PDA

View Full Version : Ahmadinejad calls for UN 9/11 investigation



aadil77
09-24-2010, 07:02 PM
Ahmadinejad calls for UN September 11 inquiry
(AFP) – 38 minutes ago

UNITED NATIONS — Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Friday the UN should investigate the "true reason" for the September 11 attacks as he defended a speech which implicated the US government in the atrocity.

"I did not pass a judgement, I simply made proposals for a humane solution to the problems that have risen as a result of 9/11," Ahmadinejad told a press conference.

"We also want to bring to your attention that hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our region were killed as a result of 9/11."

At a wide-ranging press conference in New York city where the World Trade Center once stood, Ahmadinejad made no attempt to pull back from the comments which President Barack Obama has called "hateful."

The Iranian leader called on the United Nations to investigate the 2001 attacks in which almost 3,000 people died, when hijacked planes were flown into the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field.

"I did not pass judgement, but don't you feel that the time has come to have a fact finding committee," Ahmadinejad said defending his speech.

"An event occurred, and under the pretext of that event two countries were invaded and up to now hundreds of thousands of people have been killed as a result. Don't you feel that that excuse has to be revised," he said, referring to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq which followed the Al-Qaeda attacks.

"Don't you feel that if a fact-finding mission was present from the start to explore the true reason behind September 11 that we would not see the catastrophe of Afghanistan and Iraq today?

"Why do you assume that all nations must accept what the US government tells them?"

The Iranian president told the UN General Assembly on Thursday that there was a theory that "some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order also to save the Zionist regime.

"The majority of the American people as well as other nations and politicians agree with this view," he said.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...UFYxBChKva0Pag

If only this guy was a true follower of islam, if only iran was an actual islamic nation. No muslim leader (except probably Mullah Omar) would dare open their mouth and say the things ahmedinijad has, they are all weak and cowardly. This man has brains and honour and I rep him for that.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Trumble
09-24-2010, 08:47 PM
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
Reply

Cabdullahi
09-24-2010, 08:49 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
This 'clown' speaks a lot of sense compared to other entertainers who have you by the nuts
Reply

جوري
09-24-2010, 08:55 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
plenty care, it has made world news, and well seems to have irked you a bit.. surely someone who doesn't care would simply skip this 'clown's comments'?
sooner or later someone will take heed and there will be hell to pay!
or have you no value for human life? simply criminals I notice you advocate most fervently for!
like attracts like I suppose!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
LauraS
09-24-2010, 09:17 PM
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
Reply

Salahudeen
09-24-2010, 09:28 PM
It was all fixed as an excuse to attack Iraq and Afghanistan, without 9-11 they had no motive/reason to attack Iraq or Afghanistan. Right now they're profiting from all the natural resources in these countries. There's even been documentries made on 9-11 and how it was an inside job and they're very convincing. It's not just Muslim's who believe this, I've met quite a few americans who believe this too.

They've set up websites and stuff about it. There wasn't even any WMD in iraq which was part of the reason they went to war, the intel must've been quite dodgy I guess.
Reply

Cabdullahi
09-24-2010, 09:30 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
terrorists were involved 100%! they even took down The WT7 building without the use of an airplane...How do they do these things??

Reply

جوري
09-24-2010, 09:35 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
what matters is what you believe right? why concern yourself of others?
Reply

Dagless
09-24-2010, 09:48 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
People on this board? Is that how you view us? As one entity? FYI there are people from the CIA, MI5, US government, British government, families of the victims, firemen, policemen, actors, actresses, etc. who have all questioned the 9/11 report. There are also people on here who, I'm sure, accept it. Stop generalizing.
Reply

Salahudeen
09-24-2010, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Abdullahii
terrorists were involved 100%! they even took down The WT7 building without the use of an airplane...How do they do these things??

They have some next level bombs, I saw it on CNN and Fox news bro, there's this bomb that they have that can just demolish buildings without anyone in sight!!! It's called the Ubertastic Bomb!! the CNN report explained how it works. There is terrorists who grew up on Farms that were just inspired somehow with the knowledge on how to do these things.

They got the education on how to do such things from watching hollywood movies I think ;D
Reply

Trumble
09-24-2010, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ
or have you no value for human life?
simply criminals I notice you advocate most fervently for!
like attracts like I suppose!
What 'criminals' are these? The US government agents supposed to have concocted 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq and Afghanistan? Sorry, I don't believe in fairy stories. I do believe 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, there being not a shred of reliable evidence to support some folks desperate denial that such an act could be committed 'in the name of Allah' by a few brainwashed saps conditioned into believing that by some of the most repulsive people on the planet.

BTW, what 'criminal' activity am I supposed to have participated in?!! Or is that just one of your random insults?
Reply

Cabdullahi
09-24-2010, 10:17 PM
its funny isn't it...they also told us that these terrorist lived in caves that had many compartments inside like a 5 star hotel.. one compartment for video games and entertainment, another for the laboratory and a ballroom for dancing...
Reply

YusufNoor
09-24-2010, 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
terrorists, as in Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, yes

as in Muslims who believe in Tawheed, no...

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be a nutjob, but he's closer to the truth here than the "official" US conspiracy theory!

:wa:
Reply

Cabdullahi
09-24-2010, 10:26 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What 'criminals' are these? The US government agents supposed to have concocted 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq and Afghanistan? Sorry, I don't believe in fairy stories. I do believe 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, there being not a shred of reliable evidence to support some folks desperate denial that such an act could be committed 'in the name of Allah' by a few brainwashed saps conditioned into believing that by some of the most repulsive people on the planet.

BTW, what 'criminal' activity am I supposed to have participated in?!! Or is that just one of your random insults?
other entertainers who have you by the nuts
Reply

جوري
09-24-2010, 10:30 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What 'criminals' are these? The US government agents supposed to have concocted 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq and Afghanistan? Sorry, I don't believe in fairy stories. I do believe 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, there being not a shred of reliable evidence to support some folks desperate denial that such an act could be committed 'in the name of Allah' by a few brainwashed saps conditioned into believing that by some of the most repulsive people on the planet.

BTW, what 'criminal' activity am I supposed to have participated in?!! Or is that just one of your random insults?
You are free to your beliefs, and it is inconsequential to the rest one way or the other.. one day you'll wake up to several shocks unfortunately for you as you have a knack for bombast that doesn't have much support! .. being complacent to the murder of the innocent is being an accomplice, further I was also commenting on the rather bizarre converse outrage you feel too frequently for criminals from your incessant jabber against capital punishment.. your whole value system is skewed frankly, that I don't see how anyone can take your protests (yes protests) seriously!

all the best
Reply

جوري
09-24-2010, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by Abdullahii
its funny isn't it...they also told us that these terrorist lived in caves that had many compartments inside like a 5 star hotel.. one compartment for video games and entertainment, another for the laboratory and a ballroom for dancing...

lol.. I just made a comment about this on a public forum filled with the usual drivel..

you forgot his osamamobile & his osamacape complete with outside villain culottes .. westerners are such simpletons.. honestly they need well defined roles, well defined good well defined 'axis of evil' it is all too entertaining!
Reply

LauraS
09-24-2010, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
People on this board? Is that how you view us? As one entity? FYI there are people from the CIA, MI5, US government, British government, families of the victims, firemen, policemen, actors, actresses, etc. who have all questioned the 9/11 report. There are also people on here who I'm sure accept it. Stop generalizing.
I was just asking about the people on this board not the world as a whole, what else was I meant to say?

I've heard all the conspiracy theories too and it does make you think. However the theories that no passenger planes actually flew into the buildings I think is rubbish. Where did all the passengers go then? Were they all just paid to disappear?

YusufNoor- Is it that you don't think anyone claiming to be Muslim would be capable of this? What about other attacks like the London bombings? Of course there are people out there who twist religion so they can do whatever evil they want. I don't think whether someone calling themselves a Muslims would be capable is really a question.
Reply

Zafran
09-24-2010, 11:28 PM
salaam

people want an inquiry in to the 7/7 bombings as well.

peace
Reply

Yanal
09-24-2010, 11:37 PM
:sl:

They should,but I wonder how will they.Or will they.
Reply

Ramadhan
09-25-2010, 02:03 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
I don't know much about ahmedinejad's other views, but on this particular case, he makes sense, don't you think?

if not, why?
Reply

Ramadhan
09-25-2010, 02:07 AM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
I do believe that the terrorists did it, but it requires more international investigation to determine to what extent.

Do you not think it's necessary and fair, especially in light of two countries invaded, a million lives killed, trillions of dollars gone..
Reply

Ramadhan
09-25-2010, 02:14 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What 'criminals' are these? The US government agents supposed to have concocted 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq and Afghanistan? Sorry, I don't believe in fairy stories. I do believe 9/11 was carried out by terrorists, there being not a shred of reliable evidence to support some folks desperate denial that such an act could be committed 'in the name of Allah' by a few brainwashed saps conditioned into believing that by some of the most repulsive people on the planet.

BTW, what 'criminal' activity am I supposed to have participated in?!! Or is that just one of your random insults?
why against international investigation?
wouldn't it also serves justice to the victims and family of the victims of 9/11 if more truth comes out?
wouldn't it also serves justice to a million of lives killed as a result of 9/11?
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
09-25-2010, 02:16 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
i actually agree with this.... who cares what this guy says. the minority Sunnis in Iran get tortured and whats being done about it. why should he care about 9/11...or is it yet another tactic to win Muslims over. this guy reeks of phoniness.

oh boy, im not expecting any positive replies to my post.
Reply

Ummu Sufyaan
09-25-2010, 02:21 AM
Do people on this board seriously believe terrorists weren't involved at all?
i believe terrorists were involve. just not the ones you maybe thinking :lol:
Reply

Rabi Mansur
09-25-2010, 04:31 AM
Originally Posted by Ummu Sufyaan
the minority Sunnis in Iran get tortured and whats being done about it. why should he care about 9/11...or is it yet another tactic to win Muslims over. this guy reeks of phoniness.
The man is a little beedy-eyed phony politician. I agree with you, Ahmadinejad is simply trying to win Muslims over. And he is pretty good at it. Have you noticed how often he tries to change the subject to Palestinian self-determination? Yet, in his own country he has orchestrated a stolen election. By constantly deflecting and whipping things up he is trying to win Muslims over and take the attention away from his own phoniness. Shame on him.
Reply

aadil77
09-25-2010, 01:19 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
Do you have a problem with him calling for an independent investigation into 9/11? the events which cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people
Reply

Trumble
09-26-2010, 09:11 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
Do you have a problem with him calling for an independent investigation into 9/11?
An 'independent investigation' by whom? The only people calling for such an investigation are either those in total denial or those with an agenda of their own, neither of whom have no interest in 'independent' anything. This is just like Ahmadinejad's 'calling' for research into whether the Holocaust actually happened.. there is no need whatsoever for further investigation as the evidence is total overwhelming, but his purpose is only to seed the credibility of Holocaust denial. Likewise 9/11. There is no credible evidence whatsoever that Ahmadijad's claims are true; he wants an investigation not to establish any 'fact's but merely to attach credibility to his BS.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 10:46 AM
No matter who calls for it, there will never be an "independent" investigation. The UN, if anything, just kill more people than help, but we don't hear that. I'll bet you anything they're down there in Africa and Asia spreading HIV. Asking the UN to investigate something like this is like asking a criminal to investigate his own crime, he will just conclude he didn't do it or remove the evidence out the picture. As most of you brothers and sisters may have heard that the US took part in 9/11, i urge you to read up more on that. It's not just as simple as that, it was more of a catalyst to allow what they have done and are doing (eg. Invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan), and the goals of these is to establish a foothold in the Middle-East as well as gather Opium and oil for $$$. They also have an agenda against Islam, because it gives poor people some strength, and what the NWO wanna do is wipe out the populace.

Moving back on topic, Ahmadinejad has guts to say what he has, something other Muslim "leaders" don't, and by leaders i mean the puppets and slaves of the US/Israel etc. It's just a shame that this guy has little to any knowledge of Islam in a sense and they just follow a somewhat wrong and radical path from my point of view, and the fact that some of his claims actully reduce his popularity among Muslims, and he should only be strengthening that. Although he does know how to play with the US and Israels buttons i'll give him that, but also a lot of what he says is just to big himself up. In the end though, there won't be an investigation into 9/11 simply because it could expose what the US is doing, if the right evidence were found and pieced.
Reply

S<Chowdhury
09-28-2010, 02:05 PM
^^ Agreed i was going to say that too UN is run by the countries who covered up the whole 9/11 plot so why would they give themselves up for? All we seem to do is have inquires and investigation which leads to nowhere......
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 02:13 PM
More like the UN and the countries is run by the big corporations, and the Masons... There is much evidence to prove 9/11 was an "inside job". The most obvious being the fact that the towers fell like they had bombs planted that were detonated, they fell like buildings that are demolished. More so, the buildings and frames themselves were designed to withstand, and a plane can't knock them down, only an ignorant person brainwashed by the media would believe it was done by "Al-Qaeda", or in other words, Muslim radicals. Also a coincidence is that an old 1995 card game, called "Illuminati - New World Order" depicted events such as 9/11 among many other things. Afaik this is one of the cards, forgive me if i'm derailing this thread. If anyone diagrees with what i said you're glad to discuss with me, i love that :D
Reply

Woodrow
09-28-2010, 02:49 PM
Originally Posted by S<Chowdhury
^^ Agreed i was going to say that too UN is run by the countries who covered up the whole 9/11 plot so why would they give themselves up for? All we seem to do is have inquires and investigation which leads to nowhere......
Oddly out of the 195 countries in today's world only 3 Kosovo, Taiwan and Vatican City are not members of the UN. It seems most of the member nations (Including the US) have citizens of their nation protesting the UN and want to pull out.

