you think we'd be better safe than sorry?

[Mr JP Fugley]

So what is this particular theory we are currently discussing.

[GepperRankins]

So what is this particular theory we are currently discussing.

well it started off as alex jones saying there's gonna be another massive terrorist attack soon. he kinda predicted 9/11 (source).



all i'm saying is that i don't believe bin laden/al qaeda or any islamic organisation would have attacked the states, because it's obvious that they would invade. shirley the last thing al-qaeda would have wanted in afghanistan was 10s of 1000s of american soldiers

that coupled with the fact that al-qaeda/bin laden flat out denied it until a fake video confession was released. (source)

also, in an interview with a pakistan newspaper a few days after the attacks bin laden said committing the attacks would be counter productive and it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

[j2k4]

...he did accurately predict 9/11...

...a few months is pretty accurate...

...he kinda predicted...9/11

...it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

Gee, you sound so positive...

And by that last you "obviously" mean Cheney, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair, and Olazabal, all for the sake of oil.

Draw for me please, a sensible scenario that, out of pure greed and a hunger for oil, it is decided that airplanes need hijacked and flown into buildings, causing massive loss of life, many many billions of dollars in immediate damage to the U.S. and world economies, with no apparent fear of being found out, even though every investigative effort is sure to follow, including those such as yourself, who can be counted on to see several U.S.-sponsored spooks behind every non-existent curtain.

[GepperRankins]

...a few months is pretty accurate...

...he kinda predicted...9/11

...it was obviously done by somebody that wanted to instigate a war between islam and america.

Gee, you sound so positive...

And by that last you "obviously" mean Cheney, Halliburton, Wolfowitz, Pearle, Rumsfeld, Bush, Blair, and Olazabal, all for the sake of oil.

Draw for me please, a sensible scenario that, out of pure greed and a hunger for oil, it is decided that airplanes need hijacked and flown into buildings, causing massive loss of life, many many billions of dollars in immediate damage to the U.S. and world economies, with no apparent fear of being found out, even though every investigative effort is sure to follow, including those such as yourself, who can be counted on to see several U.S.-sponsored spooks behind every non-existent curtain.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf


so, wolfowitz has openly stated that a new pearl harbour would be helpful for the "new american century"


ok sorry. i didn't draw it. i copy and pasted it.

now can you please draw up for me a scenario where al-qaeda would think it sensible to fly planes into buildings on the soil of the only superpower in the world. a superpower which had already publicly said that it needs to make sure russia doesn't regain it's superpower status, and that they need to secure the midlle eastern oil fields.


ps. what can we do about it, seriously?

[j2k4]

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf


so, wolfowitz has openly stated that a new pearl harbour would be helpful for the "new american century"

Where did you see the word "helpful"?

He merely states that an effective military upgrade/refit would be a drawn-out process, unless "some catastrophic and catalyzing event" sways popular opinion toward a faster track.

This is analysis, not advocacy.

Rest assured similar preces exist in your country as well, though such revelations would not cause such a sensation as when they involve the U.S.


ok sorry. i didn't draw it. i copy and pasted it.

now can you please draw up for me a scenario where al-qaeda would think it sensible to fly planes into buildings on the soil of the only superpower in the world.

Simple.

They don't think like we do, and they practice real intolerant fundamentalist religious fanaticism, rather than the type you imagine our 'Religious Right' guilty of.

a superpower which had already publicly said that it needs to make sure russia doesn't regain it's superpower status,

This is a reference to any prospect of a return to it's past practices; cursory observation gives one pause, given Putin's recent moves on the domestic/regional scene.

He is ex-KGB, if you'll recall, and has apparently not totally forgotten his former ways.

As an aside, it always irritates me when those who choose to comment express the view the U.S.'s efforts were morally equivalent to the U.S.S.R.'s during the period of the Cold War...they have no historical perspective whatsoever.

and that they need to secure the midlle eastern oil fields.

By this is meant that every effort to ensure the free flow of oil onto the international market shall be made.

