Esato

Forum > General discussions > Non mobile discussion > The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.

Previous  123 ... 567 ... 121314  Next
Author The Gulf War 2 Thread - Stick to the topic this time.
peeta
S500 Green
Joined: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 147
From: Scotland
PM
Posted: 2004-07-09 03:46
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
i hate...
dumb arrogant americans.
reserved lager lout brits.
frog eating arrogant french.
boring pedo belgiums.
greasey side switching italians.
drug dealing colombians.
beer drinking sausage eating germans.
drunk mafia oligarc russians.
takeaway owning women repressing arabs.
sneaky mobile obsessed little japanese.
tribal fueding aid grabbing africans.
etc. etc.
brothers, sisters we are all people of this earth let us join and defeat the real evils in this world, greed, arrogance, racism, fear. america (government and media) may have these traits stronger than other countries but that is because they are the current world empire. britain was the same when they were the worlds strongest empire and so was spain and same again with the romans. not that that excuses them but that we should expect it.

peeta

ps @axxxar "Tony blair feels its in the interest of the u.k to help america in its war.I believe only because its a historical tradition that the brits and the yanks fight togther.The u.s helped us in the second world war so we belive its now an obligation for us to help you in yours"
i believe tony blair knew bush was going to invade iraq no matter what the u.n. or any country said.
so
1. in order keep the u.s. involved in the u.n. (even on the most shallow of levels) he went along betting that pressured, others would too.
2.i also partly believe that he like lots of other world leaders saw that by openly supporting bush they could gain favours in return ex. america turning a blind eye to russian terrorism in chehnya, chinese terrorism in western china, british companies gaining contracts in post-war iraq and the keoto agreement.

pps re DU in iraq, the same thing happened during and after the last iraq war. the contaminated dust got blowen into towns and there was a sharp rise in births of seriously deformed babies. john pilger made a very good documentary about the children of iraq highlighting these issues. the military leaders know and just don't care about who dies (iraqi civilians or american soldiers) so long as they can further their careers and buy a bigger house, better car better school for their kids etc etc materialist american dream greed.

@axxxr again. where did you get that from?





[ This Message was edited by: peeta on 2004-07-09 03:15 ]
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-09 14:58
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Sorry that was published in an article for a american online news site the sacremento bee.

http://www.sacbee.com/content[....]/story/9316830p-10241546c.html [addsig]
Sammy_boy
C510 Black
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-09 22:56
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
After today's news of that report damning the CIA, I have one thing to say (pinched from the film 'Good Morning Vietnam') :

"Military intelligence - now there's a contradiction in terms!"

I'd if the war hadn't cost so many lives.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

kimcheeboi
T610
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM
Posted: 2004-07-09 23:12
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
lets get this straight--war is hell. Civilians are gonna die, no matter what.

while that does frustrate me, its not "big deal" that we are talking about here. The people that are to blame are NOT the soldiers (including iraqis fighting the u.s.) but the people who dont mind having thousands of people die so they can sell toilet seats for 40,000 dollars. [addsig]
ADT0079
T610
Joined: Oct 08, 2003
Posts: 100
PM
Posted: 2004-07-11 16:29
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
A guy was traveling through Mexico on vacation ?> when, lo and behold, he
> lost his wallet and all identification.
>
> Cutting his trip short, he attempts to make his way home but is
>stopped
>
> by the Customs Agent at the border.
>
> "May I see your identification, please?" asks the agent. "I'm
>sorry,
>
> but I lost my wallet," replies the guy.
>
> "Sure, buddy, I hear that every day. No ID, no crossing the
>border,"
>
> says the agent
>
> "But I can prove that I'm an American!" he exclaims.
>
> "I have a picture of Ronald Reagan tattooed on one butt cheek
>and a
>
> picture of George Bush on the other."
>
> "This I gotta see," replies the agent. With that, Joe drops his
>pants
>
> and bends over in front of the agent.
>
> "By golly, you're right!" exclaims the agent. "Go on home to
>Boston."
>
> "Thanks!" he says "But how did you know I was from Boston?" The
>agent
>
> replies, "I recognized the picture of John Kerry in the middle."
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-12 00:58
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
ADT0079 this is a anti-bush and gulf war thread so can you please stick to the topic and keep kerry out of it,if you have something to say about kerry then i suggest u take it to the bush c.v thread!

[addsig]
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-12 01:17
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post


[addsig]
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-13 03:08
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
FAHRENHEIT 9/11" documents that the American people have been lied to in the push for war.

