enough facepalms in the world if he genuinely believes what he just wrote.

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:18 pm

I'm not accusing anyone of hating brown people... But the USA has knowingly done as much damage to Africa as any despot ever did. In many ways, Africa is probably evidence of the phrase right and wrong is a matter of perspective. Anyway, like I said, I don't trust America, and I don't put anything past them. Simply done too much underhanded, sinister, evil work in countries that had nothing to do with them. Why where they in business with an illegitimate dictatorship like Rhodesia? Even worse, they backed the tyranny of Mubarak. I could go on, but the reality is Americans only wage war on illegitimate reigns that don't play nice, and bend over and take it like a good little girl.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:22 pm

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:
kingraf wrote:1 - I hate cats. My girlfriend's mother has one...
how I do hate her

2 - these people lie. America talked about not getting involved in apartheid South Africa... and yet, slap bang in the middle of a costly war, still have enough time to practically gift wrap freedom fighters to the Secret Police. To this day, the CIA still refuses to release files which would either exonerate, or incriminate them in Mandela's imprisonment. In 1961 the US ordered the assassination of Congo's first democratically elected president... didn't quite succeed, but these are nasty people, with no remorse, and it doesn't take a tinfoil to realise there's very little they can't/won't do.

Complete idiots like TopHat, rowley, and the rest refuse to accept that ''anglo - saxons'' can be resonsible for pretty nasty anti democratic behaviour towards other countries. Far easier and pleasing to them to point the finger of blame to the ''brown skin'' peoples of the Earth. They are to blame for everything.

And now someone's reported your comment. I think it's part of a wider conspiracy against brown skinned people on the forum. Perhaps the CIA are behind it?

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:24 pm

kingraf wrote:I'm not accusing anyone of hating brown people... But the USA has knowingly done as much damage to Africa as any despot ever did. In many ways, Africa is probably evidence of the phrase right and wrong is a matter of perspective. Anyway, like I said, I don't trust America, and I don't put anything past them. Simply done too much underhanded, sinister, evil work in countries that had nothing to do with them. Why where they in business with an illegitimate dictatorship like Rhodesia? Even worse, they backed the tyranny of Mubarak. I could go on, but the reality is Americans only wage war on illegitimate reigns that don't play nice, and bend over and take it like a good little girl.

I think you can say that about most nations Raf.

Whilst I don't think anybody has said the USA is whiter than white, nor that it has been involved in some despicable things in it's past. All of these things have come out pretty rapid and due to things that don't add up.

Something like 9/11 has been looked at through the biggest microscope with nothing being found. After reading about the Sandy Hook conspiracy theorists, the whole issue has left me with a bad taste and the fact that some people will grasp on anything to make themselves firstly seem oh so clever (what do you mean you don't know about vapour trail, sheesh etc) and refuse to look at any evidence to the contrary (any 9/11 truther.)

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:25 pm

Not sure anyone is contesting any of that Raf. However there is a world of difference between a government propping up and supporting regimes that are friendly to them, or protect their interests, be it in public or behind the scenes and them having a hand and being complicit in arranging the murder of 3000 of their own citizens, on their own soil.

The former is reasonably easy to believe and in reality is what all superpowers have done during their time at the top of the three, the latter is just ridiculous.

by ONETWOFOREVER Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:25 pm

Take a good look at history and you will see that the problems that persist in third world countries are a direct result of western nations interfaring with the political structure of the country.

What would have been the outcome for Iraq had the US not sold biological and chemical arms to Saddam?

We sit here and denounce terrorists like ISIS who have taken over large swarths of the country but we forget that this game has been played out before.

Afghanistan.

The US aided the Taliban against Russia. Taught them everything they needed to know and funded them. After the war with Russia cival war breaks out. Then eventually when the time is right the US invades.

In Iraq they destroy the infrustucture, giving the power to the Shias and margenalising the Sunni who re group and now civil war awaits on the horizan and who will come back to save the day?

by Duty281 Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:27 pm

Rowley wrote:Not sure anyone is contesting any of that Raf. However there is a world of difference between a government propping up and supporting regimes that are friendly to them, or protect their interests, be it in public or behind the scenes and them having a hand and being complicit in arranging the murder of 3000 of their own citizens, on their own soil.