It does not mean 'every effort shall be made to ensure mideast oil flows in such a way as to benefit only the U.S., to the detriment of the rest of the world'.

ps. what can we do about it, seriously?

Kill terrorists until there are none left to kill, and the compulsion to commit terrorist acts likewise dies for lack of interest.

It's just that simple.

[GepperRankins]

hehe. is my point invalid if i can't find the word "helpful" in the surrounding paragraphs?!

it doesn't matter if it's analysis or advocacy. it's recognition and that's all there needs to be for the idea of a false flag operation to be developed upon.

yeah i'm sure most organisations would benefit from something bad happening to somebody.

normally there's a trial when a crime happens. motives, alibis and evidence would get looked at. if bin laden was given a fair trial by a neutral court i reckon he'd get off.



so they spent thousands, if not millions to train pilots, research targets, recruit, train and prepare suicidal hijackers. they also must have put effort into making sure only those that needed to know, knew. then after all this preperation they were to completely deny any involvement.

so then. all this preperation was solely for a couple of hours of gratification for a few sick individuals.

if they were just after killing people that weren't ultra strict muslims like the taliban. why didn't they just attack anywhere that wasn't under their control? they could have saved so much money, killed so many more people, and not had to worry so much about being pwned by the worlds only superpower?




i'll be the first to admit i don't know shit about russia. but i imagine america having military in afghanistan would make russia uncomfortable about any conquests they're thinking about.


who now controls all the oil in iraq?



i was talking about the knowledge that america were behind 911. i'm sure many many more people that would consider themselves up on politics (and i'm talking about people that went to university and earn money from talking about politics) think america were behind it. listen next time you hear someone tagged as a political analyst on tv talking about the middle east. they seem to be on a timeline that ignores 9/11 because it doesn't fit in as an event other other than the excuse america needed to invade the middle east. don't say anything about liberal media either. draw up a flowchart in your mind, 911 doesn't fit.

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

[j2k4]

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...

[GepperRankins]

ps. screw your obfuscation. this thread is about why non-muslim organisations have more reason to cause 911 than muslims.

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...

hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

[j2k4]

Oh yes, I forgot; it caters to those who share your, uh...theories.

Please pardon my intrusion.

Carry on...

hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

As I said, then:

I will adjourn, and leave you to your conspiracy.

Next time, take care to note up front that you only wish to discuss and enhance your unshakeable viewpoints, and do not wish to entertain any countervailing arguments.

That will save me the time of participation in your threads, you see.

[GepperRankins]

hmm. i know this is going off topic but you're trying to move me onto arguing about why terrorists exist. you just wanna twist this conversation into one where you can get the last word.

not doing it though. my single argument is that attacking america would have been a huge own goal for al-qaeda. fanatical as they are, there must have been enough common sense among everyone supposedly involved to see this idea was really, really stupid.

the bush administration managed to get a foothold in afghanistan and iraq, oil fields, the abilty to take shallow but harmful potshots at political opponents and the power to herd the american people like sheep.

As I said, then:

I will adjourn, and leave you to your conspiracy.

Next time, take care to note up front that you only wish to discuss and enhance your unshakeable viewpoints, and do not wish to entertain any countervailing arguments.

That will save me the time of participation in your threads, you see.

next time, bring some countervailing arguements instead of rodding me into talking about the fact that terrorism is an idea not a condition that can be destroyed.

seriously i would love to discuss this. i would even accept being proved wrong. i'm all about learning and that.

the thing is that when i give you something irrefutable, you don't stop and think about whether my arguement has merit. you try and knock me off point like this is sumo wrestling rather than a debate.

i know that with a teensy bit of help from you, i often make a twat of myself when it comes to heated political debates. this is because i honestly don't know much about politics. so when you turn it into a rolling battle i trip when you bring up an obscure political anecdote from the 70s.

so because of this i've decided to try a new tactic. talk about the one thing and anything directly related. this way it can't be twisted into a battle of ideals and thesauruses..... thesaurii? long words