There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was not a threat. Iraq had no link to 9-11. Iraq was not supporting Al Qaeda. The government of Iraq under Saddam killed far fewer Iraqi people than the government of Iraq under George Bush. The Kurds were actually gassed by Iran (and does the name "Waco" ring a bell?). The only nuclear weapons found in Iraq are the tons of depleted uranium munitions dropped on the Iraqi people by the United States. And, far from being the champion of human rights, the United States stands exposed as a willing user of torture on prisoners who in many cases were innocent of any wrongdoing.
That's the major message. We The People were lied to about, well, just about everything. Including 9-11 itself. Bush sat there and read about goats while the towers fell. The video tape of "Osama's" confession turned out to be fake. Osama himself turned out to be a fake, a CIA asset trained and funded by the US to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Blair's dossier turned out to be fake, plagiarized from a student thesis. The mobile biological weapons trailers turned out to be fake; actually balloon inflators sold by the British to Iraq. And on and on and on. Deception after deception after deception.

Everyone agrees on this major message. We've been lied to. We are the victims of history's greatest and deadliest hoax; a hoax perpetrated to ignite a war of conquest. Michael Moore's film does a great job of confronting that deadly fact.

But, Michael Moore has himself either fallen for disinformation, or simply not done his homework, and seems willing to accept without question the official story of 9-11.

Now, it may be that Michael Moore just didn't care to get into 9-11 itself that deeply. Moore seems mostly focused on the aircraft allowed to fly out of the United States in the days immediately after 9-11 while the rest of the nation's aircraft were grounded. On these flights were members of Osama bin Laden's family. The Bush's and bin Ladens go back a long way. Osama's brother was George's business partner in Abusto Energy and source of the seed money to start the company. It is reportedly because of this connection that Osama was recruited to play holy warrior for the CIA in Afghanistan against the USSR. So there is no question that those flights did occur, and that Osama's family members were among the passengers.

At issue is whether this fact of the aircraft flights points the finger of blame for 9-11 at Saudi Arabia. After first being told that Afghanistan was to blame for 9-11, then Iraq was to blame for 9-11, one should take any claims of any Arab country being identified as the perpetrator of 9-11 with a huge heaping of salt. Michael Moore, who clearly recognized the claims about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, the supposed link from Saddam to Al Qaeda and to 9-11 as lies, shows a dangerous naiveté in his willingness accept the official story of 9-11 without question.

So, let's take a look at the idea of Saudi Arabia as the perpetrator of 9-11. Why would they do it? What would they gain? Immediately after the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good……. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". The months since 9-11 have borne that out. US support for Israel's agenda grew stronger as Israel committed more atrocities against the Palestinians. More money flowed from the US to Israel. World opinion, which had been growing against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, temporarily abated. World hostility towards Arabs in general grew. Forgotten was the fact that Israel was actually in defiance of more UN Resolutions than Saddam had ever been. And, it was assumed at the start of the war that direct access to Iraq's oil would reduce American demand for Saudi oil, and likely force prices down as Iraq's oil came to market. So, where was the motive? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would strengthen US-Israeli ties? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would undercut their own oil revenues? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would anger the world against Arabs? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that could result in their almost one trillion dollars invested in the United States to be legally frozen and confiscated? Me neither. If Saudi Arabia wanted to hurt the United States, all they would have to do is withdraw their investment cash all at once. The move would be perfectly legal, and cause greater economic damage than the 9-11 attacks.

Here are some facts that for some reason did not make it into the final cut of "Fahrenheit 9/11"

On 9-11, five men were arrested for suspicious behavior, cheering and laughing while the WTC collapsed. In the van police found cash, multiple passports, and maps with the World Trade Center highlighted. Bomb-sniffing dogs indicated explosives residue were present in the truck. The arrested men were Israelis, later identified by Pacific Radio as agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. According to Carl Cameron's FOX News story on the Israeli spy ring, the US Government classified evidence that linked the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. The Mossad agents were using a moving company, Urban Moving Systems, for a cover. The owner of the company, Dominic Suter, abandoned his business after 9-11 and fled to Israel on 9-14.

The 9-11 scene was littered with passports using Saudi names, passports which the FBI admitted just ten days later were high-quality fakes using identities stolen from Arab men. We don't know who was on those planes, only who we were supposed to THINK were on those planes. Why would Saudi Arabia commit 9-11 and use phony passports pointing back to themselves? If Saudi Arabia had done 9-11, it is safe to assume the phony passports would have likely pointed to Israel. FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft.

