Conspiracy Theories

[WeeMouse]

By encouragement of Clocker, I have started this topic! :lol:

In my Modern Studies class, there was one guy who beleived that September 11th was done by the US government so they could start attaking iraq etc. :ermm:

Another great one is the man on the moon thing...

people around me have said "oh but the flag fluttered" - yeah, it was made to! It had a special bit of metal across the top of the flag!
they also say "the shadows aren't right!" - to this I say "And you obviously know this cos you've been on the moon so many times?"

What do you opinionated ones think?
:)

[Rat Faced]

Conspiracy Theories are a great way of keeping the Paranoid busy and stopping them hassling you on buses.

[crazy_billy_bats]

here (http://www.infowars.com)


they're out to get ya

[WeeMouse]

:lol:

I'll keep that in mind my fellow rodent!

[Guillaume]

Originally posted by WeeMouse@30 May 2003 - 16:06
By encouragement of Clocker, I have started this topic! :lol:

In my Modern Studies class, there was one guy who beleived that September 11th was done by the US government so they could start attaking iraq etc. :ermm:

Another great one is the man on the moon thing...

people around me have said "oh but the flag fluttered" - yeah, it was made to! It had a special bit of metal across the top of the flag!
they also say "the shadows aren't right!" - to this I say "And you obviously know this cos you've been on the moon so many times?"

What do you opinionated ones think?
:)
I've always known you were one of Them!!! :angry:

:lol: :lol: :lol:


It always start as disinformation ( the 9/11 anecdote you gave is a perfect example! ), serving someone's purpose (whatever it is!) and you will always have gullible people actually believing anything ( remember the gators in the sewers? Or Keith Richards having his blood replaced? )... Anyway, no matter what you will say to these people, their mind is set on it and you won't be able to convince them they are wrong!

[WeeMouse]

Originally posted by Gurahl+30 May 2003 - 16:16--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Gurahl @ 30 May 2003 - 16:16)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--WeeMouse@30 May 2003 - 16:06
By encouragement of Clocker, I have started this topic&#33;&nbsp; :lol:

In my Modern Studies class, there was one guy who beleived that September 11th was done by the US government so they could start attaking iraq etc.&nbsp; :ermm:

Another great one is the man on the moon thing...

people around me have said "oh but the flag fluttered" - yeah, it was made to&#33; It had a special bit of metal across the top of the flag&#33;
they also say "the shadows aren&#39;t right&#33;" - to this I say "And you obviously know this cos you&#39;ve been on the moon so many times?"

What do you opinionated ones think?&nbsp;
:)
I&#39;ve always known you were one of Them&#33;&#33;&#33; :angry:

:lol: :lol: :lol:


It always start as disinformation ( the 9/11 anecdote you gave is a perfect example&#33; ), serving someone&#39;s purpose (whatever it is&#33;) and you will always have gullible people actually believing anything ( remember the gators in the sewers? Or Keith Richards having his blood replaced? )... Anyway, no matter what you will say to these people, their mind is set on it and you won&#39;t be able to convince them they are wrong&#33; [/b][/quote]
True... my neighbour told me that loadsa people think a Florists killled Princess Diana to boost flower sales&#33; :blink:

[Guillaume]

No it actually was the mayor of Paris himself, just to raise attention of the danger of driving real fast...

[clocker]

Congratulations WeeMouse.
A serious topic ( and no mention of cheese... now that&#39;s what I call progress).

I enjoy a good conspiracy debate and Lord knows with the pitious dissembling that is practised daily by our government, we have more than sufficient reason to doubt anything they say.
Sufficient plausable evidence can be assembled to support almost any position- witness the granddaddy of all conspiracies...Who shot JFK?- which leads to the problem, I think.

Once entered, the rabbit hole becomes inescapable. If you doubt premise #1 (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone) then every premise that follows must be viewed with the same critical eye.
An endless spiral.

Fun, to be sure, but conclusive...never.

[WeeMouse]

Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 16:23
Congratulations WeeMouse.
A serious topic ( and no mention of cheese... now that&#39;s what I call progress).

I enjoy a good conspiracy debate and Lord knows with the pitious dissembling that is practised daily by our government, we have more than sufficient reason to doubt anything they say.
Sufficient plausable evidence can be assembled to support almost any position- witness the granddaddy of all conspiracies...Who shot JFK?- which leads to the problem, I think.

Once entered, the rabbit hole becomes inescapable. If you doubt premise #1 (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone) then every premise that follows must be viewed with the same critical eye.
An endless spiral.

Fun, to be sure, but conclusive...never.
Clocker - I think I am progressing....I managed to understand nearly all of your post, even when rabbits came into it&#33; :lol:

i guess there&#39;s just no trust in the world, and that&#39;s why we are reluctant to beleive much...