11. America supplies the money, the UN then finances tyrants and assorted enemies of the U.S., and conditions in the nations "aided" grow worse. U.S. taxpayers pay 25% of the UN budget plus 31% of the UN special-agency budgets. Additional billions of our dollars go to the IMF, World Bank, and other UN related lending agencies where they have been used for incredibly wasteful and subversive UN projects. (Not surprising since these agencies were designed by Soviet agent Harry Dexter White and Fabian Socialist John Maynard Keynes.) Socialist International spokesman Hilary Marquand aptly described the IMF as "in essence a Socialist conception." World Bank "aid" funds went to brutal Marxist dictator Mengistu while he was causing large-scale starvation and death in Ethiopia; to Tanzanian dictator Julius Nyerere as he drove peasants off their land and burned their huts; and to the Vietnamese Communists, sending thousands of boat people into the sea. Even Newsweek magazine concluded that the UN's foreign aid programs tend "to prop up incompetent governments or subsidize economies so they can never stand on their own."
SOURCE
Reply

S<Chowdhury
09-28-2010, 02:53 PM
Gd point brother but the top countries in the Security Council seems to run the show and wield alot of influence with all due respect the UN is the biggest joke
Reply

Woodrow
09-28-2010, 03:18 PM
Originally Posted by S<Chowdhury
Gd point brother but the top countries in the Security Council seems to run the show and wield alot of influence with all due respect the UN is the biggest joke
Just my opinion, but I feel the UN is running the US, not the US running the UN. Us USA taxpayers are getting shafted by ending up with getting stuck paying the bills and taking the blame for the actions of the UN. There has never been an American Seretary General of the UN and those that have been all seem to have had strong Socialistic or communist ties.

There have been 8 Secretary Generals of the United Nations.


From the 1st of February, 1946 to the 10th of November, 1952, the first Secretary General was Trygve Lie, of Norway.


From the 10th of April, 1953 to the 18th of September, 1961, the second Secretary General was Dag Hammarskjöld, of Sweden.


From the 30th of November, 1961 to the 31st of December, 1971 the third Secretary General was U Thant, of Burma.


From the 1st of January, 1972 to the 31st of December, 1981, the fourth Secretary General was Kurt Waldheim, of Austria.


From the 1st of January, 1982 to the 31st of December, 1991, the fifth Secretary General was Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, of Peru.


From the 1st of January, 1992, to the 31st of December, 1996, the sixth Secretary General was Boutros Boutros-Ghali, of Egypt.


From the 1st of January, 1997, to the 31st of December, 2006, the seventh Secretary General was Kofi Annan, of Ghana.


The current Secretary General, since the 1st of January, 2007, has been Ban Ki-Moon, of South Korea.


There was also an Acting Secretary General from the 24th of October, 1945 to the 1st of February, 1946 - Gladwyn Jebb of the United Kingdom.

The US does not represent the UN the UN is using the US and has us as their stupid puppet, and source of finances.

I do agree the UN is corrupt, a farce and of no help to the Nations that truly need it. Any UN investigation will only find what is best for the UN, which is predetermined before the investigation.
Reply

Zafran
09-28-2010, 03:51 PM
Salaam

Woodrow the US, uk, France, China and Russia run the UN - all the other countries have no power - the US (like the other 4 nations) use the UN to beat there enemies to a pulp - a good exmaple is vetoing security council resoultions against Isreal - The US has been far the most active member in vetoing international consensus of a 2 state solution for over 30 years.

The UN for the big five nations is a good way in keeping in power - so when you dont like a specific nation like Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan which have no power in the UN, You can easily rally support to back militery operations or sanctions against them within the UN. Even if the UN goes against the big powers - they just Veto it and go ahead like Iraq for example.

Sometimes The UN goes with it like the sanctions of Iran and in the past Iraq.

A few million dollers for a place like the UN which allows the powers to crush its enemies hopes without any justice attached to it - the top 5 will never give that up - its all in there favour.

the UN generals are puppets - they can speak but cannot act without the backing of the big 5 nations.

You have to remember that without the big five there is no UN.

peace
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 04:01 PM
To the brother above:

Not entirely, Israel (by that i mean Zionists like Netanyahu) has a big hand in the UN too. And it's not the countries that control it, but those with the money, such as the big media companies, banks, oil companies, etc. Organisations with enough money to justify the lives of men and women alike. What i'm saying is, what these (rich) people will, happens. By country, we are defining all who live there, the civilians and everything, and those people don't do anything, but rather it's the rich and powerful.
Reply

Zafran
09-28-2010, 04:11 PM
Originally Posted by UnhappyD:
To the brother above:

Not entirely, Israel (by that i mean Zionists like Netanyahu) has a big hand in the UN too. And it's not the countries that control it, but those with the money, such as the big media companies, banks, oil companies, etc. Organisations with enough money to justify the lives of men and women alike. What i'm saying is, what these (rich) people will, happens. By country, we are defining all who live there, the civilians and everything, and those people don't do anything, but rather it's the rich and powerful.
Salaam

Isreal has no power in the UN - its the US that has the power - thats why the 30 year concensus of a 2 state solution has always been vetoed against - (not by Isreal has it has no veto power) but by the US.

This is one of the resosns why the zionist cry that the UN is biased - the US has always been happy to Veto and overide Justice.

peace
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 04:13 PM
What "Israel" says, "US" do, or to be more specific, the Wall Street Jews.
Reply

Zafran
09-28-2010, 06:44 PM
Originally Posted by UnhappyD:
What "Israel" says, "US" do, or to be more specific, the Wall Street Jews.
Salaam

like AIPAC - many organisations do have a huge influence over the government and how it tackles issues.

peace
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Ahmedinehad can die in a fire.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 08:26 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
Ahmedinehad can die in a fire.
That's a bit harse, but Netanyahu should be in there first, infact, every Zionist should join him :p
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-28-2010, 08:33 PM
Well, Ahmedinejad's the focus of this thread.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
Well, Ahmedinejad's the focus of this thread.
Indeed, but i don't really like the guy.
He says some weird stuff.
Reply

Dagless
09-28-2010, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
Ahmedinehad can die in a fire.
Because he isn't afraid to stand up to the bully?
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-28-2010, 09:13 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
Because he isn't afraid to stand up to the bully?
No, because he's a hate monger and a liar. Just because he happens to be Muslim, it doesn't make him an honest or even decent person. Look at how he rigged the last election and what was done to those who opposed him.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-28-2010, 09:39 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
No, because he's a hate monger and a liar. Just because he happens to be Muslim, it doesn't make him an honest or even decent person. Look at how he rigged the last election and what was done to those who opposed him.
The same can be said for many others, but i'll ask you this: Do you like Ariel sharon?.. i mean, just because he was "jewish", it makes him a good person, right? :/
Ahmadinejad may not be very favoured among many, but at least he has the guts to say something out loud, and back, and at times defend Muslims, whether or not it's for his own agenda, we can't say for sure, but he's better than all those other cowards, like Mubarak, who don't even speak out for brothers and sisters in Palestine or Gaza.
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-28-2010, 09:46 PM
No, I know Jews can be bad too. But at least I acknowledge that the Israeli government has committed terrible acts in Gaza and it was Jewish people who did it. Ariel Sharon does not represent the Jews just like Osama bin Laden or the Saudi Royals don't represent the Muslims. Face the fact that Ahmedinejad, Muslim or not, wants to do is cause fear and hate in the world.
Reply

Dagless
09-28-2010, 10:37 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
Face the fact that Ahmedinejad, Muslim or not, wants to do is cause fear and hate in the world.
He may not be the best leader ever, but how exactly does he cause fear and hate in the world? :s
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-28-2010, 11:31 PM
"Wipe Israel off the map." for one thing. And the way he detained those who oppose his rule. Then there is his "peaceful" nuclear program. The oppression of gays and women. Most of all, his messages antagonizing the West and inspiring hate in the Middle East. Iran deserves better than what they have now.
Reply

جوري
09-28-2010, 11:45 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
"Wipe Israel off the map." for one thing.
with or without Iran that is a popular sentiment, however, I doubt very much he was quoted correctly.

And the way he detained those who oppose his rule.
I agree with that, especially his treatment of sunnis
Then there is his "peaceful" nuclear program.
He should be entitled as any sovereign nation to a nuclear program
The oppression of gays
Gays should be closeted, there is no room for sexual displays hetero or homo in any society.

and women.
How do you figure? they have more women in the Iranian parliament than there are women in the senate and house combined, and they are generally very well educated, most scientific research actually comes out of Iran not the west.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-country.html

thus you'll have to define for us what you mean by oppression?
Most of all, his messages antagonizing the West and inspiring hate in the Middle East.
The same could be said of the west, antagonizing of the Muslim world and spreading hate.. I mean surely this is a two way street?
Iran deserves better than what they have now.
Every place deserves better, but until the uprise of khilafah rule insha'Allah, we are all equally stuck with despots!

all the best
Reply

Dagless
09-28-2010, 11:50 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
"Wipe Israel off the map." for one thing. And the way he detained those who oppose his rule. Then there is his "peaceful" nuclear program. The oppression of gays and women. Most of all, his messages antagonizing the West and inspiring hate in the Middle East. Iran deserves better than what they have now.
That's not exactly what he said. It was translated as hoping the regime would vanish. I find nothing wrong with that; the regime is a bad one. What problem do you have with the nuclear program? It is completely legal and plenty of countries have similar. Iran is well within its rights on that one. "Oppression of gays and women" is subjective. It is a Muslim country so you'll never get open homosexuality, as for the rights of women; that's a long one but you could say the same of a few other countries - I don't see anyone trying to put sanctions on them though. Anyone who wants to be independent of the West is "antagonizing" them.
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-29-2010, 12:06 AM
If you want to get into specifics, I'd like to see sanctions on the Saudi Royals too.
Reply

Zafran
09-29-2010, 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
If you want to get into specifics, I'd like to see sanctions on the Saudi Royals too.
I'll like to see sanctions against the US too as its one of the biggest supporters of the royal family.
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-29-2010, 01:22 AM
As an American, I want us not to get involved in world problems anymore except in extreme cases like World War II. Even is we do good in the short term, in the long term, it comes back to bite us hard.
Reply

جوري
09-29-2010, 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
As an American, I want us not to get involved in world problems anymore except in extreme cases like World War II. Even is we do good in the short term, in the long term, it comes back to bite us hard.
what makes you think that America is 'good' or any other existing regime for that matter?.. in the wise words of Einstein 'nationalism is an infantile disease'
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-29-2010, 03:46 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
As an American, I want us not to get involved in world problems anymore except in extreme cases like World War II. Even is we do good in the short term, in the long term, it comes back to bite us hard.
The US, if anything brother, is the worst nation around. It is their duty to involve themselves in everything, just like they force one country to invade another (giving Iraq weapons to attack Iran) and how they invade others themselves (Iraq), or how they support (Israel > Gaza).
Reply

Darth Ultor
09-29-2010, 04:24 PM
I am going to say this once about Israel: No side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is innocent. If both sides stop the fighting, they can create a great nation. Ishmael and Isaac's descendants should be acting like brothers. My God, that land would be the jewel of the Mediterranean.

However, I think the US did plenty good in the world. We contribute a lot to humanitarian aid. Remember the earthquakes in China and Haiti for example? We were there on the spot to help. I don't remember China helping us after Hurricane Katrina. But we associated with some very nasty types. I agree with you about how we supported Iraq at one time, and the Ba'ath party was nothing but a petty and cruel dictatorship. Also, we trained and armed bin Laden when the Russians invaded Afghanistan when we should have known what he really was.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
09-29-2010, 05:59 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I am going to say this once about Israel: No side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is innocent. If both sides stop the fighting, they can create a great nation. Ishmael and Isaac's descendants should be acting like brothers. My God, that land would be the jewel of the Mediterranean.

However, I think the US did plenty good in the world. We contribute a lot to humanitarian aid. Remember the earthquakes in China and Haiti for example? We were there on the spot to help. I don't remember China helping us after Hurricane Katrina. But we associated with some very nasty types. I agree with you about how we supported Iraq at one time, and the Ba'ath party was nothing but a petty and cruel dictatorship. Also, we trained and armed bin Laden when the Russians invaded Afghanistan when we should have known what he really was.
What he really was, was a US agent, that's what. Told to play along after 9/11. The people of America are innocent, but your leaders are not, or anyone supporting and funding them (the big corporations). The US (government) has never done good, and the small "good" they seem to do is for their own agenda and reasons. I wonder why the US is giving Israel 30 billion $?? I wonder why they are in Afghanistan, supposedly guarding the opium fields from the Taliban. I wonder why they gave Hussein weapons of "mass" destruction, then invaded after they realised he won't be doing their bidding? I wonder why they want to isolate any nation that won't associate with them (Iran, N Korea), and how they're releasing chemicals in the air, or how they are using taxpayers money to fund their own operations such as underground bases and bunkers yet won't let anyone know about it or why they are doing it, or how they are hiding any data about UFO links, or anything else related to ETs / life in space etc. These are very broad and varying topics of discussion but my point is the US does only a little good to fund a greater evil, and it's the same with any nation which has had the taste for power. There is more behind this though than just money, land or whatever and frankly people will just deny that and try to live blind. The US aint all that innocent, like the media leads us to believe bro.


ps. sorry, i've pretty much derailed this thread.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 04:26 AM
Originally Posted by -Fallen Angel-
and the small "good" they seem to do is for their own agenda and reasons.
Well of course. Every nation operates in self interest.


or how they are hiding any data about UFO links, or anything else related to ETs / life in space etc.
Inter stellar travel is impossible. Nobody is hiding anything.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 08:15 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Inter stellar travel is impossible. Nobody is hiding anything.
Clearly you would know, because the head of CIA has given you all the information and promised that he was telling the truth, and that means he was.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-01-2010, 04:13 PM
No offense, but all these conspiracy theories make me laugh.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 07:30 PM
Originally Posted by -Fallen Angel-
Clearly you would know, because the head of CIA has given you all the information and promised that he was telling the truth, and that means he was.
No, its impossible because of the incomprehensible vastness of space.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
No offense, but all these conspiracy theories make me laugh.

