I think they did, but it wasn't well publicised.
-
🛑Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community! 💪 -
🔥Check Out Muscle Gelz HEAL® - A Topical Peptide Repair Formula with BPC-157 & TB-500! 🏥
**just The Real Facts...from A Real American.**
- Thread starter ZECH
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Nearly every major event in the US has conspiracies tagged to it. Pearl Harbor, the moon landing, the JFK assassination, and 9/11 to name a few.
I'm not saying that conspiracies don't exist, but, more often than not, it's just the quirky world that we live.
You should read up on the mind's need to create conspiracies where there are none. It really makes for fascinating reading. Actually, I find the study of psychology in general to be very compelling.
You should also read up on why many people believe in stuff like Bigfoot, Roswell, and a still living Elvis.
I guess the Iraq war wasn't a conspiracy then... 
I do know the Gov really did have some plans at one time or another to attack our own country which would justify us getting justice for the attack. I mean those documents exist. Which makes everything else plausible.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I guess the Iraq war wasn't a conspiracy then...
I wrote "I'm not saying that conspiracies don't exist", did I not?
It's also not a conspiracy when the primary motive is protecting US interests. So, what precisely are you trying to say?
Whose interests? The country's or the governments/big oil/corporate/top 1%
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
The later of course. We, the humble citizens, are only benefited by convenience; but that still doesn't make it an conspiracy.
I knew when I saw the title it would be a Snoper, Real facts....give me a fucking break, thats like saying love lasts forever or saying someone is perfect...all that shit is made up john glenn never said it
http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/glenn.asp
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/johnglenn.html
dg I love ya man. You can say what you want ... I'd smash down anyone that tried to silence you. You're devotion to Bush is something I don't understand though ...
Decker and a few others will come in and do the deed on you over your post, but I will only ask why you are still a fan after all that has been seen about the man?
I didn't say I was devoted to Bush...............
All I'm saying is the liberals blow everything way out of porportion and need to reel things back in for a perspective.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Good luck. They spend most of their time in a fantasy world of persecution.
Factual or not, the post is completely irrelevant. Who cares what former presidents did. We're talking about now.
The motivation behind the war in iraq was utter crap and the war hasn't benefitted anyone but Israel and the top 1% of the US population (of course including bush himself).
By your analogy, if someone fucks up in Germany he could start "Yeah, but look at Hitler. He was worse, so it doesn't matter! *throw random numbers of death rates around*"
The motivation behind the war in iraq was utter crap and the war hasn't benefitted anyone but Israel and the top 1% of the US population (of course including bush himself).
By your analogy, if someone fucks up in Germany he could start "Yeah, but look at Hitler. He was worse, so it doesn't matter! *throw random numbers of death rates around*"
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Moral of the story: Be in the top 1%.
Yes, the terminology is miles apart.
The author is being a douche bag on every point. The problem is, is that this shit is passed off as something legitimate and it's dead wrong on practically every point. In fact, one excitable youth had this to say about the piece:
"Damn that was good. That helps to put things into perspective, especially for those that can't think on their own. . . "
Guess who said that? The only perspective this piece of writing provides is that of the uneducated and easily duped.
Beautifully stated but wrong. The 9/11 Commission concluded no substantial ties existed btn Iraq and Al Qaeda. In fact, they were mortal enemies. And not just the 9/11 Commission but Paul Wolfowitz admitted that as did an NIE issued by the CIA. Only the cherry-picked bullshit by the Office of Special Plans established by Cheney/Rumsfeld concluded that the ties were virulent.
By all means DOMS, if you have information on the Al Qaeda ties to Iraq, for god's sake call your state congressperson.
That's a kick in the balls.So is a train wreck.
That series of thought directional control initiatives were conceived by BushCo back in 1983 just after the Reagan/Bush October surprise became known. It was determined by Kenneth Lahee the creation of this would provide a tool to be used as a method to deal with the perceptional impact of documented events. If anyone not in agreement with BushCo actions that at the time were the foundation of their several decades long plan was deemed as a "conspiracy theorist" then the truth would be easier to alter.
" We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records. "
How long has that been now?
in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find
the Rose Law Firm billing records. "
How long has that been now?
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2005
- Messages
- 4,312
- Reaction score
- 10
- Points
- 0
Back to what Dyl was saying, isnt it common knowledge that Kennedy(?) had military plans( not planned to use, jsut in case) to detonate a small missile in southern florida to spark the conflict w/ Cuba? Thats not conspiracy, thats fact.
Also, Hitler is well known for burning down government buildings and blaming it on the Jews, prior to 1939.
Also, Hitler is well known for burning down government buildings and blaming it on the Jews, prior to 1939.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
pro·noun
(pr
Abbr. pron. or pr.
1. The part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons or things asked for, previously specified, or understood from the context.
2. Any of the words within this part of speech, such as he or whom.
Let me know if I'm going too fast for you.2. Any of the words within this part of speech, such as he or whom.
Says you. I've already covered the point that you blew a lot of it off and took the humorous parts overly serious. Come on man, try to keep up.
Maybe to a non-thinking liberal tool; but, even though he's not spot on, seme of it still correlates.