[Rat Faced]

Its all true i tell ya.... (http://www.thewhyfiles.co.uk/)


:ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r: :ph34r:


Erm, isnt the latest one RODS?

[sharedholder]

Maybe its true ,maybe its paranoia but take a look here :http://digilander.libero.it/subliminale/Antonio.html

translation service here http://world.altavista.com/

[clocker]

http://images.allposters.com/images/23/009_220-265_m.jpg

Well really...it was inevitable, wasn&#39;t it?

[OlderThanDirt]

Conspiracy theories? Well, I can think of one that may have had some small political impact. Those of us who were around during the election of 1960 might remember the one hanging over President Kennedy&#39;s head ... namely that, being Catholic, we&#39;d end up turning over the Presidency to the Pope if we voted for him. But, there were even wilder conspiracy theories about Catholics during that time. I personally heard one theory very close to that discussed in the film, "The Dark At The Top of the Stairs" (a 1960 release):

(these are NOT links -- copy-and-paste to your browser&#39;s location window)

http://novelhost.net/cath-hi.ram -- RealVideo for broadband users

http://novelhost.net/cath-lo.ram -- RealVideo for 56k modem users

Of course, hehe, Robert Preston&#39;s retort to Lottie&#39;s wild theories was my favorite part of this short scene. BTW, if you&#39;re wondering where I personally heard that theory, it was from my stepdad. And, with Father&#39;s Day coming up, I&#39;m reminded on a little tome of (questionable) wisdom, hehe.

When I was a preteen youngster, I suspected my stepdad was ignorant and stupid. And, when I became a teenager, I was certain of it. Then, I graduated from high school, went out into the cold cruel world and lived life. A lot of water passed under many bridges. And, when I was in my late 30s and in a moment of retrospect, I began to think a lot about my stepdad. It was then I realized something about him ...

... I was right ... he was ignorant and stupid :lol: &#33;

[crazy_billy_bats]

i think bush some sort of alien that fart bubbles


plus he kills people he doesnt like.
nice way to go bill you fuck &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

[OlderThanDirt]

crazy billy bats wrote:

i think bush some sort of alien that fart bubbles


plus he kills people he doesnt like.

Hmm ... I&#39;ll bet he&#39;s the first person to do this, too.


**stoned fool**

No comment :rolleyes: .

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@30 May 2003 - 20:30

crazy billy bats wrote:

i think bush some sort of alien that fart bubbles


plus he kills people he doesnt like.

Hmm ... I&#39;ll bet he&#39;s the first person to do this, too.


**stoned fool**

No comment :rolleyes: .
go on, you know you want to...

like my views arnt valid because i smoke dope and look on things a little differently?

[clocker]

Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats@30 May 2003 - 14:34


like my views arnt valid because i smoke dope and look on things a little differently?
Of course not.

Your views aren&#39;t valid because they aren&#39;t coherent and they make no sense.

See the difference?

[OlderThanDirt]

crazy billy bats wrote:

like my views arnt valid because i smoke dope and look on things a little differently?

Nah, hehehe, I was just pulling your chain. Sorry. BTW, I was smoking dope before you were a gleam in your father&#39;s eye ... and I look at things differently, too. But, I stopped smoking dope. Not that I think it&#39;s evil because I don&#39;t. And, I didn&#39;t wake up one morning, look at myself in the mirror, and shriek, "Oh, my God, what am I doing to myself?" It just got to a point where I found better things to do with my money and my brain cells. But, that&#39;s just a personal decision. You&#39;re free to live your life the way you see fit.

[crazy_billy_bats]

i know my friend, in fact, i dont mind much as, well, if you read the other thread about what ur doin this summer, im goin to spain to live, so for now, ill just relax here, until i have to get my head sorted &#33;&#33; hehe :lol: &#33;
i realise its no good long-term, no way.
it cant be doin good, no smoke could be to ur lungs.
but for now its ok &#33; :lol: :lol: :D

[crazy_billy_bats]

Originally posted by clocker+30 May 2003 - 20:42--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 May 2003 - 20:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--crazy_billy_bats@30 May 2003 - 14:34


like my views arnt valid because i smoke dope and look on things a little differently?
Of course not.

Your views aren&#39;t valid because they aren&#39;t coherent and they make no sense.

See the difference? [/b][/quote]
well im sorry for attempting to bring a little humour into it (yeah, spelt humour).

I have plenty of views, plenty of which have coherence.
a lot on politics, etc, but well i wouldnt want to bore you my friend, im not into arguments, just free speech and getting on well with eachother....
not clearly trying to embarrass me with your comments....
silly person....
I just laugh at people like yourself who obviousley take life so seriousley.

later

[clocker]

Oh.
Gee whiz.