Do they tickle you as much as the passport that was found by WTC which survived the fire that burnt steel metal to a pulp and hundreds of odds of belonging to other passengers to allude to the culprits'/terrorist's identity?.. I also found that one exceptionally hilarious..

all the best
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:05 PM
Vale lily, I would like to hear your explanation of what you think happened.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Vale lily, I would like to hear your explanation of what you think happened.

There are plenty of websites dealing with that matter, how about you use google? can't be that hard to type the truth about 911 and see what comes up!

all the best
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:14 PM
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 10:18 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
I'm sorry, but that's not going to happened. Would those who did this then let it be made public? Use the organ in your body called the brain.
And this isn't a new scientific theory being suggested, to need peer review...
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:20 PM
How convenient.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
How convenient.
If you think the US is so innocent, go look here, that's a bit more public and a place where you can start.. But since you're not competent enough, i'll paste the first few lines:

Project MKULTRA, or MK-ULTRA, was the code name for a covert, illegal CIA human research program, run by the Office of Scientific Intelligence. This official U.S. government program began in the early 1950s.
But wait.. this is probably conspiracy and lies no?

Alright son, i'll break some of it down for ya.
Firstly, tell me why the US government was paying the Taliban/Al-Qaeda millions during the 90s?.. Or why they joined in during the Russian invasion?.. Gave the Afghans $$$ and weapons.. but why? to "save" them?.. no. It was because they thought by getting rid of the Russians, they could put a puppet government there (which they did) and establish a stronghold in the middle-east, collecting oil, harvesting the poppy fields and keeping a watchful eye on Iran/Iraq and the rest of the Middle-East. When that didn't work out, and after the Russian invasion the Taliban were uncooperative, they started branding them "terrorists", with fake BS, like tapes of Bin Laden (who the CIA met on many occasions even while he was on the top 10 wanted list).. Eventually they did 9/11 and invaded and Iraq followed. I can pretty much guess you'll disagree with it all being the way you're programmed and manipulated, but don't say i didn't try and explain my point. Before you ask for "Peer reviewed sources", it's all over the net and around the world, wake up and search the truth.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:25 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
I haven't read any 'peer reviewed' articles from statisticians and structural engineers cementing the original claim either..

convenient!

all the best
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:26 PM
bay of pigs anyone?
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:29 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

I haven't read any 'peer reviewed' articles from statisticians and structural engineers cementing the original claim either..

convenient!

all the best
I would post some however I'm not allowed to post links yet.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
I would post some however I'm not allowed to post links yet.
as stated 'convenient'

all the best
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:34 PM
Google: "Why did the world trade center collapse? - Simple Analysis" by Zdenkek P. Bazant, Fellow ASCE, and Young Zhou

Also Structure Magazine and Popular Mechanics ran several pieces explaining it.

Also google the National Institute of Standards and Technology for their full explanation.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:36 PM
1328 verified architectural and engineering professionals
and 9918 other supporters including A&E students
have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

must be exceptionally lazy? or perhaps a bad speller, given it was one of the first links that showed up in the search..

enjoy!
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:39 PM
Neither of those are published, peer reviewed papers.
Reply

Dagless
10-01-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
I tried, but I couldn't find any peer reviewed scientific papers written by structural engineers that contradicted the official events.
There was a peer reviewed paper on thermitic material found at separate sites at the WTC collapse. The truth movement also has quite a few high profile people, including scientists, architects, etc.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 10:42 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Neither of those are published, peer reviewed papers.
So who are the reviewing peers? George Bush?... Dick Cheney?.. I don't trust any "official" organisation, let's think back to the "Official" and "Independent" investigation that happened at the time of 9/11... Oh wait, it wasn't really independent after all..
Have a look here boy, is that molten steel i see?.. hmm.. surely it can't be caused by towers falling.. yup, looks like a detonation to me. Hmm now that i think of it, wasn't thermate found at the remains of WTCs?..hmmm...
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Neither of those are published, peer reviewed papers.
I doubt very much you know what peer reviewed means!
and it is published as in 'formally made public'

Are we concerned with stooges with unquestioning obedience or are with science? I understand you enjoy that cattle mentality, but an argumentum ad populum is hardly 'peer reviewed' or worthy of being dignified with a response!

all the best
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 10:47 PM
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field. In this case, structural engineering.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-01-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field. In this case, structural engineering.
So i wonder whose the expert at blowing up towers around here.. why don't you go and ask Bush to review it, he seems to have a lot of skill.
Before you embarrass yourself even more son, not everything can be "Peer reviewed" or is, for that matter. I think you've used this new word you learnt today enough times already.. it's like asking people to review a rape case, wouldn't the "reviewers" be rapists or something?.. funny huh. Peace!
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field. In this case, structural engineering.

a conundrum then why the expertise of 1328 verified architectural and engineering professionals isn't good enough for you?

all the best
Reply

Dagless
10-01-2010, 10:51 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Peer review means the paper is reviewed by other experts (peers) in the field.
I already gave you one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


a conundrum then why the expertise of architectural and engineering professionals isn't good enough for you?

all the best
A petition is not a peer reviewed paper, I've been very clear about that. They actually have to write a thesis and publish it.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
I already gave you one.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Please, Steven A. Jones paper has been thoroughly debunked and is completely implausible.

The thermite came from the thousands of melted computers.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:09 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
A petition is not a peer reviewed paper, I've been very clear about that. They actually have to write a thesis and publish it.

No one has written a 'thesis' on 911, what is available is an official govt. report. Independent engineers would like an independent investigation of the events..

It is really rather simple!

all the best
Reply

Dagless
10-01-2010, 11:11 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
The thermite came from the thousands of melted computers.
Can I see a peer reviewed paper on that?
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Please, Steven A. Jones paper has been thoroughly debunked and is completely implausible.

The thermite came from the thousands of melted computers.
thousands of melted computers, didn't seem to touch this:



amazing ain't it? 'thoroughly debunked' ;D
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ


No one has written a 'thesis' on 911, what is available is an official govt. report. Independent engineers would like an independent investigation of the events..

It is really rather simple!

all the best
I already posted an independent study conducted by northwestern university...guess you didn't read it
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:19 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
Can I see a peer reviewed paper on that?
debunking911.com/jones.htm
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
I already posted an independent study conducted by northwestern university...guess you didn't read it

That isn't a 'study' hence our query to your understanding of what 'peer reviewed' means!
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:26 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
debunking911.com/jones.htm
If it is about one website or another, then it comes down to the logical questions!
we don't believe in invisible planes and invincible passports (amongst other hilarity)

all the best
Reply

Dagless
10-01-2010, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
debunking911.com/jones.htm
Isn't this what you're accusing others of doing? You've linked to a site which has someone giving their own opinion on the document. This is not a peer reviewed document.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
Isn't this what you're accusing others of doing? You've linked to a site which has someone giving their own opinion on the document. This is not a peer reviewed document.
he must have recently just learned the term and came to use it on us bucolic cave dwelling oafs!
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:31 PM
No, that site actually does analysis and provides sources for everything. Read the thermite section, even if it doesn't change your mind you should at least read what it has to say.
Reply

Dagless
10-01-2010, 11:33 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
No, that site actually does analysis and provides sources for everything. Read the thermite section, even if it doesn't change your mind you should at least read what it has to say.
A person providing sources in an article, expressing his own opinion, on a website does not make it peer reviewed. I'm only holding your responses to the same standards you've held everyone else's.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-01-2010, 11:37 PM
Just read it, thats all I'm asking for.

Besides, I can just quote the NIST and be done with this.
Reply

جوري
10-01-2010, 11:39 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
No, that site actually does analysis and provides sources for everything. Read the thermite section, even if it doesn't change your mind you should at least read what it has to say.
Originally Posted by Dagless
A person providing sources in an article, expressing his own opinion on a website, does not make it peer reviewed. I'm only holding your responses to the same standards you've held everyone else's.

Dagless pretty much summed it up for you, an expression of opinion on a website doesn't constitute 'peer reviewed' and as it happens the website I have provided will by that token you've generously parted with have more 'peer reviews' and given that it is an independent source and not a govt. dispensed with a particular political interest in mind, calls for just that a critical examination which will free it from biases and confounders..here are a couple more words for you to look up so you can use them on the next saps with hopes that they'll be taken aback by your profound 'technical vocabulary'!

all the best
Reply

Dagless
10-02-2010, 12:00 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Besides, I can just quote the NIST and be done with this.
You can quote a US government agency to backup the government? That's like Israel investigating the flotilla incident.
Reply

ChargerCarl
10-02-2010, 05:49 AM
Not really since people trust the United States. It's why treasury T-bond yields are so low, the United States government commands a great deal of respect. Their word is credible.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-02-2010, 06:30 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Not really since people trust the United States. It's why treasury T-bond yields are so low, the United States government commands a great deal of respect. Their word is credible.
What does T-bonds yields have to do whether the US has done any cover ups?

T-bonds yields are low because most of world trades and finances are still conducted in USD so there is always huge demands for USD, and that the world (at least for now, although for how much longer it is still open for debate) still has confidence that the USG will be able to service the debts.
So as long as USD is still used much for world trades and finances and the USG can contain their inflation and keep domestic economy afloat, the confidence is still there.
But for certain, sooner or later, the influence of USD will wane, because other economies will get stronger in relative to the US (you don't think US will remain superpower forever, do you?) and they may want to use more and more their own currencies: yuans, euros or what have you.
This, coupled with weak US economy and burgeoning foreign debts will make T bills much less attractive.

Now back on the topic on the question whether we can fully trust the USG, in the past decade there have been flurry of declassified CIA documents which pointed to the US involvements in supporting military coups in many countries in the late 60s and 70s (including in my own country, indonesia), where the USG has previously denied.
Remember also the Contra scandal?
Only a fool can fully trust their governments.

The USG will always need to assert their political and military power in the world to keep their superpower status which have positive impacts on their economy.
But it won't last.

Mark my word :)
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 08:56 AM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Not really since people trust the United States. It's why treasury T-bond yields are so low, the United States government commands a great deal of respect. Their word is credible.
I'm sorry, but i'm just amazed.
Firstly, only an idiot and a moron would actully trust the US government, seeing what they have done and continue to do, like lying to the people (taxpayers about where their money is going). Instead of helping the economy, all they did was give the bank and corporate CEOs millions to line their pockets with while the average american was left without anything, and the money the US are giving about willy nilly is from taxes.

They also made a deal with Israel to give 30 billion in an arms deal, over the next 10 years. Shouldn't this money be going towards a country with a broken economy instead of beefing up a weak cowardly nation so they could better defend themselves from the people whose home they've stolen? Yeah... let's move it on to something else. Now, regarding the Iraq war, the US said the reason of invading, back in 03.. was because Hussein may have "Nuclear" weapons, but then there were none.

Then we were told he may have biological/chemical weapons, and again nothing was turned up. so why did they lie about him having weapons?.. to justify the invasion. Well in truth he did have a stockpile, which the US sold to them (take a read here)., in the hopes that he will attack Iran, but when that didn't happened they invaded with claims that he had weapons of mass destruction. The real intentions for their invasion was the oil and to have a base in the middle-east.

This is fairly basic stuff, and if you're gonna come down here and tell us how awesome and for-the-people the United States are, then i sugest you go back and learn more history, and learn a few more big words before you come here and deal politics with some BS claims, "peer review" is getting dry. I would love for you to prove me wrong here, Carl.
Peace.
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 11:26 AM
You do realize that for the conspiracy theories to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people involved, and yet not a single one in the last 9 years has come forward. Nobody has even come forward to say that someone tried to recruit them and were turned down.

Not only that, but that Bush was able to put this together after being in power for less than 8 months (with help from the Jews in Israel, surely). And it was all done to get that oil money from Iraq, right? That money that is just pouring into the USA right now. That is why the US economy is doing so well.

Funny how over the years about 90% of the conspiracy theories have been proven wrong (does anyone still claim it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and not a plane?), but the conspiracy theorists still cling to the few that they have left so they can sell their videos and books.