The warnings of the attack sent to Odigo in New York and Israel before the 9-11 planes had even left the ground confirms beyond question that Israeli-linked companies did receive advance warning. Why would Saudi Arabia warn Israeli companies if they were behind 9-11?

It wasn't a Saudi-owned company in charge of security at all three of the 9-11 airports.

If Saudi Arabia was really behind 9-11, would they have waited until AFTER the attacks to get out of town, thereby bringing unfavorable attention to themselves? Given that Odigo received an early warning of the impending attack, wouldn't the Saudis have known it was about to occur and headed for the airport before the attack happened, if Saudi Arabia was the real culprit?

If Saudi Arabia was a partner with Al Qaeda for 9-11, why is Al Qaeda carrying out terror attacks against the Saudi Royal family now?

Speaking of "Al Qaeda", when Palestinian police arrested an Al Qaeda cell, they discovered they were holding a group of Mossad agents.

A final point: The nation that helped the US Government stage a fake terror event to launch wars of conquest in the Mideast would be in an ideal position to blackmail the US Government with that very secret. So, look back over the more than two years since 9-11 and find the nation for whom the US Government just cannot seem to do enough, cannot give enough money and weapons, cannot block enough UN Resolutions, the nation for whom a long standing neutral foreign policy has been cast aside in favor out total support for an expansionist agenda. Find the nation whose leaders openly brag of their control of the US Government.

If Michael Moore didn't quite do all his homework with regard to who may have been behind the 9-11 attack, that does not change the fact that the people of the United States were lied to to trick them into wars. And it is THAT message of the film which is the important one. But the hard fact remains that Michael Moore did not get ALL of the story of 9-11. Not by a long shot. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is just the tip of the iceberg.

Fahrenheit 9/11 is not an indictment of just George Bush. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not an indictment of just Republicans. Fahrenheit 9/11 is an indictment of the entire US Government that had to know Bush was lying to the American people to initiate a war and stood there smiling blandly while he did it. Like Hitler, Bush could not do what he did without a lot of cooperation by the entire government and the media. Look at the voting records for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq and in the draconian assaults on our freedoms. Both parties voted those "Ayes". The rush to war and dictatorship was a bipartisan one, worthy of bipartisan blame. Everyone is spinning Fahrenheit 9/11 to attack their own favorite scapegoats, but the truth is there is more than enough blame for the wars and the current state of the nation to share all around.



[addsig]
scotsboyuk
T68i
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-13 12:31
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
@axxxr

That is quite an interesting article, where did it come from? I think we have to be very careful when discussing conspiracy theories because there are so many conflicting facts that any one of a number of theories can be made to fit the facts.

@all

The article is obviously implying that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks in an effort to gain greater support against the Arabs, but also to allow the U.S. to initiate a global war to further expand its power. Although I can see the logic behind the idea that Israel could use a terrorist attack to gain greater sympathy and support I find it very unlikely. Either the U.S. or Israel would have had to initiate the idea and the other nation would have had to have gone along with it, I just don't see it being feasible that this happened.
I have two main problems with the theory presented in the above article, the first is rather simple. If the U.S. wanted an excuse to expand its power and Israel wanted to garner more support there are much easier and more effective ways for them to do so. If Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, in conjunction with the U.S. government, it would seem strange that in the intervening years they have come under strong criticism from the U.S. government on various issues, one would have thought that they would be cosy bed fellows after such an event. I do understand that the U.S. is a strong ally of Israel’s, but then again they always have been.
The second criticism I have of this theory is that it smacks of Nazism. The Nazis decried Jews for 'global conspiracies' to take over the world and so on and to be quite frank that is exactly what this theory is implying. In implying that Israel has control over the U.S. government the article is suggesting that Israel is involved in a conspiracy to control the world's most powerful nation. For one thing I find this highly unlikely, even if Israel wanted to, I can hardly see the U.S. government allowing itself to be put in a position where Israel could blackmail it or have some sort of hold over it so easily, as the article would seem to suggest.
If Al Qaeda is an American fabrication I can't see what possible gain they would be getting from continuing with using Al Qaeda since the Atlantic Alliance is falling apart and other U.S. allies are getting cold feet. Sometimes people read too much into things and look for conspiracies where there are none, as Freud once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
Sammy_boy
C510 Black
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-13 18:34
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
You could twist or manipulate facts to make people believe anything. I'm going to be careful what I say - last time conspiracy theories came up I went a bit over the top with my sarcasm and upset @axxxr!