Sorry.

Here then...
http://www.qmtonline.com/soundofm.jpg

I&#39;d like to buy the World a Coke, and keep it companeeeeee&#33; :P

[OlderThanDirt]

crazy billy bats wrote:

i realise its no good long-term, no way.

Well, it&#39;s all a matter of degree. My choice to quit was mine. But, I have other friends who are moderate smokers (once a week or once a month) ... and they hold down jobs, pay taxes, etc. It&#39;s just a matter of lifestyle preference.

When my kid was about 12 (he&#39;ll be 21 next month), I sat him down to give him the obligatory parental talk about drugs. And, I figured he expected me to lay down a diatribe about the evils of pot from magazines, books, and government agencies. Instead, I told him that I probably smoked more pot when I was in the Navy than most people smoke in a lifetime ... and not the namby-pamby stuff being sold now domestically. When I was in, the stuff I had access to came from Asia, ie. "Buddha sticks" (Thai sticks dipped in opium oil and dried). And, having personally visited a few opium dens in Kowloon province (north of Hong Kong), there wasn&#39;t too much difference between piping opium and smoking Buddha sticks.

Anyhoo, I told my son that most of the anti-pot ads seen on TV nowadays are full of B.S. It is absolutely untrue that pot nowadays is more potent than pot in the 60s. There are only 3 types of pot in the world ... and no one has come up with a new strain or subspecies:

Cannabis Ruderalis -- Grown mostly in Northern Europe and above the Arctic Circle. Very low THC content.

Cannabis Sativa -- Grown mostly in the US, Central America and South America. Average THC content.

Cannabis Indica -- Grown mostly in Asia. High THC content.

BUT, it is also true that, nowadays, there are more things pot can be laced with (ie., crack) that might make people think that it&#39;s the pot that&#39;s stronger (when it&#39;s something else altogether).

Anyhoo, besides the danger of not really knowing what you&#39;re buying nowadays, I told my kid that ONE ad on TV did tell a true story about pot use. It shows a kid in his upstairs bedroom, smoking pot. His mom calls up to him saying, "Joey? Billy&#39;s here. He&#39;s coming up to see you." When Billy enters the room, he sees Joey and says, "Hey, Joey, haven&#39;t seen you in a while. Whatcha been doin&#39;?" Joey replies, "Nuthin&#39;." Then, an announcer comes on and says, "Smoke pot&#33; You can do nuthin&#39;, too."

I think my kid got the message. He has smoked pot before. But doesn&#39;t any more. He&#39;s a full-time manager of a Burger King restaurant in Southwest Washington state (making more than his mom but a little less than I make, hehe) ... and he spends his free time with (ahem) women. :lol: I&#39;m assuming women are less dangerous than pot ... but that might be an incorrect assumption, hehe.

[crazy_billy_bats]

well im choosing my women over pot :lol:

watch Half baked and he takes Mary instead of the Mary jane.... :D

personally i get higher on other things

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@30 May 2003 - 15:17
I&#39;m assuming women are less dangerous than pot ...
Not the ones I&#39;ve been married to. :angry:

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Not the ones I&#39;ve been married to.

Ones? Plural? Then I yield to you as the authority :) . I&#39;ve only got ONE "ex".

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker+30 May 2003 - 21:34--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 30 May 2003 - 21:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--OlderThanDirt@30 May 2003 - 15:17
I&#39;m assuming women are less dangerous than pot ...
Not the ones I&#39;ve been married to. :angry: [/b][/quote]
Hear Hear..... <_<

[OlderThanDirt]

Well, before it gets totally lost in the backwash, I wanted to re-post those "Catholic conspiracy theory" RealVideo file URLs:

http://novelhost.net/cath-hi.ram -- RealVideo for broadband users

http://novelhost.net/cath-lo.ram -- RealVideo for 56k modem users

Some people really believed this crap back in 1960 (and earlier). And, I suspect there may still be a few people who believe it now.

[clocker]

Originally posted by OlderThanDirt@30 May 2003 - 15:41


Ones? Plural? Then I yield to you as the authority :) . I&#39;ve only got ONE "ex".
Yes.
For a while I was a collector.

I have two.

Then I discovered that self-flagellation and simply burning cash satisfied the same urges. ;)

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Then I discovered that self-flagellation and simply burning cash satisfied the same urges.