Does anyone notice how the questions that the conspiracy theorists ask ignore the even more absurd questions? You ask how WTC7 fell, yet I have yet to hear a plausible reason as to why the government would want to blow it up in the first place. Because of the information in the government offices there? I guess they leaders of 9/11 decided it was easier to blow up the building rather than just clean up their offices? It's just absurd when looked at objectively.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 11:43 AM
Originally Posted by titus
You do realize that for the conspiracy theories to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people involved, and yet not a single one in the last 9 years has come forward. Nobody has even come forward to say that someone tried to recruit them and were turned down.

Not only that, but that Bush was able to put this together after being in power for less than 8 months (with help from the Jews in Israel, surely). And it was all done to get that oil money from Iraq, right? That money that is just pouring into the USA right now. That is why the US economy is doing so well.

Funny how over the years about 90% of the conspiracy theories have been proven wrong (does anyone still claim it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and not a plane?), but the conspiracy theorists still cling to the few that they have left so they can sell their videos and books.

Does anyone notice how the questions that the conspiracy theorists ask ignore the even more absurd questions? You ask how WTC7 fell, yet I have yet to hear a plausible reason as to why the government would want to blow it up in the first place. Because of the information in the government offices there? I guess they leaders of 9/11 decided it was easier to blow up the building rather than just clean up their offices? It's just absurd when looked at objectively.
Why would the US admit they were involved in 9/11? It's like a thief or a murderer telling the cops what he did.. it's never gonna happen. Furthermore, it's all over the net and very obvious why the government would want to blow up the towers you're just not reading up on it, or rather taking it in because you believe in one theory or belief given to you by your leaders through the tv or whatever. No politician should be trusted because none of them care about the people but rather power and money, that's the way it's always been and will be. Where did you pull out the figure of "90% of conspiracy theories" by the way?.. haha.. And by the way, a lot of what you call "conspiracy theories" are the truth, wake up son this is the real world, not the one in the American dream which you've been lead to believe.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 12:13 PM
You are giving Bush too much credit. Do you really think HE could have set that up? The guy can't even swallow a pretzel.
Reply

aadil77
10-02-2010, 12:28 PM
Originally Posted by ChargerCarl
Not really since people trust the United States. the United States government commands a great deal of respect. Their word is credible.
;D is this a joke?

no wonder you yanks are so retarded, you believe everything that is fed to you - unable to think outside the box
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 12:29 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
You are giving Bush too much credit. Do you really think HE could have set that up? The guy can't even swallow a pretzel.
Too right, bro, but he was just the puppet in the white house, you know?.. Like when the puppet master at a show uses the puppets to create the show, makes them look like the stars whne in actual fact it's him?
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 01:24 PM
The world trusts us? I think this whole conspiracy stuff is a load of crap and I know the world hates us save for a few countries.
Reply

aadil77
10-02-2010, 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
The world trusts us? I think this whole conspiracy stuff is a load of crap and I know the world hates us save for a few countries.
who's 'us'?...
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 01:52 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
who's 'us'?...
People misunderstand so much (not refering to you bro). It's like, yanks say "Yea, we're gonna invade them" or "we're saving their ***".. when the simple fact of the matter is they ain't doing squat. In most cases it's not the US, because that includes all the people who live there, but rather when you say "the US" or "we"/"us", people should be refering to the Government or people in control as they are the ones doing it. Lastly, you hear a lot about people being American when they have never done anything to deserve such a "title", it's the same all over the world. "We are the voice of the American public".. uh, No.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 03:26 PM
Originally Posted by titus
You do realize that for the conspiracy theories to be true there would have to be literally thousands of people involved,

How do you figure? how many people were involved with the Lavon affair? or how about S.S liberty? how about the bay of pigs? etc. etc.

Whenever things get tough, the queries, the tough questions that need to be answered, then many a sort of deflections are presented, and I must admit this is one of the most amusing ones there are!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 04:05 PM
How do you figure? how many people were involved with the Lavon affair? or how about S.S liberty? how about the bay of pigs?
According to the conspiracy theorists you have:

The government employees that worked WTC 7.
The men involved who planted the bombs in the buildings (they were controlled implosions, and takes a few people, especially if they are doing it in secret because it takes even more people to coordinate)

Believe the missile hit the Pentagon theory? Then you have to count the thousands of witnesses who saw a plane, as well as the emergency crews that showed up that helped clean up the Penagon, as well as the people that doctored the footage that was released, as well as the FBI agents that confiscated all video surveillance of the are from the local businesses.

For those that say those planes weren't hijacked at all then you have to count the people that it would take to fly the remote controlled planes, plus the people that it would take to dispose of the real planes and all of their passengers.

You also have to include the people that it would take to make the phone calls, and create the fake phone calls from flight 93. And the people that shot down flight 93. And the phone calls from the other planes.

Depending on which conspiracy theory you believe you have to realize that it would take quite a few people to deal with the "scapegoats". If you think they were agents of the US who are now in hiding then you have to include all of the people that put these 19 men into hiding but the ones that are required to maintain that. If you don't believe they were government agents then the number of people required to ensure that they were on the plane, plus all the work that had to go into faking their pasts and the videos of them and Bin Laden that were faked in which they admit to being involved in 9/11.

And of course we know that Israel and some American Jews were involved (they are involved in everything bad in the world). You had 4000 Jews get told beforehand not to go into work. You also had a bunch of Jews in a van videotaping it and celebrating for the Israeli government, so that adds quite a few more.

Then you have to count all the people that had to fake the documents that were planted (such as the passport you always bring up as "proof" that 9/11 was faked) and the people that had to have been involved in the planting of such evidence at all of the sites (New York, Pennsylvania, Washington DC).

Since this happened only a few months into Bush's term it can be assumed that it was not his administration that started it. Nothing this complex could have been planned by a government newly in power, so Bill Clinton and certain members of his staff would have also been aware of the truth.

Sure, governments have done things in secret before. The Lavon Affair is a great example of how inept they can be at it. The SS Liberty is completely different matter as it simply is a question of who to believe. I don't see how the Bay of Pigs has anything to do with this, as the only thing kept secret was the training. The US acknowledged from the start that they were behind the Bay of Pigs invasion. There was no cover-up to deny this.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 04:43 PM
It doesn't take many people to coordinate a governmental job of high importance.

also, really the U.S acknowledged from the get go, that there would be a provocation to shoot down of US spy planes over Cuban air space to stimulate a cuban attack on the U.S and force other latin countries to an armed confrontation withCuba? further you admit that the U.S has no problem shooting down its own planes to further a political agenda?.. Well I thank you for that refreshing honesty!

and I think given their naivete and the massive failure then, they have decided to plan it better this time around, so the casualties are blamed on the intended party!

all the best
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 05:04 PM
You might say controlled explosives were in the towers. That was proven wrong. Implosions are from the bottom up, not the top down.
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 05:33 PM
Boaz, quit spouting facts please. They get in the way of a good theory.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 06:14 PM
lol.. I love how you come congratulate one another when at a loss to rebut camera captured contradictions to the official story!
if that is what it takes to quell your anxiety then by all means, it is better than going the lohan course!

all the best
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 06:47 PM
Oh for Allah's sake, don't get me started on people like Lohan.
Reply

titus
10-02-2010, 07:40 PM
I love how you come congratulate one another when at a loss to rebut camera captured contradictions to the official story!
Camera captured contradictions? I have yet to see any pictures that have not been explained already. The refusal of conspiracy theorists to understand or accept them is the problem.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 07:46 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Camera captured contradictions? I have yet to see any pictures that have not been explained already. The refusal of conspiracy theorists to understand or accept them is the problem.
Or rather the refusal of arrogant people like you to consider thinking out of the box, or consider another possibility, and look at the other side of the story before jumping to conclusion and spreading fake truth. What you and Boaz seem to spit is what the Media has been putting into our heads, and what the Government has been doing also.
Reply

جوري
10-02-2010, 07:56 PM
the problem is that the 'explanations' are only worthy of a hearty guffaw.. don't be so fond of science and then dispense of fairy tales and angry at best when questioned to the official explanation..

I am still looking for an explanation to this:







:haha: ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 09:28 PM
You're letting your hate of the US turn you blind to the idea that Muslim people are just as capable of doing evil as Christians, Jews, and Atheists.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
You're letting your hate of the US turn you blind to the idea that Muslim people are just as capable of doing evil as Christians, Jews, and Atheists.
However nobody said Christians or Jews or Atheists did anything. Those who did 9/11 are just Masons and Occultists worshiping Pagan Egyptian Gods like Horus. There is more than enough Egyptian symbolism around the US, such as the Washington war memorial and Egyptian obelisks. Again who said Christians or Jews did 9/11? What you sniffing son?.. you need to lay off.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 10:13 PM
I never said you were accusing them. I'm just commenting on how you completely dismissed the idea that the perpetrators of the attack were Islamic extremists who had problems with the US for say, interfering in the Middle East.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I never said you were accusing them. I'm just commenting on how you completely dismissed the idea that the perpetrators of the attack were Islamic extremists who had problems with the US for say, interfering in the Middle East.
Just like you dismiss the idea that it could've been done by the US. Took a page out of your book there. Anybody who kills others cannot be considered a Muslim, especially a suicide, or at least from my point of view.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 10:39 PM
I have read into them years ago. All those ideas of the US government being involved have been disproven. What would the Masons have against the WTC?
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-02-2010, 10:41 PM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I have read into them years ago. All those ideas of the US government being involved have been disproven. What would the Masons have against the WTC?
Wow you seem to amaze me more and more. I'll not discuss this further since you and a few certain other members here keep saying "It's been proven" blah blah, by the US government huh?.. I won't waste my time on a dog not willing to learn a new trick.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-02-2010, 10:44 PM
No, not by the government, by private citizens. Demolition experts, pilots, etc.
Reply

جوري
10-03-2010, 12:47 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
You're letting your hate of the US turn you blind to the idea that Muslim people are just as capable of doing evil as Christians, Jews, and Atheists.

Not at all, there are some despicable Muslims out there, there is no denying .. I was just listening to a lecture by Sheikh uthymayen ra7imho Allah, about some of the so called democratic elections in the middle east where one despot claimed 98% of the votes, the sheikh said even when God offered his guidance to the people he didn't receive 98%.. I despise ALL current world governments and indeed do believe that nationalism/patriotism is an infantile disease!

all the best
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-03-2010, 02:07 AM
Wait a minute, what country was this? Not even North Korea makes such a claim.
Reply

Dagless
10-03-2010, 02:10 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
I never said you were accusing them. I'm just commenting on how you completely dismissed the idea that the perpetrators of the attack were Islamic extremists who had problems with the US for say, interfering in the Middle East.
Didn't the government say that Afghanistan had something to do with it? Then Iraq were planning something? and had weapons? This is the same government you're trusting blindly on 9/11? They've never changed their story about anything right? :|
Whoever it was can be established later (or never established). The point is that a lot of people find flaws in the "official" story.


Originally Posted by Boaz
You're letting your hate of the US turn you blind to the idea that Muslim people are just as capable of doing evil as Christians, Jews, and Atheists.
What does this have to do with anything?


Originally Posted by Boaz
No, not by the government, by private citizens. Demolition experts, pilots, etc.
And there are governments, private citizens, demolition experts, pilots, etc. who say the official story doesn't make sense. There is a whole movement against it. What's your point? Because the US government says the official story is true then it must be true? :S
Reply

LauraS
10-05-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless

What does this have to do with anything?
That Muslims just can't believe that someone could possibly murder a large amount of people in their name and because it's the US, "the enemy" who were the victim, it just makes it even worse.

Just as Boaz says, there do exist extremist hate filled Muslims, Omar Bakri for one advocating the killing of non Muslims, but it's not often acknowledged on this board. All that's ever mentioned is the faults and "evils" of everyone else. Anything done by Muslims can't possibly be true.
Reply

Zafran
10-06-2010, 01:44 AM
Originally Posted by LauraS
That Muslims just can't believe that someone could possibly murder a large amount of people in their name and because it's the US, "the enemy" who were the victim, it just makes it even worse.

Just as Boaz says, there do exist extremist hate filled Muslims, Omar Bakri for one advocating the killing of non Muslims, but it's not often acknowledged on this board. All that's ever mentioned is the faults and "evils" of everyone else. Anything done by Muslims can't possibly be true.
I disagree - muslims can believe (or even know) that some muslims can and have commited terrible acts - just read the posts by many muslims on this board. By the way there are muslims in the US - muslims died on 9/11 as well - the question here is why did 9/11 happen? - is it the same thing that the US has been doing in the mid east for a long time - like the Neo cons and there policies.

Omar Bakri, Anjem chudery or Bin Landen dont represent the majority muslims - However the US government has lied in the past - saddam Hussien and WMDS or the al qeada and Saddam hussien connection - they can lie about that - what makes anyone think that they cant lie about anything else?
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-06-2010, 02:03 AM
Because the lies you mentioned were exposed. And we had regular reports of an imminent terror attack on the US. One thing that really puzzles me is why Clinton didn't capture bin Laden when he had the chance. Gadaffi offered him to us on a silver platter. Was Clinton to busy with his secretaries?
Reply

Zafran
10-06-2010, 02:51 AM
Originally Posted by Boaz
Because the lies you mentioned were exposed. And we had regular reports of an imminent terror attack on the US. One thing that really puzzles me is why Clinton didn't capture bin Laden when he had the chance. Gadaffi offered him to us on a silver platter. Was Clinton to busy with his secretaries?
and? what about the lies that havent been exposed?
Reply

Dagless
10-06-2010, 06:19 AM
Originally Posted by LauraS
That Muslims just can't believe that someone could possibly murder a large amount of people in their name and because it's the US, "the enemy" who were the victim, it just makes it even worse.
There you go generalising again, grouping us all into one. There are Muslims who believe the official story and there are Muslims who do not. Just as there are Christians and Jews who believe the official story and those who do not.