The 9/11 commission was hijaked by scheming politicians. It was started with good intentions but turned into a political tool (you're familiar with this). Even then, the commission only said that it was unlikely, not that they were "mortal enemies". Nice job on the spin and fabrication. You should run for office, you'd like politics.
Saddam has a very extensive history of funding all sorts of terrorists. I'm not saying that Saddam did have a hand in 9/11, but, after all that I've read (including the thoughts of the 9/11 commission) the only reason that say the connection is unlikely is the lack of facts; and in the real world, lack of facts doesn't constitute a fact.
You give, you get.
Here's a Real Fact from a Real American:
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams
In my many years I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress.
- John Adams
[
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Why should I comment on a matter that is not relevant to the topic at hand? Why not discuss options investing while discussing these topics:
???When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war??????
or ???It took less time to take Iraq than it took???????
Oh that???s right, I???m motivated by my foolish pseudo-intellectual tendencies so I'll discuss the jokey parts as well as the serious ones. Problem is, with this piece of refuse article, the jokes are the serious parts.
"Your honor, in this instance I believe that the lack of facts do not constitute a fact therefore proving my conclusion that even though there is no evidence of Hussein's complicity with Al Qaeda, he is guilty of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. I mean he aided other terrorists right? It's just a matter of time before the fact of the Hussein/Al Qaeda pipeline comes to light. I move that all the facts should be tossed aside and a ruling rendered in my favor based on my wishful thinking and unsupported conclusory statements."
That looks like a winner to me.
???hijacked??? ???that???s a fine joke. So the commission handpicked by the Bush administration turned into a backbiting political too of whom??? Why Saddam Hussein of course b/c it really cooked the Intel in Hussein's favor. No, that???s Bush???s department.
Your conclusions sound hysterical if not conspiratorial.
Here is a definition of legal relevancy:pro·nounnoun)n.
Abbr. pron. or pr.1. The part of speech that substitutes for nouns or noun phrases and designates persons or things asked for, previously specified, or understood from the context.2. Any of the words within this part of speech, such as he or whom.Let me know if I'm going too fast for you.
having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
Why should I comment on a matter that is not relevant to the topic at hand? Why not discuss options investing while discussing these topics:
???When some claim that President Bush shouldn't
have started this war??????
or ???It took less time to take Iraq than it took???????
Oh that???s right, I???m motivated by my foolish pseudo-intellectual tendencies so I'll discuss the jokey parts as well as the serious ones. Problem is, with this piece of refuse article, the jokes are the serious parts.
See the above. As always, you point to no fact and offer up your/Boortz's jaded conclusions. Fact-less assertions are the meat of this crap article and most of your posts on it.
No. None of it correlates. If I???m wrong please list the correlations. Where are the mutualities, other than relationships between your fact-less conclusions and wishful thinking about the malignancy of Senator Clinton?
Lack of facts is not a fact? That's a beautiful sentiment DOMS.
"Your honor, in this instance I believe that the lack of facts do not constitute a fact therefore proving my conclusion that even though there is no evidence of Hussein's complicity with Al Qaeda, he is guilty of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda. I mean he aided other terrorists right? It's just a matter of time before the fact of the Hussein/Al Qaeda pipeline comes to light. I move that all the facts should be tossed aside and a ruling rendered in my favor based on my wishful thinking and unsupported conclusory statements."
That looks like a winner to me.
???hijacked??? ???that???s a fine joke. So the commission handpicked by the Bush administration turned into a backbiting political too of whom??? Why Saddam Hussein of course b/c it really cooked the Intel in Hussein's favor. No, that???s Bush???s department.
Your conclusions sound hysterical if not conspiratorial.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 51
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
None of your rambling changes the fact that pronouns seems to confuse you.
You do make some valid points about what DG posted. My position wasn't to defend each and every point of that article, it was to point out how, in your rabid way, you seem so much like a blind Bush support. Come on, you really need to keep up with the conversation.
Every politically created body of any note since the 50s has been tampered by politicians with an agenda. Only a lawyer would say that isn't so.
In any case, none of that changes the fact that the commission said "unlikely" and you lied and somehow you understood that as "mortal enemies". Really, man; you should get into politics. They like that kind of stuff.
Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53 http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
(granted I paraphrased but you get the idea. Does this sound like collusion btn Hussein and Bin Laden (head of Al Qaeda)?).
"Our conclusion was that Saddam would certainly not provide weapons of mass destruction or WMD knowledge to al Qaeda because they were mortal enemies," said Greg Thielmann, who worked at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research on weapons intelligence until last fall. "Saddam would have seen al Qaeda as a threat, and al Qaeda would have opposed Saddam as the kind of secular government they hated."
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0803/080803nj2.htm
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"(Hussein) and Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were mortal enemies during this period," Freeman told reporters, adding that administration assertions that the two had such links before the war were regarded by specialists in the region as "ludicrous."[/FONT]
http://www.quotes2u.com/archives/061704.htm
But in all fairness to you, it seems the middle east coalitions are short-lived and that they form on the basis of whomever the enemy of the day is.
I thought pronouns were nouns that had lost their amateur status and were kicked out of the Olympics?