I guess I have a lot to be thankful for. First, I&#39;m one of those 10-percenters (true fact -- only 1 of 10 divorces are filed for by men against women, the other 9 by women against men). Secondly, my ex made two mistakes -- (1) listening to advice of well-meaning girlfriends, and (2) not divulging her tactics to her lawyer. She never admitted it but her tactic sounds "girlfriend-inspired." We lived in a community property state. So, from the time I filed until hearing time, she charged all her credit-cards and lines-of-credit up to their maxes ... certain I&#39;d be held responsible for half the debt. Unfortunately, in Washington state, this tactic is referred to colloquially as "sandbagging" -- or, in legal terminology, an attempt to fool the judge into making an unfair distribution of debt responsibility. She and her lawyer refused to reciprocate when my lawyer submitted a list of debts. So, the judge ordered them to reciprocate and gave them a deadline. When the deadline passed, the judge ordered up a copy of her credit report. And, when the trial came, he gave a copy to my lawyer and one to my ex&#39;s lawyer (whose jaw dropped to the floor when she first saw it). She&#39;d charged up more in 6 months than she earns in her job in a YEAR&#33;

Bottom line? The judge found her in contempt of court. He also found her lawyer in contempt of court (a whole different matter ... getting caught lying about a reason for rescheduling the trial -- which the judge clearly saw as a stall-tactic). The divorce decree was exactly what I&#39;d asked for. My assets are mine, her assets are hers ... and my debts are mine and her debts are hers. Hehehe, just before the judge banged the gavel, my ex&#39;s attorney said, "Your honor, won&#39;t there be any provision for spousal support?" The judge ignored the lawyer, looked directly at my ex, and (while paging through the credit report) said, "Ma&#39;am, given the level of debt I see in front of me and the manner in which it was accrued, I&#39;d never have awarded you spousal support." BANG went the gavel ... after he reminded my ex and her attorney that this decree was non-modifiable. My attorney leaned over to me and whispered, "Slam dunk." Hehe.

[cyprushil]

:lol: During one of my first trips into Europe, I got talking to a old guy in a bar in Belgium. we got on to the subject of women and he said

"Women, Snakes with tits the lot of them"

At the time I was thinking, thats a bit Harsh, but as the years have come and gone I&#39;ve begun to see were he was coming from....

[OlderThanDirt]

cyprushil wrote:

"Women, Snakes with tits the lot of them"

Well, in all fairness, both women and men can be snakes. But, I can understand your Belgian friend&#39;s sentiments.

Weird ... but, after I&#39;d been divorced for a year, I started a relationship with a woman in another city. We&#39;d known of each other for years and had seen each other platonically ... but found we had a lot in common. And, we each visited each other as often as possible. Two Thanksgivings ago, she called up to tell me she was flying out to celebrate Thanksgiving with me. I was hoping she would. While I&#39;d met her adult kids and she&#39;d met my kid, they&#39;d never met each other. And, since one of her kids worked in my city, I suggested I&#39;d take everyone out for a big dinner at a local restaurant. Click.

At first, I didn&#39;t think much of her hanging up on me. She has fibromyalgia ... and when she has one of her "episodes," she has to get quickly to a quiet/dark room to chill out. Imagine having a migraine headache over your entire body. Anyhoo, I sent her email to ask how she was doing. She replied like gangbusters with both shotgun barrels blazing, calling me "insensitive." I asked what I&#39;d done and she said, "You should have known I wanted this trip for us alone."

Well, when a woman drops the "You should have known..." guilt trip on a guy, red flags should go up immediately (as they did in my case). Anytime they connect "sensitivity" with "clairvoyance," you can bet you&#39;re in for a lifetime of guilt trips if you marry such a woman. And, since mind-reading was never one of my strong suits, I ended the relationship with my reply to her -- "Children pout, adults communicate."

In any case, over the last two years, I&#39;ve actually come to "like" the single lifestyle. Not that I&#39;m hanging out in bars (I don&#39;t drink) or living a playboy&#39;s lifestyle (which was never my lifestyle). But, it&#39;s nice to plan things independently -- without feeling the need to put them to a vote or run them past a committee. And, I&#39;m not so certain I&#39;d want to give that up again. Not that I&#39;d never get married again. But, I think the likelihood of marriage for me is of a very low order.

[clocker]

Originally posted by WeeMouse@30 May 2003 - 09:28


i guess there&#39;s just no trust in the world, and that&#39;s why we are reluctant to beleive much...
No shit, Sherlock.