Originally Posted by LauraS
Just as Boaz says, there do exist extremist hate filled Muslims, Omar Bakri for one advocating the killing of non Muslims, but it's not often acknowledged on this board. All that's ever mentioned is the faults and "evils" of everyone else. Anything done by Muslims can't possibly be true.
I've seen threads on here about Muslims doing things wrong. But it's acknowledged that there are also extremist hate filled Christians, and extremist hate filled Jews. If the extremist hate filled people don't believe the official story it doesn't mean the official story is correct.

So like I said; what does this have to do with anything?
Reply

titus
10-06-2010, 02:52 PM
There you go generalising again, grouping us all into one. There are Muslims who believe the official story and there are Muslims who do not. Just as there are Christians and Jews who believe the official story and those who do not.
True, but a much larger portion of the Muslim population believes the conspiracy theories than the Christian and Jewish populations.

Like LauraS said, and I have said before, there are too many Muslims that cannot stomach the fact that a group of men who called themselves Muslims would make a victim of the hated United States and therefore cling to conspiracy theories in order to keep their mistaken vision of the world intact.
Reply

aadil77
10-06-2010, 04:43 PM
Originally Posted by -Fallen Angel-
Anybody who kills others cannot be considered a Muslim, especially a suicide.
Hold on, who gave you the authority to make tafkir on muslims?

these modernist ideas do not belong in islam, we will not call a muslim a kaffir just to please kuffar, murder or suicide will not take you out the fold of islam - although they are major sins
Reply

Dagless
10-06-2010, 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by titus
True, but a much larger portion of the Muslim population believes the conspiracy theories than the Christian and Jewish populations.
Since there has not been any study done on this I don't see how you can verify it.

Originally Posted by titus
Like LauraS said, and I have said before, there are too many Muslims that cannot stomach the fact that a group of men who called themselves Muslims would make a victim of the hated United States and therefore cling to conspiracy theories in order to keep their mistaken vision of the world intact.
What is "too many"? How do you know how many there are? Once again this is her opinion, with no real facts to justify it.
Reply

جوري
10-06-2010, 05:17 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
What is "too many"? How do you know how many there are? Once again this is her opinion, with no real facts to justify it.
The opinion of Non-Muslims is instantly 'peer-reviewed' when one of them comes to congratulate the other on a well made observation/personal opinion!
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-06-2010, 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by titus
True, but a much larger portion of the Muslim population believes the conspiracy theories than the Christian and Jewish populations.

Like LauraS said, and I have said before, there are too many Muslims that cannot stomach the fact that a group of men who called themselves Muslims would make a victim of the hated United States and therefore cling to conspiracy theories in order to keep their mistaken vision of the world intact.
Yea of course, because every single conspiracy theorist is Muslim -.-
Go learn your facts before making claims, and most of your posts show that your "knowledge" on "conspiracy theorists" is just bs you hear from others.. like right-wingers and whatever. Anyone who believes the lies of the gvt as truth.

Originally Posted by aadil77
Hold on, who gave you the authority to make tafkir on muslims?

these modernist ideas do not belong in islam, we will not call a muslim a kaffir just to please kuffar, murder or suicide will not take you out the fold of islam - although they are major sins
That was just my view bro, and i have no need to please some non-muslim.

Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

The opinion of Non-Muslims is instantly 'peer-reviewed' when one of them comes to congratulate the other on a well made observation/personal opinion!
Of course, especially by such professional "peer-reviewers", such as Boaz and Titus. We could learn a thing or two from them...

/sarcasm
Reply

LauraS
10-07-2010, 08:12 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
There you go generalising again, grouping us all into one. There are Muslims who believe the official story and there are Muslims who do not. Just as there are Christians and Jews who believe the official story and those who do not.



I've seen threads on here about Muslims doing things wrong. But it's acknowledged that there are also extremist hate filled Christians, and extremist hate filled Jews. If the extremist hate filled people don't believe the official story it doesn't mean the official story is correct.

So like I said; what does this have to do with anything?
I hardly think you can talk about generalising on this board with the constant generalising about westerners....

I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?


I don't think there is much acknowledgement on here about Muslims committing acts like terrorism, especially against non Muslims. There's always some sort of reason why the act can be excused (like the murdering of the aid workers) or it just didn't happen, it wasn't Muslims but some sort of conspiracy. Even the London bombings. What about the hotel killings in Mumbai in whihc British and Americans were targeted?
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-07-2010, 08:27 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
I hardly think you can talk about generalising on this board with the constant generalising about westerners....

I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?


I don't think there is much acknowledgement on here about Muslims committing acts like terrorism, especially against non Muslims. There's always some sort of reason why the act can be excused (like the murdering of the aid workers) or it just didn't happen, it wasn't Muslims but some sort of conspiracy. Even the London bombings. What about the hotel killings in Mumbai in whihc British and Americans were targeted?
Firstly, the bold bit just didn't make sense :/
But more than that, we can accept that it could've been some radical extreme Islamic terrorists but the reason why some of us don't is because there is more than enough proof that shows it was an inside job (9/11) and the same could be said for the Mumbai attacks. Keep in mind that those involved in the Mumbai attack were trained by Israeli Mossad agents.
Reply

LauraS
10-07-2010, 08:35 PM
Obviously "what" was meant to be "was".

Have you ever read the counter arguments against the theories? Don't you think the governments and media are being a bit elaborate organising many different attacks around the world and blaming Muslim and putting out fake admissions and threats when they're already in Afghanistan and Iraq anyway (if you were to say it was to create reasons for war). This is what I mean, you say you believe Muslims could be capable of carrying out acts like this then try to explain everything away that happens. When you get hate preachers like Omar Bakri condoning the killing of non Muslims why shouldn't any of these attacks be real? However every accusation made about non Muslims committing acts aganst Muslims is believed straight away.
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-07-2010, 08:41 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Obviously "what" was meant to be "was".

Have you ever read the counter arguments against the theories? Don't you think the governments and media are being a bit elaborate organising many different attacks around the world and blaming Muslim and putting out fake admissions and threats when they're already in Afghanistan and Iraq anyway (if you were to say it was to create reasons for war). This is what I mean, you say you believe Muslims could be capable of carrying out acts like this then try to explain everything away that happens. When you get hate preachers like Omar Bakri condoning the killing of non Muslims why shouldn't any of these attacks be real? However every accusation made about non Muslims committing acts aganst Muslims is believed straight away.
While i cannot speak for others, you should understand that my beliefs are just that. (mine).
While some people may automatically believe or disagree with something, i could have a different perception. As for 9/11, it was just an excuse devised to go into Afghanistan to set up base and take out the "Taliban".. who the US was paying to harvest opium for them (US), but when that didn't work out they needed to intervene, because like i've mentioned in previous posts the vast majority of the worlds opium comes from Afgahnistan and it's big business, and drugs are profitable for a Government, to fund any of their future "endeavors", while many people here would disagree with what i said, it's facts and people need to stop getting brainwashed and told what to do by the TV, for example.
Reply

Zafran
10-07-2010, 09:25 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
I hardly think you can talk about generalising on this board with the constant generalising about westerners....

I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?


I don't think there is much acknowledgement on here about Muslims committing acts like terrorism, especially against non Muslims. There's always some sort of reason why the act can be excused (like the murdering of the aid workers) or it just didn't happen, it wasn't Muslims but some sort of conspiracy. Even the London bombings. What about the hotel killings in Mumbai in whihc British and Americans were targeted?
Your genralising about the muslims on this forum - as if all the muslims on this forum have a consensus of 9/11. Yes some muslims do generalise about "westerners" but so do you about muslims on this forum.

why does any muslim have to acknowledge muslims committing acts of terrorism - does any Jew or christian have to acknowledge acts of terrorism against non Jews or christains? whats with the idea of collective guilt?
Reply

Zafran
10-07-2010, 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
Obviously "what" was meant to be "was".

Have you ever read the counter arguments against the theories? Don't you think the governments and media are being a bit elaborate organising many different attacks around the world and blaming Muslim and putting out fake admissions and threats when they're already in Afghanistan and Iraq anyway (if you were to say it was to create reasons for war). This is what I mean, you say you believe Muslims could be capable of carrying out acts like this then try to explain everything away that happens. When you get hate preachers like Omar Bakri condoning the killing of non Muslims why shouldn't any of these attacks be real? However every accusation made about non Muslims committing acts aganst Muslims is believed straight away.
and Abu Gharib or gutanamo bay are good reasons to believe thats acts against muslims do happen. The lie that saddam Hussien was linked with al qeada (which is the orgainstaion behind the destruction of 9/11) gives us good reason to question the "war on terror" on every level. Lets not even forget about the lie about WMDs.

Omar Bakri??? has this guy actually killed someone or is he like the Geart wilders? all talk.
Reply

Lynx
10-07-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by LauraS
I hardly think you can talk about generalising on this board with the constant generalising about westerners....

I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?


I don't think there is much acknowledgement on here about Muslims committing acts like terrorism, especially against non Muslims. There's always some sort of reason why the act can be excused (like the murdering of the aid workers) or it just didn't happen, it wasn't Muslims but some sort of conspiracy. Even the London bombings. What about the hotel killings in Mumbai in whihc British and Americans were targeted?

I agree with you Laura. The denial of some people here is astounding but I've seen plenty of people condemn 'terrorist' attacks so it's not as bad as maybe you're making it out to be. It appears that a lot of Muslims take the side of other so-called Muslim groups no matter what so long as they are in opposition to some Western body.
Reply

Zafran
10-07-2010, 09:55 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
I agree with you Laura. The denial of some people here is astounding but I've seen plenty of people condemn 'terrorist' attacks so it's not as bad as maybe you're making it out to be. It appears that a lot of Muslims take the side of other so-called Muslim groups no matter what so long as they are in opposition to some Western body.
what does condenming terrorist attacks have to do with anything? You can condem rape but does that mean just by condeming rape its going to stop? what are these other so called muslim groups?
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-07-2010, 10:52 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
I agree with you Laura. The denial of some people here is astounding but I've seen plenty of people condemn 'terrorist' attacks so it's not as bad as maybe you're making it out to be. It appears that a lot of Muslims take the side of other so-called Muslim groups no matter what so long as they are in opposition to some Western body.
Stop spitting what you're fed through your mouth. Nobody here seems to support terrorists, but i for one support the fight against Zionist Jews and Zealous Christians and those who pledge themselves to Satan, killing innocent brothers and sisters in Gaza or Palestine. Against oppression and tyranny such as the US or Israel, i'll support anybody who fights, but this is my opinion and belief, don't go saying all Muslims believe this ha!
Reply

Woodrow
10-08-2010, 01:34 AM
I really do not know the truth behing the terrorist attacks such as the WTC. But I do know that world wide Muslims suffered more as a result of them than non-Muslims have.

Because of the suffering brought upon Muslims it is nearly impossible for us to believe a Muslim could have been responsible for the attacks that caused this havoc.
Reply

titus
10-08-2010, 03:24 AM
Since there has not been any study done on this I don't see how you can verify it.
Actually there have been many polls taken that back it up. Here is one from 2008:



Which countries have a population in which there are more people that believe that the US or Israel committed 9/11 than Al Qaeda? Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Palestinian Territories..... and Mexico. Other than Mexico all those countries share extremely telling traits: Majority Muslim and deep hatred of Israel.

Emotions are the main factor in believing the conspiracy theories, not factual evidence.

You can also look at THIS Pew poll.

Because of the suffering brought upon Muslims it is nearly impossible for us to believe a Muslim could have been responsible for the attacks that caused this havoc.
I don't see the logic in that statement.

That's like saying that the Germans didn't invade Poland because of the hardships that German citizens had to endure later.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-08-2010, 03:40 AM
Originally Posted by Lynx
I agree with you Laura. The denial of some people here is astounding but I've seen plenty of people condemn 'terrorist' attacks so it's not as bad as maybe you're making it out to be. It appears that a lot of Muslims take the side of other so-called Muslim groups no matter what so long as they are in opposition to some Western body.
Originally Posted by LauraS
I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?
Let me ask you these sample questions:

Please choose
a. The US military and government was completely taken by surprise and had no prior information that the Japoanese was going to attack pearl harbour
b. The US military and government had prior info about pearl harbour attack but decided to let it pass because it would give excuse to get involved in the WW II head on

a. The US government had no prior info of Suharto regime invasion of East Timor as claimed
b. The US government actually encouraged and provided support to the suharto regime to invade east timor in order to contain "the spread of communism in south east asia"

a. The US government actually believed that Iraq had WMD as claimed
b. The US government actually created the WMD lies in order to have an excuse to invade iraq


Do you answer (a) to all those questions, lynx and laura?

Isn't it interesting that the US government and military could get more info in 1940s than in the 21st century where the intelligence and military might of the US is far beyond what any other nations/organizations imaginations, and how convenient that the 9/11 occured despite claim that the accused terrorist organization had been under their absolute watch for more than a decade, and that the attack happened INSIDE the US too?
And how convenient it is that the accused terrorist cannot be found, which gives excuse to linger in Afghanistan?
Reply

Dagless
10-08-2010, 06:25 AM
Originally Posted by LauraS
I hardly think you can talk about generalising on this board with the constant generalising about westerners....