The former is reasonably easy to believe and in reality is what all superpowers have done during their time at the top of the three, the latter is just ridiculous.

I absolutely agree. clap

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:28 pm

kingraf wrote:I'm not accusing anyone of hating brown people... But the USA has knowingly done as much damage to Africa as any despot ever did. In many ways, Africa is probably evidence of the phrase right and wrong is a matter of perspective. Anyway, like I said, I don't trust America, and I don't put anything past them. Simply done too much underhanded, sinister, evil work in countries that had nothing to do with them. Why where they in business with an illegitimate dictatorship like Rhodesia? Even worse, they backed the tyranny of Mubarak. I could go on, but the reality is Americans only wage war on illegitimate reigns that don't play nice, and bend over and take it like a good little girl.

The US looks to secure its hegemony. That's the primary motive behind its foreign policy. As I understand it, the ANC were disliked because of their communist sympathies which risked aligning them with the Soviets. That said, I suspect that, historically, the British have done rather more harm to Africa than the Americans.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:33 pm

Back in 1996 I went to the Phoenix Festival and listened in awe/disbelief as the great Chuck D tried to tell the crowd that AIDS was a disease deliberately introduced into Africa by the W.H.O. to assist in the pillaging of Africa's natural resources.

Chuck's always struck me as an intelligent articulate man and had Flava made that statement I'd have been inclined to scream, "Shut the f**k up you idiot and play "'Shut 'em down!'" but even to this day I struggle with the concept that Chuck might wear a foil hat under that baseball cap.

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:36 pm

If you think that is outlandish Dave, try and find Chuck's theories about Tupac's "death". When you read them you will realise why the word death is in inverted commas.

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:37 pm

Derby - I'm on the fence about 9/11, but common sense dictates if it wasn't hard for "terrorists" to pull off, then logically it isn't hard for governments to fund. It's my main issue with "myth debunking", you can't on one hand say, "This is conclusive proof your everyman could have done it", but with the same breath declare, "so obviously your government, with infinitely greater resources and man and brainpower can't".

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:41 pm

There's always an "explanation"... ANC were too communist. Mubarak was the best of a bad bunch. Rhodesia was undergoing change... And yet, when the dictator doesn't play nice, there's absolutely no justification for these people remaining in power. While Britain was probably the first spoiler of Africa... it really is near the bottom of the pile... The Congo didn't have democratic elections for nearly another 50 years, with millions dead or displaced.

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:42 pm

The argument does not really stack up though Raf, because terrorists try to commit terrorist acts, the clue is in the name. Given this if you say to a fellow member of Al Qaeda, I intend to fly a plane into a building he is likely to say good idea, what can I do to help.

However if you are a member of the US government and say to a fellow member of the US government, who has devoted his working life to public service and trying to make his country better "I intend to fly a plane into a building in one of our major cities and kill 3000 of the very citizens I am paid to serve, I suspect he is unlikely to offer to help.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:45 pm

Rowley wrote:If you think that is outlandish Dave, try and find Chuck's theories about Tupac's "death". When you read them you will realise why the word death is in inverted commas.

Oh yeah, I've read those as well....think Chuck may have had a slight does of mercury poisoning at that period in his life. Probably been sharing tuna sandwiches with David Ike

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 4:55 pm

And yet Geoff, this conundrum seemed to be completely absent from members of American government, telling members of other American government to torture and mentally disintegrate American citizens during Project MKUltra.

by Derbymanc Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:03 pm

Sorry Raf but your talking about an administration that is generally seen as a bunch of idiots that were lucky to string a sentence together.

9/11 has been looked at time and again and in this day and age of leaked documents/social media something would have come up, not a bunch of herberts that get tearful and scream when someone disagrees with them.

by Rowley Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:04 pm

Still maintain expermimenting on people, whilst unpleasant and illegal is a good way short of murdering your own citizens. How many people in government would be required to carry out and cover up 9/11? Rhetorical question and I don't know the answer but one would have to think between the NSA, CIA, FBI and Federal Government it is a good number.