Witness the furious backpedalling the US is currently doing re: the existence of WMD.
The truly infuriating thing about this is that apparently our own government thinks we are as stupid and gullible as the rest of the world does.
Judging from polls they&#39;re both right&#33;

*sigh*

[clocker]

I&#39;d love to keep posting in your shiny new thread WeeMouse, but frankly, the machinations of my government of late are too inept to rise to the level of "conspiracy".
WMD- not really important and anyhow we may find them later...but possibly not.
Hostage rescue - er, ah... next question.
Christ&#33; Third graders can spin tales that will hold up to more intense scrutiny. And at least have the decency to fess up when really pressed. I have no hope of any &#39;clean breasts&#39; being bared here. Bush is already campaigning for his reelection- based on his stunningly successful term so far. I cringe to wonder which glaringly boneheaded faux pas will come crashing at our feet next.

sigh,sigh

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Witness the furious backpedalling the US is currently doing re: the existence of WMD.

Yup. From the beginning, I was (1) glad we went in, but (2) sad we went in for THAT reason. The WMD resolution was certainly not my bone of contention with Iraq. It was the 2nd resolution imposed on Iraq following the Gulf War ... the one mandating Iraq to cease the persecution of its own people. The USA should have gone to the UN and demand they enforce it. Already, 1,000,000 Iraqis had either died at the hands of Saddam Hussein or were considered "missing." Giving weapons inspectors a "little more time" would do nothing to stop the body count. To HELL with the weapon count.

Remember the Monty Python movie, "Life Of Brian." There&#39;s one scene in that film that mirrors UN resolve in the face of monsters like Saddam Hussein. In the scene, a woman named Judith rushes into a meeting of the People&#39;s Front of Judea (PFJ), headed by John Cleese. Judith tells the attendees that Brian is being crucified ... that now is not the time for speeches ... that something has to be DONE. To which John Cleese in his PFJ leadership position replies, "Right, this calls for an immediate discussion."

If we&#39;d have taken this approach ... and if the UN continued their foot-dragging ... we could have gone into Iraq with our heads held high as "liberators." And, if the French didn&#39;t like us going in alone, we wouldn&#39;t have to drag out our own statistics (which might be seen as the statistics of a warmonger). We could&#39;ve shoved statistics from the peaceloving French right back in their faces to justify our actions. CASE IN POINT (http://www.fidh.org/magmoyen/rapport/2002/iq315a.pdf)

[clocker]

Exactly.

Why must we go out of our way to appear doltish?

Given the plentitude of legitimate reasons he might have used to justify his decision, why Bush chose the one least likely to be proven is a mystery.
And now, given all the legitimate benefits that we may have delivered upon the Iraqi people, any brownie points we may have accrued will be overshadowed by the appearance of arrogant deception.

As I&#39;ve said before, it&#39;s not the fact that they lied, it&#39;s that they did it so badly.

[OlderThanDirt]

Just a brief P.S. to clocker and anyone else. While it was a rotten reason for us to enter Iraq, I don&#39;t think for a second that Iraq has no WMD. Imagine you&#39;ve lost your keys somewhere in your house and go looking for them. Now imagine looking for them while you&#39;re being shot at. Now imagine your house is the size of California ... consisting mainly of desert land. One of my favorite quotes comes from the movie, "Casino." At the very beginning of the film, someone says, "There&#39;s an awful lot of bodies buried in this desert." The big problem now is (1) finding the people who know where the bodies are buried, and (2) convincing them to talk.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Given the plentitude of legitimate reasons he might have used to justify his decision, why Bush chose the one least likely to be proven is a mystery.

Well, I wouldn&#39;t say "least likely to be proven." I&#39;d say "least likely to be proven easily." There is talk about sending WMD inspectors back to Iraq. Only this time, they won&#39;t have Baathist stooges leading them around by the nose. And this time, after Hans Blix&#39;s retirement, we might see more motivated leadership in the inspection department. Then again (grin), maybe we won&#39;t.

[clocker]

Ahem.

Massive stockpiles of chemical/biological materiel and the facilities to process them are slightly larger than a set of keys.
So are nuclear facilities.
Even under fire I could find Three Mile Island.
What of our vaunted intelligence? Our ultra sophisticated spy satellite network? Do you doubt that for months prior to the invasion that every weapon in our high tech arsenal was brought to bear on every square inch of that country? I can buy, over the internet, satellite pictures of such high resolution that I can recognize my house. Um, doesn&#39;t the military have even better capabilities?
If they exist I find it difficult to believe that in the few short weeks before his deposition, SH could erase ALL traces of what we were told was a world threatening arsenal. In that limited span of time I couldn&#39;t get my garage spotless.

I am dubious.

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

What of our vaunted intelligence?

You&#39;ve hit the nail on its pointy little head. Our intelligence on the ground was both recent and terrible. We put too much reliance on high-tech spy-in-the-sky gadgetry in a country filled with "bunkers." We even admitted that British ground-based intelligence was better (but not much better).


I am dubious.