Needless to say I think 99.9 % of them are rubbish!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-14 02:35
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Sammy-boy i got upset with you last time was coz you called me anti-semetic,even when i told you that most of best friends were jewish and my girlfriend is also jewish.

Your the everyday kind of person who believes whatever the media feeds them.God gave everyone a brain and mind to judge for themselves to decise what the truth is.Call them conspiracy theories..at the end of the day i cannot force you to believe something which you do not want to.But argument is dont just accept whatever the media,Specially the american media feeds you!.Do your own research and analyse the story and situation.Don't expect something like 9/11 to be so black & white.I honestly believe that there a lot more to the 9/11 saga that we have'nt been told about.And one day the truth will come out. [addsig]
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-14 05:21
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Ten Reasons to Fire George W. Bush

1. The war in Iraq. Over a thousand soldiers and counting have died to subdue a country that was never a threat to the United States. Now we're trapped in an open-ended conflict against a hydra-headed enemy, while terrorism around the world actually increases.

One of the silliest arguments for the invasion held that our presence in Iraq was a "flypaper" attracting the world's terrorists to one distant spot. At this point, it's pretty clear that if there's a flypaper in Baghdad, the biggest bug that's stuck to it is the U.S.A.

2. Abu Ghraib. And by "Abu Ghraib" I mean all the places where Americans have tortured detainees, not just the prison that gave the scandal its name. While there are still people who claim that this was merely a matter of seven poorly supervised soldiers "abusing" (not torturing!) some terrorists, it's clear now that the abuse was much more widespread; that it included rape, beatings, and killings; that the prison population consisted overwhelmingly of innocents and petty crooks, not terrorists; and that the torture very likely emerged not from the unsupervised behavior of some low-level soldiers, but from policies set at the top levels of the Bush administration. Along the way, we discovered that the administration's lawyers believe the president has the power to unilaterally suspend the nation's laws—a policy that, if taken seriously, would roll back the central principle of the Glorious Revolution.

Two years ago, when Kathleen Kennedy Townsend was running for governor of Maryland, I noted her poor oversight of a boot camp program for drug offenders where the juvenile charges had been beaten and abused. "It's bad enough," I wrote, "to let something like institutionalized torture slip by on your watch. It's worse still to put your political career ahead of your job, and to brag about the program that's employing the torturers instead of giving it the oversight that might have uncovered their crimes earlier. There are mistakes that should simply disqualify a politician from future positions of authority." Every word of that applies at least as strongly to Donald Rumsfeld and to the man who has not seen fit to rebuke him publicly for the torture scandal, George Bush.

3. Indefinite detentions. Since 9/11, the U.S. government has imprisoned over a thousand people for minor violations of immigration law and held them indefinitely, sometimes without allowing them to consult a lawyer, even after concluding that they have no connections to terrorist activities. (Sirak Gebremichael of Ethiopia, to give a recently infamous example, was arrested for overstaying his visa—and then jailed for three years while awaiting deportation.) It has also claimed the right to detain anyone designated an "enemy combatant" in a legal no-man's land for as long as it pleases. Last month the Supreme Court finally put some restrictions on the latter practice, but that shouldn't stop us from remembering that the administration argued strenuously for keeping it.

4. The culture of secrecy. The Bush administration has nearly doubled the number of classified documents. It has urged agencies, in effect, to refuse as many Freedom of Information Act requests as possible, has invoked executive privilege whenever it can, and has been very free with the redactor's black marker when it does release some information. Obviously, it's impossible to tell how often the data being concealed is genuinely relevant to national security and how often it has more to do with covering a bureaucrat's behind. But there's obviously a lot of ass-covering going on.

And even when security is a real issue, all this secrecy doesn't make sense. Earlier this year, the Transportation Security Administration tried to retroactively restrict two pages of public congressional testimony that had revealed how its undercover agents managed to smuggle some guns past screeners. Presumably they were afraid a terrorist would read about it and try the method himself—but it would have made a lot more sense to seek some outsiders' input on how to resolve the putative problem than to try to hide it from our prying eyes. Especially when the information had already been sitting in the public record.

The administration has been quick to enforce its code of silence, regularly retaliating against those within its ranks who try to offer an independent perspective on its policies. While the most infamous examples of this involve international affairs, the purest episode may be the case of chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster, who apparently was threatened with dismissal if he told Congress the real projected cost of Bush's Medicare bill. Even if the White House didn't know about the threat—and I strongly suspect that it did—it created the organizational culture that allows such bullying to thrive.