I'll rephrase it to the Muslims on this forum then. Out of interest, are there Muslims on this forum that believe it what a genuine terrorist attack?
Lol even when you're trying to say you're not generalising; you end up generalising. There are many Muslims living in the west. Normally people generalise about western governments, not westerners. But even generalising about westerners would still not be the same as saying "oh all you Christians believe the official story". Can't you see how ridiculous that is?
Why don't you create a poll on this forum and find out instead of just making it up as you go along?


Originally Posted by LauraS
I don't think there is much acknowledgement on here about Muslims committing acts like terrorism, especially against non Muslims. There's always some sort of reason why the act can be excused (like the murdering of the aid workers) or it just didn't happen, it wasn't Muslims but some sort of conspiracy. Even the London bombings. What about the hotel killings in Mumbai in whihc British and Americans were targeted?
Iirc the Mumbai thread was quite balanced. But again, why not actually start a poll and get some data before throwing around wild accusations?
Reply

-Fallen Angel-
10-08-2010, 07:37 AM
Originally Posted by titus
Emotions are the main factor in believing the conspiracy theories, not factual evidence.
In your case it seems to be ignorance and arrogance. Keeping an open mind to things is good, and it's better than being told what to do by your slave masters.

Originally Posted by titus
I don't see the logic in that statement.
That statement makes perfect sense, and there is more logic in it, than most of your posts. You fail to understand what the effects of all these events have had on the Muslim world and the people, being told what's happening and how people are coping is one thing, but you go there and see for yourself, it's different.. Don't claim to know what's going on or how people are, emotionally or otherwise, when you don't know what they are having to go through, what they've lost, or whatever. It just shows you're a bigot.
Reply

Trumble
10-08-2010, 04:10 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Isn't it interesting that the US government and military could get more info in 1940s than in the 21st century where the intelligence and military might of the US is far beyond what any other nations/organizations imaginations, and how convenient that the 9/11 occured despite claim that the accused terrorist organization had been under their absolute watch for more than a decade, and that the attack happened INSIDE the US too?
Not remotely 'interesting', no. It's 'rather' easier to keep an eye on the general activities of one of the largest militaries in the world than a few Islamicist nutters in whatever century and in whatever place. Even then, despite the usual conspiracy garbage, there is no remotely convincing evidence Roosevelt had advance warning about Pearl Harbor. There was probably enough intelligence information somewhere in the system to predict the attack IF it was all put together AND analysed correctly but in real life that rarely happens even with far better communication between Navy Intelligence, Army Intelligence and diplomats than existed in 1941.
Reply

Darth Ultor
10-08-2010, 05:24 PM
You guys got it all wrong. We were in fact attacked by al-Qaeda, but Bush and his administration were the ones who put forth these conspiracy theories. Why? They don't want us to know that they had no control. If there are conspiracy theories flying around, then people would fear the government. There was once a time when a quarter of the country was dumb enough to believe in these theories and that is exactly who the government wants to exploit. Ten points to the one who knows what I'm referencing.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-09-2010, 05:00 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Not remotely 'interesting', no. It's 'rather' easier to keep an eye on the general activities of one of the largest militaries in the world than a few Islamicist nutters in whatever century and in whatever place. Even then, despite the usual conspiracy garbage, there is no remotely convincing evidence Roosevelt had advance warning about Pearl Harbor. There was probably enough intelligence information somewhere in the system to predict the attack IF it was all put together AND analysed correctly but in real life that rarely happens even with far better communication between Navy Intelligence, Army Intelligence and diplomats than existed in 1941
I am trying to use your logic:
The US government DID believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles.

I must say you have very "interesting" opinion.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-09-2010, 05:01 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Not remotely 'interesting', no. It's 'rather' easier to keep an eye on the general activities of one of the largest militaries in the world than a few Islamicist nutters in whatever century and in whatever place. Even then, despite the usual conspiracy garbage, there is no remotely convincing evidence Roosevelt had advance warning about Pearl Harbor. There was probably enough intelligence information somewhere in the system to predict the attack IF it was all put together AND analysed correctly but in real life that rarely happens even with far better communication between Navy Intelligence, Army Intelligence and diplomats than existed in 1941
I am trying to use your logic:
The US government DID believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles.

I must say you have very "interesting" opinion.
Reply

Lynx
10-09-2010, 07:19 AM
Stop spitting what you're fed through your mouth. Nobody here seems to support terrorists, but i for one support the fight against Zionist Jews and Zealous Christians and those who pledge themselves to Satan, killing innocent brothers and sisters in Gaza or Palestine. Against oppression and tyranny such as the US or Israel, i'll support anybody who fights, but this is my opinion and belief, don't go saying all Muslims believe this ha!
I am sorry you took the time out to post something completely irrelevant to what I was saying.

@Naidamar

Q1. It's neither a) or b). The U.S knew something was going to happen but they didn't know it would be at Pearl Harbour. They let it pass either way to enter the war.

Q2.I don't know anything about this event. B sounds plausible but I have no idea.

Q3. I don't think anyone knows what the government actually knew about Iraq. It might be the case that the U.S government genuinely felt threatened by Iraq and made up the WMD story but at the same time the US doesn't really need anyone's permission to go to war; don't forget that the U.S went into Iraq contrary to the UN's approval. So in other words, we don't have enough information about the Iraq war because it's an ongoing event.

Isn't it interesting that the US government and military could get more info in 1940s than in the 21st century where the intelligence and military might of the US is far beyond what any other nations/organizations imaginations
This is not true.

and how convenient that the 9/11 occured despite claim that the accused terrorist organization had been under their absolute watch for more than a decade, and that the attack happened INSIDE the US too?
USA is NOT GOD. It does not have absolute knowledge of every region in the world; it doesn't even have absolute knowledge of its own cities. USA isn't all knowing as some of you people think.

And how convenient it is that the accused terrorist cannot be found, which gives excuse to linger in Afghanistan?
Bin Laden isn't the excuse they are using anymore to stay in Afghanistan. They are trying to, according to their Publicity, secure Afghanistan so it's not used by enemies of USA as a base.
Reply

Trumble
10-09-2010, 12:08 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I am trying to use your logic:
The US government DID believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles.
What 'logic' is this supposed to be? That second sentence has no relation at all to what I said. Try re-reading my post.
Reply

AzizMostafa
10-09-2010, 05:11 PM
Did the US government believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles?!
http://typophile.com/node/53099?page1#comment-321741
Reply

Argamemnon
10-10-2010, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Who cares what this clown 'calls for'? First it's the Holocaust, and now 9/11. He should be treated with the contempt he deserves, although no doubt his intended audience (which is not the UN) will be suitably impressed by his rhetoric.
Western leaders are the clowns and hypocrites, not Mr. Ahmadinejad. He speaks the truth, that's why people like you are annoyed because the truth hurts.

As for the so called "holocaust"; you seem to be unaware of the falsification and exploitation of the Nazi genocide. The "6 million" figure is pure fabrication. It has been used to justify criminal policies of the Israeli state and U.S. support for these policies. The Zionists indeed learnt well from the Nazis!! Personally, I don't give a **** about the "holocaust". Thousands of Iraqi and Afghani women are currently being raped by western thugs in Afghanistan and Iraq, which of course you won't hear in western media. Millions of innocent people have died due to western aggression and for some strange reason you're still obsessed with the "holocaust"? Why are you living in the past, why are Jewish lives more important to you than Muslim lives?
Reply

Argamemnon
10-10-2010, 03:26 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What 'logic' is this supposed to be? That second sentence has no relation at all to what I said. Try re-reading my post.
To be frank, you are one of the most illogical and hateful people I have ever come across. It amazes me how moderators have been able to tolerate your nonsense and deeply ingrained hatred of Muslims and Islam.
Reply

Pygoscelis
10-10-2010, 06:19 AM
When you have no rational argument, attack the poster. This seems to be the trend around here.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
What 'logic' is this supposed to be? That second sentence has no relation at all to what I said. Try re-reading my post.

I was making sure that you actually believe the US intelligence was telling the truth when they said saddam had WMD.
Reply

Trumble
10-10-2010, 09:22 AM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
Millions of innocent people have died due to western aggression and for some strange reason you're still obsessed with the "holocaust"? Why are you living in the past, why are Jewish lives more important to you than Muslim lives?
I referred to the Holocaust and 9/11 together because Ahmadinejad has called for 'investigations' into both. Any obsession is his, not mine.

Originally Posted by Argamemnon
To be frank, you are one of the most illogical and hateful people I have ever come across.
I love you too. :wub:



Originally Posted by naidamar
I was making sure that you actually believe that the US intelligence did believe saddam had WMD.
Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them. The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.
Reply

Dagless
10-10-2010, 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them. The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.
Your guess is wrong. A few people who were analysts in the British government have done interviews and even written books about how the prime minister and Bush knew there was no threat. As recently as this year the head of MI5 at the time (Eliza Manningham-Buller) was interviewed (as part of an investigation) and said the reasons the Bush administration gave were lies, and that the truth was known at the time.
Reply

Trumble
10-10-2010, 12:05 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
Your guess is wrong. A few people who were analysts in the British government have done interviews and even written books about how the prime minister and Bush knew there was no threat. As recently as this year the head of MI5 at the time (Eliza Manningham-Buller) was interviewed (as part of an investigation) and said the reasons the Bush administration gave were lies, and that the truth was known at the time.
I don't think so. What she actually said was that, in her opinion, the intelligence held was "not substantial enough" to justify military action. If you have a source quoting her regarding 'lies from the Bush administration' and the 'truth' being known, please provide it.
Reply

Dagless
10-10-2010, 12:51 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
I don't think so. What she actually said was that, in her opinion, the intelligence held was "not substantial enough" to justify military action. If you have a source quoting her regarding 'lies from the Bush administration' and the 'truth' being known, please provide it.
The public were told there is an immediate threat, but she herself testified that the PM and Bush were told the threat "certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself."
What do you call that, if not a lie?

An example would be if you said I did something, then I turn around and say "no, that's nothing like what I did. In actual fact I did the opposite". That would indicate I am saying you're a liar.

I know people such as yourself don't accept this premise, but in the real world shouting "you big fat liar" from the rooftops is not very polite. Just the fact she said what she did is huge considering it is a direct contradiction to what the PM said in the same investigation.

edit: btw it's not just her, many analysts (and ex-analysts) have come forward with the same information. I am quoting her because she was head of the agency so this is from the horses mouth.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 01:00 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Actually, my guess is that both US and British intelligence didn't actually know. A 'black and white' picture is just too simple; intelligence work is all about shades of grey as are most things in the real world. As they didn't know, they presented reports to their political masters that could be interpreted as they wished to interpret them.The relevant question is whether or not the politicians believed it, or wanted to believe it.
So, you think the US government did believe Saddam had WMD?
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 01:02 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
Bin Laden isn't the excuse they are using anymore to stay in Afghanistan. They are trying to, according to their Publicity, secure Afghanistan so it's not used by enemies of USA as a base.
And you believe this?
Reply

AzizMostafa
10-10-2010, 01:23 PM
Did the US government believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles?!
http://typophile.com/node/53099?page1#comment-321741
Reply

Trumble
10-10-2010, 02:16 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
The public were told there is an immediate threat, but she herself testified that the PM and Bush were told the threat "certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself."
What do you call that, if not a lie?
Again, what she actually said was that the theory that Saddam’s regime would bring together international terrorism and WMDs in a threat to western interests “certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself". I can find no reference to her saying anything about knowing 'the truth' that Iraq did not have WMDs or that the US or UK administration had lied about anything. The politicians are under no obligation to agree with MI5 or the CIA particularly when, as I have suggested, it is likely intelligence reports were provided they could interpret according to their inclinations. Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.

edit: btw it's not just her, many analysts (and ex-analysts) have come forward with the same information. I am quoting her because she was head of the agency so this is from the horses mouth.
Again, if you have sources that claim it was known definitively that Iraq did not have WMDs, and hence that any statement that they did was a deliberate lie, please produce them.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-10-2010, 02:59 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.
You seem to be certain about this.
What is the evidence that they "wanted" to believe Saddam had WMD.
and even if it is true that they "wanted to believe", why is that?
Please provide concrete evidence (lest someone accuse you for being "conspiracy theorist").


By the way, read this:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/bl...09/06/bush_wmd

Thursday, Sep 6, 2007 07:16 ET
Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction
Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

*

On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”
Reply

Trumble
10-10-2010, 03:51 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
You seem to be certain about this.
What is the evidence that they "wanted" to believe Saddam had WMD.
and even if it is true that they "wanted to believe", why is that?
Please provide concrete evidence (lest someone accuse you for being "conspiracy theorist").
How do you suggest I provide 'concrete evidence' of what was going on in their heads? Aside from which, I'm puzzled as to why you need it; are you suggesting they really wanted to believe Iraq didn't have WMDs?! That would, after all, seem to be the only alternative.

" The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."
That's exactly what I've been saying!!
Reply

Dagless
10-10-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Again, what she actually said was that the theory that Saddam’s regime would bring together international terrorism and WMDs in a threat to western interests “certainly wasn’t of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself". I can find no reference to her saying anything about knowing 'the truth' that Iraq did not have WMDs or that the US or UK administration had lied about anything. The politicians are under no obligation to agree with MI5 or the CIA particularly when, as I have suggested, it is likely intelligence reports were provided they could interpret according to their inclinations. Bush and Blair wanted to believe Saddam had WMD.