I&#39;m not. Rather than what we didn&#39;t see (WMD), concentrate on what we DID see ... from Iraq&#39;s own news agency records of recent meetings between Saddam Hussein and his inner circle. If, as Saddam said, WMD no longer existed in Iraq, why was "Dr. Germ" present at all those meetings? She&#39;d have been purged a long time ago. Her presence there had to be more than that of an observer.

[clocker]

She could have been there to add a feminine perspective?

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

She could have been there to add a feminine perspective?

Uh-huh. Saddam was always an equal opportunity kinda guy. Now THAT I&#39;d find dubious. B)

[clocker]

There is no doubt that SH was very interested in WMD and his power/leverage was certainly increased by the perception that he actually had them.
Isn&#39;t it possible he was bluffing? It worked for 12 years.
He was a world class shithead, isn&#39;t it conceivable that he was a high stakes gambler also? Playing right into our deepest fears right up til the time his house of cards came tumbling down.
And he may still be playing.
Along with OBL he does seem to have pulled a Houdini...

[OlderThanDirt]

Saddam Hussein was a "user." When people were no longer needed, they were purged ... or at least purged from his inner circle. Even Tariq Aziz was not in Saddam&#39;s inner circle ... and before "Baghdad Bob," he was Saddam&#39;s #1 mouthpiece. I don&#39;t think he was bluffing. And, I think Dr. Germ was in his inner circle for reasons other than her feminine charms.


And he may still be playing.

I think Bush will certainly use that as a reason for keeping a presence in the region. But honestly, with his entire regime in disarray (and a lot of his money destined to leave the country seized), I think he&#39;s simply chosen to retire as comfortably as he can. With the Kurds and Shias asserting themselves now, I don&#39;t think he has the chance of a snowflake in Hell of regaining a foothold in Iraq.

And, like I said, the WMD "fat lady" hasn&#39;t sung itself out just yet. UNMOVIC and UNSCOM are eager to get back into the country. And, I suspect Bush isn&#39;t all that against them coming.

P.S. If you haven&#39;t seen the film, rent "Uncle Saddam" from your local video store. It&#39;s a very eye-opening documentary on Saddam Hussein ... done by a French filmmaker.

[clocker]

Which brings up another point-
batten the hatches, I&#39;m on a roll&#33;

Where the hell is Osama Bin Laden?
In the months following 9/11 ObL became the poster boy for terrorism, the living embodiment of evil and all that threatened the American Way of Life. We weren&#39;t going to rest til he was brought to justice&#33;
Now the war on terror is "bigger than one man" and we shouldn&#39;t really concentrate on OBL but rather the larger picture.
Bull&#33;

Bush is so fond of the trappings of the Tough Guy ( flight suits/ fighter jets/carrier landings), he likes to stick out his chin and play the part- time to sh*t or get off the pot.
bin Laden in Syria? Send in a couple of divisions and drag his ass OUT.
In Tripoli? Ditto.
Peking? Same.
Wherever he is, whoever is protecting him, no matter the expenditure in manpower, money or political good will- irrelevant.
Go get the sob.
For Pete&#39;s sake just for once follow through on something, finish it and damn the consequences.
Then he still may be an asshole, but he&#39;d be a determined asshole.

[hobbes]

http://www.nashville.org/sportsplex/images/tennis_anyone.gif


OTD, I believe it is your serve.



I do believe Clocker is on a quasi-rant, he&#39;s cussin&#39; and whatnot.

At some point the sinking of the Lusitania and the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand need to be worked in here.

On a different note- Yes Clocker, that is HIM, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I found a post explaining the difference between irony and sarcasm which was eerily familiar.

[clocker]

Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 21:35


On a different note- Yes Clocker, that is HIM, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I found a post explaining the difference between irony and sarcasm which was eerily familiar.
hobbes, you are a bloody psychic.

I was just looking at that same post, pondering the odds that two people would say the same thing.
If he lets a "can&#39;t be arsed" slip then the package is sealed.

OMG, He walks among us&#33;

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

Where the hell is Osama Bin Laden?

Beardless, wearing an Armani suit, and living in the Karachi Hilton under the name, Jack Armstrong.


For Pete&#39;s sake just for once follow through on something, finish it and damn the consequences.