5. Patriot and its progeny. The Patriot Act sometimes serves as a stand-in for everything wrong with the administration's record on civil liberties, and at times is blamed for policies it didn't create—those detentions, for example. Nonetheless, there's plenty of reasons to despise a law that allows warrantless searches of phone and Internet records; that gives police the right to see what books you've bought or checked out of the library while prohibiting the library or bookstore from telling you about the inquiry; that requires retailers to report "suspicious" transactions and, again, prevents them from telling you that they've done so. And there are plenty of reasons to despise an administration that rammed this bill through at the eleventh hour—and still wants to extend its reach.

6. The war on speech. Not all of the White House's assaults on our freedoms are linked to the war on terror. In March 2002, Bush signed the McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform" bill, whose restrictions on political speech in the months approaching an election—i.e., at the time when political speech is most important—are so broad that they've forced a filmmaker, David T. Hardy, to delay the release of his documentary The Rights of the People until after November because it mentions several candidates. Bush approved this bill fully aware that it was a First Amendment nightmare; it's generally believed that he did so assuming that the Supreme Court would strike down its unconstitutional elements. Surprise: The Court weeded out a few measures but left most of them in place.

That's not to say the government hasn't done anything to increase the amount of political speech. Its ham-handed crackdown on "indecent" broadcasts—an effort that is to the cultural realm what McCain-Feingold is to the political sector—has turned Howard Stern into Amy Goodman.

7. The drunken sailor factor. Fine, you say: We all expect a Republican president to molest our civil liberties. But this one has poached the Democrats' turf as well, increasing federal spending by over $400 billion—its fastest rate of growth in three decades. Even if you set aside the Pentagon budget, Washington is doling out dollars like crazy: Under Bush, domestic discretionary spending has already gone up 25 percent. (Clinton only increased it 10 percent, and it took him eight years to do that.) "In 2003," the conservative Heritage Foundation notes, "inflation-adjusted federal spending topped $20,000 per household for the first time since World War II."

Of all those spending projects, Bush's Medicare bill deserves special attention. It will cost at least $534 billion over the next decade, and probably more. And it doesn't even deliver on its liberal promises: It does much more to distribute new subsidies and tax breaks to doctors, HMOs, and the pharmaceutical industry than it does to help seniors. The Medicare bill is to Bush's domestic policy what the Iraq war is to its foreign policy: an enormous expense of dubious merit that's come under fire from both the left and the right.

8. Cozying up to the theocrats. There are those who believe the White House is being run by religious fanatics, and there are those who believe it's mostly paying lip service to Bush's Christian base. I lean toward the second view. But whether he's cynical or sincere, there's nothing good to be said for the president's willingness to demagogue the gay marriage issue (and throw federalism out the window in the process), or—worse yet—to restrict potentially life-saving research on therapeutic cloning because it offends that constituency's religious views.

9. Protectionism in all its flavors. Bush has repeatedly sacrificed the interests of consumers to help politically significant industries, giving us tariffs on products from steel to shrimp. This doesn't just make a mockery of his free-trade rhetoric—it's also bad policy.

10. He's making me root for John Kerry. I haven't voted for a major party's presidential candidate since 1988, and I have no plans to revert to the habit this year. The Democrats have nominated a senator who—just sticking to the points listed above—voted for the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, McCain-Feingold, and the TSA; who endorses the assault on "indecency"; who thinks the government should be spending even more than it is now. I didn't have room in my top ten for the terrible No Child Left Behind Act, which further centralized control of the country's public schools—but for the record, Kerry voted for that one too. It's far from clear that he'd be any less protectionist than Bush is, and he's also got problems that Bush doesn't have, like his support for stricter gun controls. True, Kerry doesn't owe anything to the religious right, and you can't blame him for the torture at Abu Ghraib. [addsig]
Sammy_boy
C510 Black
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-14 09:12
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
@axxxr, I didn't mean to call you anti-semetic, apologies if I did! In fact, I've never properly understood the reasons why Jews are maligned so much, other than it's something biblical.

I'm sure that there are some certain facts that aren't being released regarding 9/11, although perhaps not to the extent of your article regarding the Israellis and 9/11. I feel that perhaps things really are sometimes (almost!) as black and white as they seem - if it's a big event like 9/11 it's easy to think that there's some sinister power at work behind it. If you think hard enough about something, you can fit it so that anyone or anything could be behind those attacks.