Everyone can read the entire quote and reach a conclusion about whether the threat from Saddam was immediate and severe as stated by Bush and Blair.

UNIDENTIFIED: Does it therefore follow from that that you don't subscribe to the theory that at some point in the future he would probably have brought together international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction in a threat to Western interests?

MANNINGHAM-BULLER: It's a hypothetical theory. It certainly wasn't of concern in either the short term or the medium term to my colleagues or myself.

Originally Posted by Trumble
Again, if you have sources that claim it was known definitively that Iraq did not have WMDs, and hence that any statement that they did was a deliberate lie, please produce them.
This is why we have intelligence agencies. If they tell you there is no significant threat, you can say there is no threat. By ignoring the reports, and saying the intelligence shows there is a threat, you are lying.
Reply

Lynx
10-11-2010, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
And you believe this?
Not entirely. But my point was it's no longer 'convenient' to not catch Bin Laden.
Reply

Trumble
10-11-2010, 08:14 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
This is why we have intelligence agencies. If they tell you there is no significant threat, you can say there is no threat. By ignoring the reports, and saying the intelligence shows there is a threat, you are lying.
Do you actually read my posts? I've been saying that they weren't told that, neither were they told the opposite. Manningham-Buller did NOT say they were told that. I'm suggesting that as the intelligence community was uncertain, their briefs were presented in such a way as allow interpretation by their political masters as they wished. It's simple psychology; nobody is going to declare "Saddam has no WMDs" if any doubt remains, and they can avoid doing so. They would tend to look rather stupid had Saddam then gone and actually used one. It's not as if he hadn't done so before.
Reply

Dagless
10-11-2010, 10:49 PM
Originally Posted by Trumble
Do you actually read my posts? I've been saying that they weren't told that, neither were they told the opposite. Manningham-Buller did NOT say they were told that.
I find your comments quite amusing now :D So you're saying that the head of MI5 believed there wasn't a significant threat BUT when asked she lied to the PM? There is no doubt she was asked so what exactly are you saying?

Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm suggesting that as the intelligence community was uncertain, their briefs were presented in such a way as allow interpretation by their political masters as they wished. It's simple psychology; nobody is going to declare "Saddam has no WMDs" if any doubt remains, and they can avoid doing so. They would tend to look rather stupid had Saddam then gone and actually used one.
It is plain to see that nobody can be 100% sure but according to the intelligence there was not a threat - there was no ambiguity in this and it has been stated by many sources. Even if there was ambiguity it's no reason to invade a country. There should have been STRONG EVIDENCE for WMD's to justify an invasion. So therefore there was no legitimate reason to invade. Would you support the invasion of any country without evidence, simply because you cannot prove or disprove some random reason?

Originally Posted by Trumble
So by that logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki
We'd better invade the US. They have nukes, and hey it's not as if they haven't used them before.

"Manningham-Buller said there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement in the September 11 attacks on the US, a view she said was shared by the CIA and which prompted the then US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to set up an alternative intelligence unit."

Maybe she also decided not to talk about this? Maybe she said there was involvement when asked and then laughed about it on the way home? According to you the head of MI5 is quite the joker :D
Reply

Trumble
10-12-2010, 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by Dagless
I find your comments quite amusing now :D So you're saying that the head of MI5 believed there wasn't a significant threat BUT when asked she lied to the PM? There is no doubt she was asked so what exactly are you saying?
I'm afraid I find your apparent lack of comprehension skills rather less amusing. No I'm not saying that she lied, I'm saying that - for about the fifth time - that as UK and US agencies were still uncertain, whatever their respective brass' personal opinions might be, they provided reports that could be interpreted either way. Do you get it now? Once you escape cyberspace into real life you will learn that not everything is black and white, and that most people, to some degree, try and cover their backsides when possible, particularly in the 'corridors of power'.

Even if there was ambiguity it's no reason to invade a country. There should have been STRONG EVIDENCE for WMD's to justify an invasion. So therefore there was no legitimate reason to invade.
I agree. But had you actually been paying attention you would notice I am not attempting to justify the invasion of Iraq. I am simply offering an explanation as to how/why it happened other than the fact that everybody 'lied' about everything.

So by that logic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki
We'd better invade the US. They have nukes, and hey it's not as if they haven't used them before.
I am offering no such 'logic'. Again you are simply not reading. I did not mention Saddam's use of chemical weapons as a justification of the invasion of any state that has used WMDs. I mentioned it to demonstrate Saddam's willingness to use weapons that at at one time he certainly possessed, and hence presumably if he possessed them again in the context of intelligence reports on Iraq.

Maybe she also decided not to talk about this? Maybe she said there was involvement when asked and then laughed about it on the way home? According to you the head of MI5 is quite the joker
As you seem to resorted to asinine gibberish, you will hopefully forgive me for not addressing that 'point'.
Reply

Dagless
10-12-2010, 09:24 AM
Originally Posted by Trumble
I'm afraid I find your apparent lack of comprehension skills rather less amusing. No I'm not saying that she lied, I'm saying that - for about the fifth time - that as UK and US agencies were still uncertain, whatever their respective brass' personal opinions might be, they provided reports that could be interpreted either way. Do you get it now? Once you escape cyberspace into real life you will learn that not everything is black and white, and that most people, to some degree, try and cover their backsides when possible, particularly in the 'corridors of power'.
This is getting silly now. Who do you think wrote or authorised those reports? Who do you think oversaw them? The explanation you are offering is not only incorrect but flies in the face of the information you're being given. You are saying that the UK and US agencies were uncertain, she is saying that the UK agencies saw no threat (her and her colleagues opinions). That is the agencies official opinion (I think you really need to read the whole interview because you seem to think they sat her down and asked her what her favourite biscuit was this week. The investigation cared only about what was said and the information available at that time).
So who are we to believe? You are trying to make out she was uncertain, whereas she is saying she saw no threat (not only did she say that but she also added that those around her saw no threat), how the hell can that be uncertain?

"I did not know if there was a threat or not" <-- this is uncertain.
"I saw no threat" <-- this is NOT uncertain.

Do you see the difference? From your previous drivel I honestly doubt it.

I think any rational person would believe her recollection of her opinion than your recollection of her opinion.


Originally Posted by Trumble
I am offering no such 'logic'. Again you are simply not reading. I did not mention Saddam's use of chemical weapons as a justification of the invasion of any state that has used WMDs. I mentioned it to demonstrate Saddam's willingness to use weapons that at at one time he certainly possessed, and hence presumably if he possessed them again in the context of intelligence reports on Iraq.
You wrote one line with a link, I think my reply was appropriate.


Originally Posted by Trumble
As you seem to resorted to asinine gibberish, you will hopefully forgive me for not addressing that 'point'.
Sure I forgive you, it's not like you've addressed any other point either (not unless you count expressing an opinion in opposition to the facts).
Reply

Trumble
10-12-2010, 01:03 PM
Originally Posted by Dagless
This is getting silly now.
Agreed. Your inability to understand what I am actually saying does make continuation rather pointless.

The explanation you are offering is not only incorrect but flies in the face of the information you're being given. You are saying that the UK and US agencies were uncertain, she is saying that the UK agencies saw no threat (her and her colleagues opinions).
I am saying that, whatever their opinion, doubt remained sufficient for them to want to cover their a$$. As there was evidence both ways, all of it was included in the report.

That is the agencies official opinion
No, it was her personal opinion. Produce a source confirming MI5 ever has an 'official' opinion on anything. They provide information on which other people can form opinions on which to base their actions.

"I did not know if there was a threat or not" <-- this is uncertain.
"I saw no threat" <-- this is NOT uncertain.

Do you see the difference? From your previous drivel I honestly doubt it.

I think any rational person would believe her recollection of her opinion than your recollection of her opinion.
Again, you are just demonstrating your lack of comprehension. Nobody is disputing what her opinion was; it's in black and white. READ MY POSTS!!

You wrote one line with a link, I think my reply was appropriate.
One line included in one paragraph, included in one post. Just like any other line in any other post, to read in context. Try doing so.
Reply

AzizMostafa
10-13-2010, 06:22 AM
Did the US government believe that Saddam had WMD and nuclear missiles?!
http://typophile.com/node/53099?page1#comment-321741
Reply

DancesWithChair
10-21-2010, 02:13 AM
Way back in 1972, there was a US presidential election.


The Democrats had an office in the Watergate building.


The Republicans organised a break in of the offices of the Democrats to get the plans for the Democrats election strategy.


At the time of the break in, only 4 people in the Republican party knew about it.


Investigative reporters took only 2 years to get to the bottom of the story because a famously deep throat told them about it.




9/11 occurred 9 years ago.


If it were a Bush conspiracy it would have taken 1,000 people to pull off.


And yet there is not one deep throat after 9 years.




We know who did 9/11.


In the aftermath, thousands of Muslim world wide wore t-shirts with photos of Bin Laden and the twin towers burning behind him.


A rich Saudi went to New York to present a cheque for $20,000,000 to help the families of the victims.


He said: “I don’t agree with what was done”


And then said “ but I agree with the reason” ( being a reference to the Israel – Palestinian issue)


-
Reply

جوري
10-21-2010, 02:28 AM
Originally Posted by DancesWithChair
Way back in 1972, there was a US presidential election. The Democrats had an office in the Watergate building. The Republicans organised a break in of the offices of the Democrats to get the plans for the Democrats election strategy. At the time of the break in, only 4 people in the Republican party knew about it. Investigative reporters took only 2 years to get to the bottom of the story because a famously deep throat told them about it. 9/11 occurred 9 years ago. If it were a Bush conspiracy it would have taken 1,000 people to pull off. And yet there is not one deep throat after 9 years. We know who did 9/11. In the aftermath, thousands of Muslim world wide wore t-shirts with photos of Bin Laden and the twin towers burning behind him. A rich Saudi went to New York to present a cheque for $20,000,000 to help the families of the victims. He said: “I don’t agree with what was done” And then said “ but I agree with the reason” ( being a reference to the Israel – Palestinian issue)
That is deep.. doesn't say much about this great country that cave dwelling 'hooligans' took over your planes with plastic knives, did a little voodoo on wtc 7 to take it down demolition style and then drove an invisible plane into the pentagon.. all while leaving that passport behind..

funny stuff
Reply

Rabi Mansur
10-21-2010, 03:19 AM
One of the men working at the Pentagon who was killed when flight 77 hit the building lived near me. Did they just kill him and send his body here for his funeral? Come on. What about Barbara Olson? She was on the flight. I used to watch her on CNN and Fox from time to time.
Did she just disappear? Did the evil government kidnap her with the other 65 passengers? I don't understand how you guys can buy into the conspiracy nonsense.

Reply

جوري
10-21-2010, 03:24 AM
I have no idea what it means to 'send his body for his funeral' Do you expect people to have whole bodies after molten heat brought down steel metal? or the same way it spared the passport?

It isn't conspiracy when the official story is so farcical!
btw I too lost a friend (Muslim) accountant in the towers-- many of us have a vested interest in understanding what is going on considering the aftermath. And I believe that will come to light one day, enough people out there are asking the hard questions!

all the best
Reply

Dagless
10-21-2010, 11:27 AM
Originally Posted by Rabi Mansur
One of the men working at the Pentagon who was killed when flight 77 hit the building lived near me. Did they just kill him and send his body here for his funeral? Come on. What about Barbara Olson? She was on the flight. I used to watch her on CNN and Fox from time to time.
Did she just disappear? Did the evil government kidnap her with the other 65 passengers? I don't understand how you guys can buy into the conspiracy nonsense.

What you fail to understand is that just because people don't believe the official story they don't automatically believe the president organised thousands of people to do it. Sure it maybe the case but the point is that we do not know. What we know is there are holes in the original story, that should be enough to cast doubt. I also don't agree with people not being able to keep a secret. History has shown people can keep secrets for a very long time.
Reply

Lynx
10-21-2010, 09:58 PM
If there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 then it most certainly does not involve thousands of people being in on it. There is no chance in hell that 1000s of people could hold a secret like 9/11 for one week let alone 10 years!
Reply

جوري
10-21-2010, 11:01 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
If there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 then it most certainly does not involve thousands of people being in on it. There is no chance in hell that 1000s of people could hold a secret like 9/11 for one week let alone 10 years!
Is this a new thing that you guys simply introduced to the formula to deflect away from the Issues? Who said that this needs to be carried out by thousands? when it was otherwise carried out by an alleged 19?

more funnies to follow I am sure..
Reply

Lynx
10-21-2010, 11:31 PM
Originally Posted by τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ

Is this a new thing that you guys simply introduced to the formula to deflect away from the Issues? Who said that this needs to be carried out by thousands? when it was otherwise carried out by an alleged 19?

more funnies to follow I am sure..
There are plenty of people who think there were 'thousands' involved. These are the most far fetched versions of 9/11 conspiracies but they exist nevertheless.
Reply

جوري
10-21-2010, 11:34 PM
Originally Posted by Lynx
There are plenty of people who think there were 'thousands' involved. These are the most far fetched versions of 9/11 conspiracies but they exist nevertheless.