Find it hard to believe as, over the last 10 + years we have watched and rewatched the footage from that day, watched the people jumping to their deaths, heard the harrowing messages left for and to loved ones and seen how it has wrecked the lives of the victims families, not one of those involved has been sufficiently troubled by their conscious enough to blow the whistle. They are all happy to, not only carry on with their own lives, but to continue to work for the very government that made them part of such a horrific act. If my unwillingness to accept that makes me a sheep all I can say is baa.

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:09 pm

Rowley wrote:The argument does not really stack up though Raf, because terrorists try to commit terrorist acts, the clue is in the name. Given this if you say to a fellow member of Al Qaeda, I intend to fly a plane into a building he is likely to say good idea, what can I do to help.

However if you are a member of the US government and say to a fellow member of the US government, who has devoted his working life to public service and trying to make his country better "I intend to fly a plane into a building in one of our major cities and kill 3000 of the very citizens I am paid to serve, I suspect he is unlikely to offer to help.

Unless you follow it up by saying that the aim of this is to manipulate the population into agreeing to an illegal invasion of a country in order to steal oil even though the cost of the military action to date would probably buy the entire oil reserves of the Middle East legally and with a few quid to spare. Then this colleague would ask about the soul crushing mind numbing loss of life both military and civilian and the backlash that would cause and you could say "Hey man, it's all.....part of the plan!" and he'd say "Oh right, count me in!"

That's how this sh!t works, baby!

by ONETWOFOREVER Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:09 pm

kingraf wrote:There's always an "explanation"... ANC were too communist. Mubarak was the best of a bad bunch. Rhodesia was undergoing change... And yet, when the dictator doesn't play nice, there's absolutely no justification for these people remaining in power. While Britain was probably the first spoiler of Africa... it really is near the bottom of the pile... The Congo didn't have democratic elections for nearly another 50 years, with millions dead or displaced.

Take the Tuskegee syphilis experiment for example

an infamous clinical study conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service to study the natural progression of untreated syphilis in rural African American men who thought they were receiving free health care from the U.S. government.

This was a 40 YEAR study.

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:12 pm

So torturing and leaving people for dead is fine, but actually killing them is where the line absolutely must be drawn? I somehow don't agree. If you can find people that sleep well knowing they are destroying the lives of innocent people, but people who kill are a step too far?

by kingraf Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:15 pm

Okay, so, you invade the wrong country and stay for a decade because?

by Guest Fri 01 Aug 2014, 5:16 pm

Rowley wrote:Still maintain expermimenting on people, whilst unpleasant and illegal is a good way short of murdering your own citizens. How many people in government would be required to carry out and cover up 9/11? Rhetorical question and I don't know the answer but one would have to think between the NSA, CIA, FBI and Federal Government it is a good number.

Find it hard to believe as, over the last 10 + years we have watched and rewatched the footage from that day, watched the people jumping to their deaths, heard the harrowing messages left for and to loved ones and seen how it has wrecked the lives of the victims families, not one of those involved has been sufficiently troubled by their conscious enough to blow the whistle. They are all happy to, not only carry on with their own lives, but to continue to work for the very government that made them part of such a horrific act. If my unwillingness to accept that makes me a sheep all I can say is baa.

My reckoning is that you only need to tell about seven people to make the whole 9/11 thing work...well, maybe a few more if you count the guys at air traffic control who had to be in on it...and then there's all the people whose silence had to be bought before during and after for a considerable period of time, as a bunch of unexplained deaths inside the US Government immediately after the event is bound to raise a few eyebrows (just how many fatal coach crashes on team building days are we likely to endure before we think "Hang on a minute!"). So maybe not seven, maybe a few hundred, but I'm sure that all those people in high, low and, let's face it, low paid positions would be decent enough to do their jobs without question even as the horrific fall out became evident and maintain "Omerta" and anyone who got a little twitchy could be brought round with an extra fifteen minutes for lunch every other Friday.

by Sponsored content