With regards to the media, I don't believe anything I read/see/hear in it. Well, not as much as I used to, anyway! True, I am a very trusting person - to a fault in fact, but this particular theory I do find hard to believe, although I can certainly see the logic and processes behind it.

I'm going to try to keep an open mind on these matters anyway - anything's possible, no matter how implausible they may seem at the time. Look at all the things we saw as fact from the last world war which has since been disproved!

Where did you get that article from, anyway out of curiosity?

_________________
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

[ This Message was edited by: Sammy_boy on 2004-07-14 08:42 ]
axxxr
K700
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-14 10:32
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Thats ok sammy-boy no probs mate!...Jews are maligned coz of religious and historical reason alone..according to the bible it was the jews who were apparantlty to blame for the crusifiction of Christ..and in the Quran it states not to trust jews..i don't know why these statements were made or written in the holy books but to me they mean absolutely nothing and is complete and utter rubbish to condem a race of people in this way.

But this really isn't about jews;Its only about Israel as a nation which is trying by any means necessary to be accepted in the world..As you know most of the muslim world does not recognise israel and consider it a illegle country.if it was'nt for america Israel would have been demolished by the mulsim nations a long time ago.Israeli intentions have also been to get american on there side to make there country stronger and back them up when they constantly break u.n resolutions.

9/11 i believe had something to do with mossad im pretty damm sure of it.every 9/11 story or intelligence report i've read mossad keeps cropping up..I'm not gonna carry on with this coz i'll be going on forever but.they is a big chunk of this 9/11 story we have'nt been told about and i just hope the truth comes out.Thats all im saying that you keep an open mind on this and never accept the crap that the media feeds us..All im gonna ask you to do is watch "Farenheight 9/11"and a lot of your questions will be answered.

Oh that above article was taken from a american news site..cant remember which one!!..


_________________
SonyEricsson
MY FLAG

[ This Message was edited by: axxxr on 2004-07-14 09:33 ]
scotsboyuk
T68i
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
Posted: 2004-07-14 14:35
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
@axxxr

You should be careful not to believe everything Michael Moore tells you, not just the mainstream media. Moore is obviously biased against Bush and the Republicans in general being more of a left wing figure. The problem with Moore is that he can speak on a subject with only a handful of the facts, one example being Northern Ireland.
In 'Stupid White Men ...' Moore says that Northern Ireland should be handed back to the Irish and become part of the Republic of Ireland, whilst mentioning British Imperialism. What Moore doesn't take into consideration is that if Northern Ireland were handed back to the Republic of Ireland there would very likely be another protracted guerrilla campaign, this time against the Irish government by Unionists, which of course would no doubt draw the IRA into the fight once again. The point is very simple, politics are not as easy as Moore would have us believe, in some ways he is almost naive when it comes to certain matters.
I am actually a fan of Michael Moore and I do agree with most of his views, in a general sense of there being greater equality and more freedom. Unfortunately Michael Moore has started to turn into one of those crusading figures that think they are right and everyone else is wrong, which isn't a good thing if one is interested in truth.
The 9/11 attacks were the biggest terrorist attack in history and caused a great deal of death and destruction, not to mention creating massive support and sympathy for the U.S. in fighting global terrorism. If we are to suggest that the U.S. and possibly other nations in alliance with the U.S. were responsible for 9/11 we must ask ourselves some questions:

Why use airplanes on the World Trade Centre? Why not use chemical weapons to create maximum panic and cause a greater sense of fear so as to make the case for a global war even more solid?

Why involve Israel? The U.S. must have known about any Israeli plot (assuming that there was one) and been able to stop it. If it was the U.S. on its own then why involve Israel as Israel would benefit from the attacks in the previously described anyway without the need for involvement.

Why start a global war on terror that, by the Bush administration's own admission, will take years, possibly even decades, when Bush himself can only be in Power for a maximum of eight years? Later Presidents might initiate policies that would see any of the alleged financial rewards Bush and his colleagues are supposed to have obtained from the war vanish.

For the sake of keeping this post within some limit of length I will conclude. We must indeed keep an open mind and not believe what we are told by the media as being the absolute truth, but at the same time we can't be so cynical as to disbelieve everything we are told either. We are in the middle of a global war and I believe it is only a matter of time before there is another big attack on a Western target, possibly even one of the core members of the Alliance e.g. the U.K. or the U.S. Perhaps it is time to stop talking of conspiracy theories and concentrate on winning this war.

_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC

[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2004-07-14 13:36 ]
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
Previous  123 ... 567 ... 121314  Next
Goto page:
Lock this Topic Move this Topic Delete this Topic