If it took 19 to create that much carnage, then there is no reason to suppose that it would take more than that under any circumstance whether pre-planned or spur of the moment!

all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
10-22-2010, 03:26 PM
I just find it almost impossible to believe that the US government had not been aware that they were going to be attack on the towers AND the pentagon AND the white house on the same day from a group of people whose chief (osama) had been on the top of FBI AND CIA list for a decade and who had "eluded" capture in Sudan few years earlier.
Reply

Rabi Mansur
10-25-2010, 02:19 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
I just find it almost impossible to believe that the US government had not been aware that they were going to be attack on the towers AND the pentagon AND the white house on the same day from a group of people whose chief (osama) had been on the top of FBI AND CIA list for a decade and who had "eluded" capture in Sudan few years earlier.
I think Bush and cronies were caught off guard. They dropped the ball after the change in administrations. Security was not high on their list of priorities and frankly, they were incompetent.

OTOH I have to wonder if Israel knew and did not pass the info on to the U.S. Israel definitely benefitted from 9/11.

Maybe someday we will know the whole story.
Reply

Zafran
10-25-2010, 03:03 AM
salaam

like wikileaks and Iraq.

peace
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 06:25 AM
If it took 19 to create that much carnage, then there is no reason to suppose that it would take more than that under any circumstance whether pre-planned or spur of the moment!
What exactly is it that you want us to believe happened on 9/11 then?

If you think the Bush government did it then please tell me how.
Reply

Ramadhan
10-25-2010, 07:05 AM
Originally Posted by titus
If you think the Bush government did it then please tell me how
I don't think it is the question of "how the bush government did it" but rather "how the us government let it happened"

Remember, it is the same government that directly and indirectly caused all the deaths, tortures, rapes in Iraq and Afghanistan through lies.
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 07:09 AM
it is Vale that is claiming that the government actually perpetrated it and tried to blame it on innocent Muslims. That is why she likes to bring up the passport all the time since she believes that this evidence was planted to frame the poor Muslim men blamed for it.
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 07:11 AM
Also, please remember that no government in the world, even the US government, is omniscient. If it was then there would be no crime in this country. It is naive and unrealistic to believe that the US government could possibly know every plot being made against it.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 11:54 AM
Originally Posted by titus
it is Vale that is claiming that the government actually perpetrated it and tried to blame it on innocent Muslims. That is why she likes to bring up the passport all the time since she believes that this evidence was planted to frame the poor Muslim men blamed for it.
indeed.. if you don't think it is planted evidence then I'd really like to hear a logical explanation that belongs to world's affairs rather than stand up comedy in the humor section-- and while at it cover the rest of that colossal farce in an equal style!


all the best!
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 02:17 PM
A logical explanation for why a passport would survive a plane crash?

Basic physics tells you that it is possible.

Besides, how is this really "evidence"? We know the men were on the plane. There is video of them going through security. Why would they feel the need to plant a passport somewhere?
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 02:30 PM
Originally Posted by titus
A logical explanation for why a passport would survive a plane crash?

Basic physics tells you that it is possible.

Besides, how is this really "evidence"? We know the men were on the plane. There is video of them going through security. Why would they feel the need to plant a passport somewhere?

really basic physics tells you? oh OK you must have attended physics for poets, what about the laws of probability basic there too? what a hoot..

why would they feel the need to plant, is something you need to address to them.. simple minds can only cater to simple minds while giving the rest a hearty guffaw!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 02:35 PM
I guess in your science classes they told you that when a plane crashes that everything on it disappears?
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by titus
I guess in your science classes they told you that when a plane crashes that everything on it disappears?
I expect and let me quote your govt. website:
'') the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns''

that a 1000 degree Celsius /1832 degrees Fahrenheit which is enough to cremate a human body which in fact turns to ashes at 760 to 1150 °C (1400 to 2100 °F) and take adjacent buildings which weren't touched by planes down mushroom style to not spare an invincible saudi passport, and I mean Saudi for surely the plane didn't have one terrorist on board and no civilians whose passports could have miraculously survived... I rather worry about your state of mind for not only is science elusive but so are the laws of logic and probability!


I think you'd be better off just sitting this one out and hoping it would go away while parroting 'Muslims did it' until you fully believe it!



all the best
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 05:55 PM
Sure, everything that was not blown clear of the initial explosion would have been subjected to great heat. That does not mean that nothing on the plane was not blown clear. There was a lot of other debris found from the plane besides a passport. Maybe you suppose that was all planted also since you believe everything was instantaneously incinerated when the plane hit the building.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 05:58 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Sure, everything that was not blown clear of the initial explosion would have been subjected to great heat. That does not mean that nothing on the plane was not blown clear. There was a lot of other debris found from the plane besides a passport. Maybe you suppose that was all planted also since you believe everything was instantaneously incinerated when the plane hit the building.

was the passport riding outside of the airplane? It had a seat on the acela express and arrived separately? ;D ;D ;D ;D

like I said, you'd have been better off keeping your bazoo mum on this one and waited until it blows over..

all the best
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 06:35 PM
You seem to have a misconception that when planes crash there is no debris from inside the plane. During a plane crash the hull of the plane is ruptured, which allows items such as luggage and personal items to be thrown clear from the crash site.

The plane did not stay in one piece. There was no "inside" of the plane after it flew into the building.

Please keep posting. It makes my job easier when all I have to do to refute you is post basic common sense.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by titus
You seem to have a misconception that when planes crash there is no debris from inside the plane. During a plane crash the hull of the plane is ruptured, which allows items such as luggage and personal items to be thrown clear from the crash site.

The plane did not stay in one piece. There was no "inside" of the plane after it flew into the building.

Please keep posting. It makes my job easier when all I have to do to refute you is post basic common sense.
does 'debris' from a plane that combusted and took down separate building at a temperature that rivals hell equal to a whole passport with picture and not any passport of any random passenger NO, the passport of THE passenger.. Do people also travel with their passport strapped to their body or do they check it in with their luggage?

You are right, your job is the easiest of stand up comedy.. you can officially quit your day job and work on eliciting a hearty guffaw with your wit or lack thereof!

one funny dude, you should have worked for bush, you seem to echo his standards and his brain capacity which in fact echos the american public at large. No wonder your planes were hijacked by cave dwelling mountaineers with plastic knives.. you bring down the quota for the entire globe!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-25-2010, 07:53 PM
More misconceptions from you.

1) Who has said that the passport of the hijacker was the only personal effect of a passenger found? Please find me that source.

2) You try to make it sound as if the heat alone from the initial impact destroyed the buildings. There was much more to it than that.

3) I have never read anything saying the hijackers lived in caves.

4) I have never heard they used plastic knives. The reports I read said they used utility knives in which the cutting instrument is a metal razor blade.

So the question I have is "are you aware that you are not telling the truth"?

Do people also travel with their passport strapped to their body or do they check it in with their luggage?
I usually store it in my carry on bag. If I want to use it as identification for anything at the airport it would be impossible for me to put it in my checked in luggage since I would not have access to it from before I went through security til I retrieved my luggage after I landed.
Reply

جوري
10-25-2010, 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by titus
More misconceptions from you.
It is called common sense, I know, I know.. tell lily all about it..
1) Who has said that the passport of the hijacker was the only personal effect of a passenger found? Please find me that source.
How about you post for us other passports that made it? let's start with those odds before you get your manty's up in knots!
2) You try to make it sound as if the heat alone from the initial impact destroyed the buildings. There was much more to it than that.
aha, and that along with the much more shouldn't leave us with a saudi passport unscathed!

3) I have never read anything saying the hijackers lived in caves.
yeah apparently they were getting lap dances and drinking beer.. so Islamic like!
4) I have never heard they used plastic knives. The reports I read said they used utility knives in which the cutting instrument is a metal razor blade.
there you go:
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm
So the question I have is "are you aware that you are not telling the truth"?
umm no, it is still you!


I usually store it in my carry on bag. If I want to use it as identification for anything at the airport it would be impossible for me to put it in my checked in luggage since I would not have access to it from before I went through security til I retrieved my luggage after I landed.
what you usually do and apparently 'believe' doesn't echo reality!

I'll be waiting for your next stand up routine and with it I am removing my subscription to comedy central!

all the best
Reply

titus
10-27-2010, 12:56 PM
How about you post for us other passports that made it? let's start with those odds before you get your manty's up in knots!
Other articles from passengers were found also, including ID cards, credit cards, money, etc.

And I am really more of a jeans kind of guy. Manty's itch and I hate having to shave my legs.

Source

4) I have never heard they used plastic knives. The reports I read said they used utility knives in which the cutting instrument is a metal razor blade.
there you go:
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/nether_fictoid9.htm
You realize that the article backs up my point that there is no evidence that plastic knives were used, and that utility knives (among other things) were?

Thank you for verifying that when you said they used plastic knives you were wrong.
Reply

جوري
10-27-2010, 01:07 PM
Originally Posted by titus
Other articles from passengers were found also, including ID cards, credit cards, money, etc.

And I am really more of a jeans kind of guy. Manty's itch and I hate having to shave my legs.

Source
I don't see passports, I see a really petty attempt to deflect from the stupidity of the first blunder and silly blog to cater to your silly mind!





You realize that the article backs up my point that there is no evidence that plastic knives were used, and that utility knives (among other things) were?

Thank you for verifying that when you said they used plastic knives you were wrong.
you realize that, that in fact was the original story fed the public along from the same page:
Following the September 11th attack, government authorities declared that the weapons used to hijack the planes that crashed into World Trade Center were plastic knives and box cutters. The story about plastic knives and box cutters, implements which passengers then were not legally restricted from bring through security checkpoints at airports, was relentlessly drummed into the public's mind by two of the highest officials in the government.
with the 'jihadis' getting lap dances and drinking the night before.. and you do realize that I was dispensing with mockery of the official story all along? Nobody believes that 'Jihadis' get lap dances before they are to allegedly die in the name of God, nor are folks able to hijack planes with plastic knives, nor do invincible passports survive a 2000 degree inferno...


good luck with all of that!
Reply

titus
10-27-2010, 01:20 PM
I don't see passports, I see a really petty attempt to deflect from the stupidity of the first blunder and silly blog to cater to your silly mind!
What you need to see that is that many personal articles, including paper and plastic items, were recovered from the site. Is it your contention that all of these items were planted by the government? Or do you not concede that after a plane crash that such articles can conceivably survive?

Or do you still contend that everything on the plane instantaneously combusted when it hit the building?

you realize that, that in fact was the original story fed the public along from the same page:
Yes. I also know what the real evidence was: that there is no evidence that plastic knives were used.

and you do realize that I was dispensing with mockery of the official story all along?
You know that there is a difference between "official story" and what some high ranking officials said in an interview, right?
Reply

جوري
10-27-2010, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by titus
What you need to see that is that many personal articles, including paper and plastic items, were recovered from the site. Is it your contention that all of these items were planted by the government? Or do you not concede that after a plane crash that such articles can conceivably survive?
You have a head on your shoulder, try to use it to make a logical coherent thought of what transpired!

Or do you still contend that everything on the plane instantaneously combusted when it hit the building?
I have presented all that needs to be with solid evidence in lieu of a personal opinion for discerning minds and don't care to waste my time coaxing you into your beliefs!


Yes. I also know what the real evidence was: that there is no evidence that plastic knives were used.
That is the problem isn't it? what is real and what isn't when they start off with a story and retract if not act as if such words weren't uttered all together when they realize that even a fifth grader can see through the bull? But you know I can't say that I don't blame them, there is a portion of the population that is so into moronity and lap it right up along with the jihadis who were getting a lap dance!


You know that there is a difference between "official story" and what some high ranking officials said in an interview, right?
Yes, the difference is how long it will take them to tweak it after seeing how well or poorly received it is by the public at large.. the American audience in general seems to be of very low intellect and those that manage to escape the stupidity.. well may God help them, we know how they end up!

again, best of luck with all of that!
Reply

Argamemnon
10-27-2010, 09:59 PM
Originally Posted by titus
it is Vale that is claiming that the government actually perpetrated it and tried to blame it on innocent Muslims. That is why she likes to bring up the passport all the time since she believes that this evidence was planted to frame the poor Muslim men blamed for it.
A "let-it-happen" government operation or an inside job, both are as bad as each other. Your government is immoral.
Reply

Woodrow
10-27-2010, 10:50 PM
Originally Posted by Argamemnon
A "let-it-happen" government operation or an inside job, both are as bad as each other. Your government is immoral.
Probably more amoral than immoral. To be immoral you have to know the difference between right and wrong, but choose to do the wrong. To be amoral you don't give a hoot about right and wrong, you just assume whatever you do is right, because you are the one doing it.

Our government is quite a paradox.

The law states seperation of Church and state. While the pledge of allegience begins with "One nation under God......."

We have the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island with a plaque that reads in part:
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
But, we place quotas on who may come here.

The govrnment is free from religious belief, but our motto is: "In God We Trust"
Reply

titus
10-30-2010, 03:56 PM
The law states seperation of Church and state.
Actually the first amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So it doesn't actually separate church and state, it just says the government will not establish an official religion and everyone will have the freedom to exercise their own religion.

By stamping "In God We Trust" on trust they are not establishing any specific religion since it could be a Jewish, Christian, Muslim or Hindu god that is referred to.

That being said I never have really liked the government use of God on coins or in the pledge but I don't really have an issue with it being unconstitutional either.

We have the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island with a plaque that reads in part:
Lady Liberty doesn't say, though, to send all of them over here. Nor is that poem a part of American law, simply a poem.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!