Sounds like a good idea to me. But, in the meantime, we&#39;re IMHO about to witness a couple of implosions. Saudi Arabia is on the verge of revolution ... but not a unified revolution. We&#39;ve picked a good time to pull out. There are a whole bunch of radical mullahs, all of whom (1) want the whole country for themselves, (2) want to drag it back to the 13th Century, and (3) see OBL as part of the problem -- not part of the solution. In fact, he and his brothers (rich businessmen) are seen as traitors to the "old" way. Don&#39;t get me wrong. OBL is popular ... among Pakistani Muslims, Philippine Muslims, Indonesian Muslims, Nigerian Muslims, Palestinian Muslims, French (yes) Muslims ... but only ONE pro-OBL rally has been held among his own people in Saudi Arabia since 9/11 -- in Mecca (and it was so small even the mainstream media didn&#39;t report it). In short, being against the Saudi Royal Family doesn&#39;t equate to being in love with OBL ... and once the dust is settled in the post-Royal Saudi Arabia, his brothers will either be dead or in hiding ... and there won&#39;t be any welcome mat for him.

The second implosion will come in Iran ... and not due to any tough rhetoric from Bush (or Putin ... who recently stood behind Bush to blast Iran for Hezbollah interference in Iraq). The implosion will come from the overwheming majority of people who (1) are under 35, and (2) are sick and tired of strict Muslim authority. In a country where satellite TV is banned, literally every rooftop of every building in Tehran has at least one dish on it ... pointed toward NITV (http://www.nitv.tv), a station broadcasting from Santa Clara, California and run by Iranian dissidents in exile. ABC mentioned them in a PrimeTime special they did last year called, "The Many Faces of Iran." In short, Iran&#39;s biggest enemy isn&#39;t the USA ... it&#39;s their own young adult population who are no less angry now than their parents were when Khomeni took power from the Shah.

[OlderThanDirt]

Hobbes wrote:

OTD, I believe it is your serve.

Serve returned, in a way. Please forgive me if I don&#39;t rant further tonight, though. Hehe, I have to get some sleep if I&#39;m going to go to (ahem) work.

[clocker]

What does IMHO stand for?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by clocker@31 May 2003 - 05:37
What does IMHO stand for?
In My HOuse, I think, but that is only in my humble opinion.

[TheDave]

september 11 probably wasnt by the US (but techniccally it was)

i think the bali bomb and the attack on that french oil tanker were

[clocker]

september 11 probably wasnt by the US (but techniccally it was)


WHY?


i think the bali bomb and the attack on that french oil tanker were

Really.
Reasoning, please.

[TheDave]

Originally posted by clocker@31 May 2003 - 17:02

september 11 probably wasnt by the US (but techniccally it was)


WHY?


i think the bali bomb and the attack on that french oil tanker were

Really.
Reasoning, please.
bin laden worked for the US

the bali bomb and french oil tanker were to get support for the war.

[clocker]

Fortunate really, that you posted in the "Conspiracy Theory" thread, isn&#39;t it?

[PB Montgolfier]

Originally posted by clocker@31 May 2003 - 17:23
Fortunate really, that you posted in the "Conspiracy Theory" thread, isn&#39;t it?
You can talk.

[TheDave]

yeah a conspiracy theory in a conspiracy theory thread. whatever next; edible food.

conspiracy theory doesnt mean untrue.

the dictionary says:
conspire: to plot secretly
theory: an explanation that is reasoned out in the mind

so naturally the government try to make us look insane when were actually smarter than your average bear

[Manny Calavera]

Originally posted by TheDave@31 May 2003 - 17:47
so naturally the government try to make us look insane when were actually smarter than your average bear
Education Education Education Says Tony B.liar, not that he can produce it but an educated populous see its leaders for the fools they really are :lol:


Beardless, wearing an Armani suit, and living in the Karachi Hilton under the name, Jack Armstrong.

No your wrong he&#39;s living in the UK on benefits :lol:

[TheDave]

kinda off topic, but look at these results. us poor people are smarter than them richies

test the nation results (http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/results/index.shtml)

last year i was in my gcse year i got 126, but this year ive had an easy life and only got 109. i think they might be connected :ermm:

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by TheDave@31 May 2003 - 18:30
kinda off topic, but look at these results. us poor people are smarter than them richies

test the nation results (http://www.bbc.co.uk/testthenation/results/index.shtml)

last year i was in my gcse year i got 126, but this year ive had an easy life and only got 109. i think they might be connected :ermm:
No, its not that.

Its just those rich people can afford to go out and have a life, so they tend not to take part that much ;)

[OlderThanDirt]

(Sigh) Too many conspiracy theories and not enough time.

http://novelhost.net/riaa-mpaa-bsa.gif

[clocker]

I knew it&#33;

What more proof do you need? :P

[OlderThanDirt]

Ah, yes ... fear is a good thing, hehehehe. :lol:

[clocker]

OTD,
You should repost that up in Filesharing.
It would elicit a hurricane of serious discussion. :lol:

[OlderThanDirt]

Nah, it&#39;s just a conspiracy theory. It couldn&#39;t possibly be true. :ph34r:

[clocker]

Be that as it may, it would deflect them from the latest round of 56K bashing...

[OlderThanDirt]

clocker wrote:

OTD,
You should repost that up in Filesharing.
It would elicit a hurricane of serious discussion. :lol:

Be careful what you wish for, hehehe. What the heck, I posted it in Filesharing under the new topic heading, "Filesharing Conspiracy Theories." Let&#39;s see what happens...

[clocker]

Yes, let&#39;s...

[Rat Faced]

This has turned into a thread more worthy of the lounge......

[crazy_billy_bats]

i think the new world order is true and globalisation is the downfall of society as we know it....

bit pessimistic i know but well what do you expect nowadays, everyones out to get us if u believe everything u see on TV.....

[TheDave]

yup you werent kidding about that joint, but would you say tv has made us all paranoid or just erm smarter

[crazy_billy_bats]

well smarter too

the history channel does more for children than we&#39;ll ever know

[Celerystalksme]

Fear Is The Mindkiller :)

[TheDave]

i always watch bremner bird and fortune and stuff like that, and dispatches and cant think of any names but you know

[crazy_billy_bats]

personally i watch things like im alan partridge...

oh and brass eye too, it shows the media culture if ever there was one...

oh and there is one &#33;&#33;

[hypoluxa3k]

love brass eye :lol:

jus wanna say about conspiracy theories, remember:

truth is stranger than fiction :huh:

[PB Montgolfier]

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k@1 June 2003 - 19:50


truth is stranger than fiction :huh:
No it isn&#39;t, people just say that.

Less is more, that&#39;s also crap.

[crazy_billy_bats]

2 heads are better than one?

is that one true?

[PB Montgolfier]

Originally posted by crazy_billy_bats@1 June 2003 - 20:13
2 heads are better than one?

is that one true?
Certainly on a boat. Ask OTD

[hypoluxa3k]

Originally posted by PB Montgolfier+1 June 2003 - 19:58--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (PB Montgolfier @ 1 June 2003 - 19:58)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--hypoluxa3k@1 June 2003 - 19:50


truth is stranger than fiction :huh:
No it isn&#39;t, people just say that.

Less is more, that&#39;s also crap. [/b][/quote]
wrong and double wrong

[PB Montgolfier]

Originally posted by hypoluxa3k+1 June 2003 - 20:38--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hypoluxa3k @ 1 June 2003 - 20:38)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by -PB Montgolfier@1 June 2003 - 19:58
<!--QuoteBegin--hypoluxa3k@1 June 2003 - 19:50


truth is stranger than fiction :huh:
No it isn&#39;t, people just say that.

Less is more, that&#39;s also crap.
wrong and double wrong [/b][/quote]
Tell me the strangest true story you know then.

[hypoluxa3k]

oriental people make soup out of foetuses.... :o

someone sent me an e-mail showing it.

[TheDave]

a few years ago if i said people would crash planes into the WTC youd call us a fuckwit and laugh at us

[crazy_billy_bats]

its all a new world order, they are all lizards really in skeletal human suits.

[TheDave]

the US government did it?

[crazy_billy_bats]

yeah.
all about oil prices and that.

oh yeah, and Bush game the Taleban &#036;130 million a few years back...

oh yeah, and the taleban were using the CIA&#39;s weapons....kinda funny...

but then, who cares about Afghanistan anymore?
no one (well, i do)

[TheDave]

i said similar to that and no americans want to understand or so it seems.

[OlderThanDirt]

Celerystalksme wrote:

Fear Is The Mindkiller.

Maybe. But Muad’Dib wasn&#39;t into file-sharing :rolleyes: .

[clocker]

Originally posted by TheDave@1 June 2003 - 15:07
i said similar to that and no americans want to understand or so it seems.
Well, we are very dense.

I applaud your efforts to raise our awareness in this ( and other) threads.

Keep pissing on our legs and we&#39;ll come around shortly, I&#39;m sure. ;)

[PB Montgolfier]

Quotes from Dune aside, the truth is not stranger than fiction. I can assure you that, whatever story you know to be true, I can invent a stranger one.

Your arguements are, as ever, a series of glib responses. Here&#39;s a novel idea, work out what you think yourself and write it down in your own words. Your teachers would be proud of you. Other than your English teacher obviously.

[TheDave]

there is a 2 pence piece on my monitor

that is fiction and its not stranger than truth

[TheDave]

heres one. the publishers are filling kazaa with fake games so we just get pissed off.

[sharedholder]

This is true or its spam?http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml(i&#39;m think its spam)

[crazy_billy_bats]

if you learn about the van alen bell, and kodak film....you might find out the moon landings were in fact FAKE.....


then again, maybe not...

[TheDave]

thats crazy dawg